PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY. To make sense of international relations/global politics, we can consider three different œ

PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY.

To make sense of international relations/global politics, we can consider three different “levels of analysis” — places where we might look for answers or explanations, and which are arrayed on a continuum from the international to the domestic/state level to the individual level. 

The “international system” level, as if looking at the world from the outside, is a more abstract way. The “State” looks inside the 190+ countries that are key parts of the system, while the third level is the “Individual” level, where people/individuals, or even ideas matter. (We will look at the state and individual levels next week.)

For this week, we explore the first level — the International System — or the notion that world politics takes place within a system, where a “system” is understood as an assemblage of units, objects or parts united by some form of regular interaction. Some of the additional readings from the second book help us a bit deeper about the international system.

After reviewing the core textbook Chapter 4, carefully review the articles from the second book (the so-called Reader, Essential Readings in World Politics) by Morgenthau, Christensen, and Johnston, then answer any one of the following questions below with a brief original posting, if possible by Wednesday (or Thursday) night.

1. Hans Morgenthaus excerpt from his class book, Politics among Nations) is one of the classical and enduring theoretical traditions on the concept of the international system: realism, or realpolitik. Do you find his position/argument compelling? Missing something? Agree? Disagree?

2. The two articles by Christensen and Johnston touch on the challenge of China. In what ways does viewing China from an international system perspective make sense? Does either (or both) article(s) help to place China as part of a changing international system, and if so, how? Anything interesting you found in either article?