| Hafta | Konular | Ön Hazırlık |
|---|
| 1 | Ders planı üzerinde tartışma: Uİ'de neden teoriye ihtiyacımız var? | K.E. Jorgnsen: “Why Theorize International Relations?”, International Relations Theory, A New Introduction, Palgrave, London, 2010, ss, 6-32. “The Self images of a Discipine: A genelogy f International Relations Theory”, International Relations Theory Today, S. Smith- K. Booth (eds.), Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, ss, 1-37. A. Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory” International Organizations 4 |
| 2 | Üç Gelenek Üzerinden Tarihsel Arkaplanın Okunması: 1- Realistler ya da Thucydides, Machiavelli ve Hobbes | Chapter, 3-4-5-6-7 , D. Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford Uni. Press, 1998, ss, 47-169, T. L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory,Manchester Uni. Press, Manchester, 1997, |
| 3 | Üç Gelenek Üzerinden Tarihsel Arkaplanın Okunması: 2- Normatif Düşünce ya da Aurelius, Grotius, Locke ve Kant | Chapter, 8-9-10-11 , D. Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford Uni. Press, 1998, T. L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory,Manchester Uni. Press, Manchester, 1997, |
| 4 | Üç Gelenek Üzerinden Tarihsel Arkaplanın Okunması: 3- Tarihsel Neden ya da Rousseau, Burke, Hegel ve Marx | Chapter, 12-13-14-15, D. Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford Uni. Press, 1998, ss, 289-374 R.B.J Walker, Inside –Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. |
| 5 | Modern Dönem UİK: Realist Gelenek (Klasik Realizm-Neo Realizm [Yapısalcı Realizm/Structural Reaalizm] | K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (YTÜ Library: no: 016503) H. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, YTÜ Library no: 0040968) J.J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, (YTÜ Library no: 016617) |
| 6 | Post Neo-Realist Yönelimler ve Realizmin varyasyonları (Güçler Dengesi, Power Transition (Güç Aktarımı), İttifak Teorisi ve Yumuşak Güç Kavramı) | D. Lemke, “Great Powers in the Post Cold War World: A Power Transition Perspective” Balance of Power, Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, TV. Paul- JJ. Witz, M. Fortmann (eds.), Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2004, ss, 52-75. W. Wohfort: “Gilpinian Realism and International Relations”, International Relations, 25/2011, ss, 499-511. S. M. Walt, Chapter 2, The Origins of Alliances, Cornell Uni. Press, Ithaca, 1987, ss, 17.49. R. N. Lebow- B. Valentino, “Lost in Transition: A critical A |
| 7 | Modern Dönem UİK: Liberal Gelenek (Liberalizm- Neo Liberalizm) | B. Russett, “Liberalism”, International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss, 95—114;J. S. Folker, “Neo-Liberalism”, International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss, 115-134;K.E. Jorgnsen: “The Liberal International Theory Tradition”, International Relations Theory, A New Introduction, Palgrave, London, 2010, ss, 57-77;M. W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics” APSR, 80, ss, 1151-1169.; Moravcsik, “Li |
| 8 | Modern Dönem UİK: İngiliz Okul | A.Linklater- Hidemi Suganami, The English School of International Relations, A Contemporay Reassessment, Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge, 2006. |
| 9 | Modern Dönem UİK: Post-Positivist Gelenek 1: İnşacılık (Constructivism) | K.E. Jorgnsen: “The Post Positivist Tradition”, International Relations Theory, A New Introduction, Palgrave, London, 2010, ss, 155-183. Y. Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in the Post Positivist Era”, International Studies Quarterly, 1989, ss, 235-254. K. M. Fierke, “Constructivism”, International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss, 177-194. T. Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations”, Interna |
| 10 | Modern Dönem UİK: Post-Positivist Gelenek 2:postmodernizm | Okumalar: J. Der Derian, “Post Theory: The Eternal Return of Ethics in International Relations” New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Doyle-Ikenberry (eds), Westview Press, 1997, ss, 54-76 D. Chambell, “Post-Structuralism”, International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, 2010, ss, 211-237 J. Edkins, Post Structuralism and International Relations: Bringing the political back in” Lynne Reinner, Boulder, 1999. J. Der Derian, On Diplmacy, Oxford, Black |
| 11 | Modern Dönem UİK: Post-Positivist Gelenek 3: Eleştirel Okul | R.K. Ashley- RBJ Walker, “Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline:: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies” International Studies Quarterly, 34/3, 1990, ss, 367-416 R.K. Ashley- RBJ Walker, “Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies” International Studies Quarterly 34/3, ss, 259-268. R. Devetak, “Critical Theory”, Theories of International Relations, S. Burchill- A. Linklater (eds), Palgrave, 2006, ss, 155-180 R. Devetak, “Signs of a |
| 12 | Modern Dönem UİK: Post-Positivist Gelenek 4:: Normatif Okul | M. Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations, CSIR, Cambridge, 1999. |
| 13 | UİK Tartışmaları 1: Uluslararası Ekonomi Politik (IPE), Hegemonya ve Düzen tartışması | K.E. Jorgnsen: “The International Political Economy Tradition”, International Relations Theory, A New Introduction, Palgrave, London, 2010, ss, 129-154. A.Dickins: “The evolution of International political economy”, International Affairs, 82/3, 2006, ss, 479-492. DR. Higgott, “Taming Economics, Emboldening International Relations, The Theory and Practice of IPE in an Era of Globalization”, ” The New Agenda for International Relations, S. Lawson (ed), Polity Press, London, 2002, ss, 91-108 S. Str |
| 14 | UİK Tartışmaları 2: Hegomonya /Düzen tartışması | C.Weber “Neo-Marxism”, Is Empire the New World Order” International Relations Theory, Routledge, 2005, ss,123-149.A. Bieler-AD. Morton, “A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change”, Capital & Class, 2004, ss, 85-113.M. Hardt- A. Negri, Imparatorluk, Ayrıntı Yay., Istanbul, 2010.M. Hardt- A. Negri, Çokluk: İmparatorluk Çağında Savaş ve Demokrasi, Ayrıntı Yay., Istanbul, 2004.R. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge, 1981.S. Str |
| 15 | Jeopolitik-Jeokültür: Uluslararası İlişkilerde alan, kültür ve medeniyet | Special Issue: Geopolitics, Geography and Strategy, Journal of Strategic Studies, 22/2-3, 1999. G. Parker, “Not glass but dimond, An evolution of geopolitical worldview of Saul B. Cohen”, Geopolitics, 3/2, 1998, ss, 113-124. M.P. Grace, “Between Mackinder and Spykman: Geopolitics, Containment and after”, Comparative Strategy, 10/4, 1991, ss, 347-364. |
| 16 | Final | Final için okumalar |
