Comprehensive Examination • International Politics Field • School of International Service
January 2005

Part I: Answer one of the following three questions.

1. Should the study of international politics be "positivist" in orientation? Why or why not? What implications does your answer have for how research in the field should be evaluated?

2. The fact that students of international relations did not predict the end of the Cold War is interpreted by some as an indicator of the poverty of theorizing in the field. Using the relevant literature, explain the extent, if any, to which you find this argument compelling.

3. You have successfully completed your Ph.D. and luckily earned your first job and are now in the midst of applying for a research grant to study your particular area of interest in international relations. Unfortunately, a rather annoying grant reviewer is arguing that no grant should be awarded because virtually no cumulative scholarship has been conducted in your area of interest. How will you respond to the reviewer?

Part II: Answer two of the following six 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. What are the factors that influence whether or not states may cooperate with each other? In this essay, compare and contrast how neorealist, neoliberal institutionalist, and constructivist theorists would answer this question. Which school of thought do you think is most compelling, and why? Illustrate arguments from each theory with "real world" examples.

6. Many contemporary international relations theories, including those dealing with international institutions and deterrence, are based on rational choice approaches to the study of politics. While rational choice-oriented approaches to international relations have always attracted some criticism, recent constructivist critiques are amongst the strongest. Using specific examples and authors, summarize the advantages of rationalist approaches, as well as the constructivist critique. To what extent is this critique a compelling one?

7. For some, economic globalization is seen as an economic process that will produce peace and prosperity. For others, it is a source of ill development that fuels structural or political violence. Discuss and assess this debate about economic globalization and its effects on political stability and economic development. Please limit your discussion to the effects of economic, rather than other forms of, globalization.

8. Scholars posit a number of ways in which domestic politics, broadly defined, influence international politics. Mechanisms range from two-level games, public opinion, the media, and transnational networks to domestic institutional structures, organizational and bureaucratic politics. Which of these approaches explain important outcomes in international politics and which do not? Be specific about substantive issues as well as academic debates, authors, theories, and arguments.

9. What role do international regimes and institutions play in solving international problems? If they play a role, what are the mechanisms by which they do so?  Your essay should compare and contrast the perspectives of three different authors or schools of thought on this issue, as well as present your own argument and back it up with some real-world examples.