• Demonstrate a basic knowledge of major schools of international relations theory, and be able to identify their different assumptions, logics and arguments.
• Show a basic understanding of the role of the state, institutions and politics in social and economic affairs at the national, transnational and international levels.
• Demonstrate an overall view of international relations in Asia, with an emphasis on the pressing issues for the region today.
• Show an understanding of the heterogeneity of Asian countries and how it shape dynamics among them in regional and global affairs.
• Demonstrate the ability to critically think and discuss about international relations theory, both from a conceptual angle and from empirical evidence in Asia.

This course provides an international political and institutional framework for understanding the economic and social dynamics in contemporary Asia. It introduces major theories of international relations, and discusses how they can be understood in an Asian context. Therefore it not only applies theory to explain and interpret Asian phenomena, but also employs Asian experiences to critique existing theories that are based mainly on Western history. The course is divided into two parts. The first part is organized according to schools of international relations theory: liberalism and neo-liberalism, realism and neo-realism, English school and constructivism, Marxism and critical theory, as well as efforts to establish Asian international relations theory based on Eastern philosophies. The second part discusses issues central to Asia with an emphasis on the role of the state and institutions, including development, environment,
regionalism and the relations between Asia and the rest of the world, including EU, US, Africa etc. and global institutions. The roles of important regional actors such as China, India, Japan and Southeast Asian countries will be used for the discussions about theory and issues.

This course is part of the overall Year One theme, "Comparative Cultural and Social Analysis". The course is intended for students of the Asian Studies Programme in general and serves as an intellectual preparation for the 2nd and 3rd year courses.

Week 1: Classic Realism and Liberalism

Kugler, Jacek (2006) ‘The Asian Ascent: Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War?’,International Studies Perspectives7, pp.36-42.

Rice, Condoleezza (2005) ‘The Promise of Democratic Peace’,The Washington Post, 11 December.

Green, Michael and Daniel Twining (2008) ‘Democracy and American Grand Strategy in Asia: TheRealist Principles Behind an Enduring Idealism’,Contemporary Southeast Asia30, 1,pp. 1-28.

Week 2: Neorealism and Neoliberalism

Walt, Stephen M. (1988) ‘Testing theories of alliance formation: the case of Southwest Asia’International Organization42, 2, pp. 275-316.

Solingen, Eetel (2008) ‘The Genesis, Design and Effects of Regional Institutions: Lessons fromEast Asia and the Middle East’,International Studies Quarterly52, pp. 261-94.

<>Debate: There is more competition of interests than potential for cooperation in Asia for regionalintegration. VS. There is more potential for cooperation than competition of interests inAsia for regional integration.

Week 3: English School and Constructivism

Zhang, Yongjin (1991) ‘China’s entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of“Civilization”’,Review of International Studies17, pp.3-16.

Acharya, Amitav. (1997) ‘Ideas, identity, and Institution-Building: From the ‘ASEAN Way’ to the‘Asia-Pacific Way’?’,The Pacific Review10, 3: 319-46.

<>Debate: Asia should not adopt global universal norms because of its unique culture. VS. Asiashould adopt global universal norms regardless of culture.

Week 4: Marxism and Critical Theory

Dos Santos, Theotonio (2010) ‘Development and Civilisation’,Social Change40: 95-116.

Bowden, Brett (2004) ‘In the Name of Progress and Peace: The “Standard of Civilization” and theUniversalizing Project’,Alternatives: Global, Local, Political29, pp. 43-68.

Huda, Sigma (2006) ‘Sex Trafficking in South Asia’,International Journal of Gynecology andObstetrics94, pp.374-81.

<>Debate: The states are the main exploiters in Asia. VS. The developed countries andmultinational companies are the main exploiters in Asia.

Week 5: Political Philosophies in Asia

Tamaki, Taku (2007) ‘Confusing Confucius in Asian Values? A Constructivist Critique’,International Relations21, 3, pp.284-304.

Pye, Michael (2003) ‘Religion and Conflict in Japan with Special Reference to Shinto and YasukuniShrine’,Diogenes50, 3: pp. 45-59.

<>Debate: Asian values can help more to build a peaceful world than Western values can. VS.Western values can help more to build a peaceful world than Asian values can.

Week 6: Growth and Development

Cronin, Richard (2009) ‘Mekong Dams and the Perils of Peace’Survival51, 6: pp.147-59.

Helgesen, Geir and Nis Høyrup Christensen (2007) ‘North Korea 2007: Assisting Development andChange’,http://www.niaslinc.dk/gateway_to_asia/nordic_webpublications/

x506031771.pdf, Chapters 2 and 9.

<>Debate: Africa should copy Asian experiences of development. VS. Africa should not copy Asianexperiences of development.

Week 7: Climate and Sustainability

Pendleton, Andrew (2010) ‘After Copenhagen’,Public Policy Research16, 4: pp.210-17.

ITO, Takatoshi, Akira KOJIMA, Colin MCKENZIE and Shujiro URATA (2010) ‘The Environmentand Climate Change: Editors’ Overview’, Asian Economic Policy Review 5, 1,http://

www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123455188/PDFSTART

<>Debate: An international legally binding agreement is needed to propel environmental protectionin Asia. VS. Asian countries should decide their own policies of environmentalprotection instead of being bound by an international legally binding agreement.

Week 8: Asian regionalism

Ravenhill, John (2010) ‘The ‘new East Asian regionalism’: A political domino effect’,Review ofInternational Political Economy, 17, 2: pp.178-208.

Selden, Mark (2009) ‘East Asian Regionalism and its Enemies in Three Epochs: Political Economyand Geopolitics, 16th to 21st Centuries’,The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 9-4-09.

<>Debate: Asia should and can adopt EU-style regionalism. VS. Asia should not and can not adoptEU-style regionalism.

Week 9: Asia in the World

Kenneth A. Reinert (2007) ‘The European Union, the Doha Round, and Asia’,Asia Europe Journal5, 3: pp.317-30.

Beeson, Mark and Stephen Bell (2009) ‘The G-20 and International Economic Governance:
Hegemony, Collectivism, or Both’,Global Governance15, 1: pp.67-86.

<>Debate: The world is mostly divided among civilizations. VS. The world is mostly dividedbetween developed and developing countries.