Comprehensive Examination • International Politics Field • School of International Service
7 June 2004

Part I: Answer one of the following three questions.

1. Should the study of international politics be "positivist" in orientation? Why or why not?

2. In recent years, there have been a number of calls for the explicit incorporation of "identity" into the study of international politics. Describe and critically evaluate at least two arguments that advance this claim. Does the consideration of identity necessitate fundamental shifts in epistemology and/or methodology, or can identity be treated like any other causal factor?

3. Hans Morgenthau famously argued that the study of international relations should focus on "interest defined as power." Is he correct? Why or why not?

Part II: Answer two of the following five questions.

4. Max Weber famously defined a "state" as a compulsory political organization whose administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territorial area. However, recent history seems to demonstrate an evident loss of the monopoly of the use of force by state actors. Does this shift signal the end of the state, and of the states system?

5. Is economic globalization the product of state action, or is it an external imposition on states?

6. Do recent international political events indicate that dire predictions of a "clash of civilizations" were not far off the mark? Was Huntington correct to argue that the major axes of conflict in the future will involve the boundaries of civilizations?

7. Why do states sometimes move to integrate with one another? Why do they sometimes pool their sovereignty or work out other arrangements that appear to pose a challenge to the traditional value of state autonomy? Is such integration a desirable development? In your answer, be sure to discuss at least two different theoretical perspectives on the issue.

8. The discipline of IR emerged, at least in part, out of reflections on the causes and consequences of inter-state violence. This has produced various ways of understanding the proper role of military force in international politics. Drawing on these theoretical traditions, reflect on whether military force is an effective means of achieving goals in the contemporary world. Are there goals which military force cannot achieve? Be certain to discuss specific examples of goals and strategies in your answer.