Comprehensive
Exam in International Relations (January 2004)
This exam is a closed-book exam
(i.e., no notes/books/computer files) that is designed to test your knowledge
of and ability to synthesize the complete field of international relations. The best answers will respond directly to
the question chosen and demonstrate a broad understanding of the literature on
and processes of IR. They will show the
commonalities across and gaps between the different theoretical approaches, and
the evolution of debates in and across those approaches. They will deploy meaningful historical
evidence in support of their arguments.
Theoretical or empirical overlap between your answers will diminish the
quality of your exam. (Note as well
that citing UVa faculty, especially gratuitously, will not help your grade.)
"Majors" should answer one
question from each of the three parts of the exam. "Minors" should answer one
question from Part I, and one question from either Part II or
Part III. Majors have six hours, and
minors have four hours. You have the
choice to either type your exam, or handwrite it. If you choose the latter, make a clear photocopy and give us the
original at the end of the allotted time.
Then type up the exam word-for-word from the handwritten version
(although you can correct spelling and small grammatical mistakes) and hand in
the typed version within twenty-four hours.
Include a signed pledge that the typed version has the same words as the
handwritten version.
1) "When IPE scholars 'unpack the
black box' of the state, they confuse matters. Numerous variables are
introduced and clear, falsifiable hypotheses are impossible to deduce. Scholars
who ignore domestic politics, institutions and culture may lose accuracy, but
those costs are certainly worth it. In return, they gain falsifiability."
Agree or disagree by referencing specific authors, particularly in
international political economy.
2) Compare and contrast Kenneth Waltz's, Man,
The State, and War, Waltz’s, Theory of International Politics and
John Mearsheimer’s Tragedy of Great Powers. Identify the relationship of
each work to classical realism and neo-realism, and assess the relative
validity of each as an interpretation of international relations.
3) Describe the complex relationship (as reflected in
the quotes below) between ‘modernity’, and ‘globalization,’ on the one hand,
and human rights on the other—especially as this relationship relates to
understanding specific policy choices made by states. Does respect for human rights accompany—almost automatically, as
some seem to think—the processes of globalization? Or are universal human rights a kind of Western cover story for
continued economic exploitation of, and disrespect for, third world cultures
and peoples?
“The astonishing ‘great leap forward’ of the (capitalist) world economy
and its growing globalization not only divided and disrupted the concept of a
Third World, it also brought virtually all its inhabitants consciously into the
modern world.” (Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes))
“To the world, the Dinka are now
known not for their cattle wealth, cultural pride, and general self-esteem, but
rather for their destitution, starvation, and even the indignity of slavery…To
be constructive, development policies and strategies must be appropriately
contextualized to make effective use of people’s traditional values and
institutions behind a positive self-image.”
(Francis Deng)
“Our shared humanity gets savagely
challenged when the confrontation is unified into a solitary—and allegedly
dominant—system of classification; this is much more divisive than the universe
of plural and diverse categorizations that shape the world in which we actually
live..” (Amartya Sen)
“Evidence shows that equal
opportunity in the international economy does not exist…Most developing
countries have not participated in setting the rules of global trade or
investment or the like, and in various groupings they suffer from unevenly and
unfairly drawn regulations.? (Ngaire
Woods, Globlization and Inequality)
4) Is the world a more dangerous
place today than it was during the Cold War? How would different scholars
representing different schools of thought answer this question? Which argument
is most persuasive?
Part II: Applications to Issues
1)
"The Bush Administration's efforts to change domestic institutions in Iraq
are bound to fail. Political scientists know that institutions are, by their
very definition, sticky and not easily changeable." Agree or disagree by referencing specific
authors, particularly institutionalists of various stripes, and supporting your
argument with examples from comparable cases where countries attempted to
change the domestic institutions of other countries.
2) “Please
discuss the history and practice of intervention in U.S. foreign policy from
the 1950s to the present. Specifically, what does the Charter of the United
Nations say especially in article 2 about intervention into the affairs of a
sovereign state? What about writings on intervention in the 1960s and 1970s by
scholars and policy makers? What do specialists on human rights say about
"humanitarian military intervention" as compared with such senior
scholars as Stanley Hoffmann? How do you evaluate the strong emphasis on
intervention in the name of human rights violations within sovereign states to
the question of ethics and foreign policy? Write a brief essay on these topics
and issues.
3)
To what extent do international relations since September 11, 2001 constitute a
test of Samuel Huntington's thesis about the "clash of
civilizations"?
4)
“In the 21st century, I believe that
the mission of the United Nations will be defined by a new, more profound
awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race
or religion. This will require us to
look beyond the framework of states and beneath the surface of nations and
communities.” (Kofi Annan, UN Human
Development Report 2000.)
How do the positions represented in
passages (a) and (b) below make the protection of human rights
advocated by Secretary-General Annan and others more complex, both
theoretically and practically? Does
sovereignty deserve a special normative claim? Do local practices and
religions? What follows from the
universalism apparently advocated by Nussbaum and Annan? Does it provide a
wholesale ‘license to intervene’?
a. "A second and less controversial meaning of
self-determination is the right of peoples to determine the internal structure
and functioning of their societies without interference." (Rupert Emerson, ‘The Fate of Human Rights
in the Third World.’)
b. "The world's major religions, in their actual
human form, have not always been outstanding respecters of basic human rights
or the equal dignity and inviolability of persons. Some, indeed, have gone as far as to create systems of law that
deny the quality rights of persons and justify violations of their dignity and
their persons." (Martha Nussbaum, ‘Religion and Women's Human Rights.’)
5) How can we best
understand why states decide to give up or not pursue nuclear weapons (e.g.,
South Africa, Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina, Libya) while others (Iraq, North
Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan) resist such pressures?
Part III: Regional and Area Foreign
Policies
1)
"American military and economic hegemony are moving in totally opposite
direction in the new century. US military hegemony is
unchecked, even with half its army bogged down in Iraq. Yet the US now has a
net foreign debt approaching Latin American levels. This divergence is
unsustainable." Right premises, right conclusion? Or are either the
premises or conclusion incorrect?
2)
How does one situate the alleged "unilateralism" of the current Bush
administration's foreign policy with respect both to the structure of the
contemporary international system and past U.S. precedent? In those contexts,
to what extent does the Bush administration's foreign policy constitute a
qualitative departure in American foreign policy?
3) “There are no general theories
that explain Russian foreign policy except that you need to know the
personality of the man at the top – be it Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, or
Putin.” Do you agree?
4) Pick ONE of the following
regions, and assess the relative persuasiveness of dependency theory in
explaining its economic development.
a) Latin America
b) Africa
c) East Asia
d) Middle East
e) South Asia
f) Russia
5) “China will never invade Taiwan
because it would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.” Do you agree?
6) For
years scholars have predicted the end of the Transatlantic Alliance. Are they
finally right? Why?
7) American power is one of
the key features of the current international system. Are states balancing
against or bandwagoning with the United States and why? Please answer with
regard to countries from one of the following regions.
a)
Europe
b) Africa
c) East Asia
d) Middle East
e) South Asia