Take home, open resource exam. Therefore, books, notes, journal articles, dictionaries can be used.
References are required as part of your answers but are not applied to the length limit. 15-page single-space limit (in total) not counting references.
Each exam essay will be graded according to the following criteria:
1. Does it show mastery of the relevant literatures in the field?
2. Does it fully answer the question?
3. Does it have a central argument/thesis that is clear, coherent, and concise?
4. Is the thesis supported by sound argumentation and evidence?
5. Does it take into account major counterarguments and critique them?
Some exam questions give you options of what subarea to focus on (e.g., IO, IPE, foreign policy, human
rights, violence). You cannot use one such area in all of your questions: if a major exam you cannot focus on
the same area in all three questions, for a minor exam you cannot focus on the same area in both questions. Thus, notice that your choice in one section might constrain your options in the other sections so it is
advisable to look over the whole exam before deciding on the questions you answer.
Essay 1 of 3: Rationalism: Much of mainstream IR work (e.g., neo-realist, neo-liberal, IPE, mainstream constructivist
paradigms) adopt methodological rationalism: they assume that actors of all sorts rationally pursue interests
through instrumental, strategic actions. Furthermore, conflict and security research has been strongly
influenced by the bargaining model, which often limits modeling to one or two actors, very often states. Yet,
empirical studies suggest that methodological rationalism has its limitations. In particular, observers note a
general phenomenon: the growth in the amount, density, and authority of actors “beyond” or “outside” the
nation-state such as IGOs, INGOs, non-state violent actors and organizations, or transnational social and
protest movements. 1) Summarize a methodological-rationalist approach to explaining this phenomenon of a proliferation of
relevant actors beyond the state. 2) Using several empirical studies, identify and discuss at least two limitations, blind spots, or unanswered
questions stemming from this type of theoretical explanation.
3) Contrast methodological rationalism with an alternative approach and make the argument either that
rationalist approaches can effectively address these issues (proposing such an explanation) or that an
alternative approach is necessary (proposing such an explanation).
4) Identify implications of your critique and explanation for IR as a discipline, including the question’s use of
the phrase “beyond or outside the nation-state.”
Essay 2 of 3: Qualitative vs Quantitative:
Compare and contrast one quantitative approach and one qualitative approach to a research question of your
choice. First, state your chosen research question explicitly. What are the issues to consider when deciding
which approach would be most fruitful? In your response, please use specific examples and reflect upon how
theoretical and methodological approaches are related – or not. If you believe they are related, does this
present limitations as to what kind of research can be undertaken? Explain.
Essay 3 of 3: Global Criminal Justice: The contemporary United Nations ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the
International Criminal Court (ICC) pose a challenge to traditional notions of state sovereignty in matters
related to the conduct of war and criminal accountability for atrocity crimes. Yet, the contemporary tribunals
are often at the mercy of states because these institutions lack enforcement powers of their own. As a
consequence, today’s international tribunals have often been stymied by political resistance from states
implicated in crimes and by their regional and international allies. At other junctures, however, political
support has been forthcoming from targeted states and key international actors. But even then, as David
Bosco has argued, the ad hoc tribunals and the ICC have not necessarily held state officials to account due to
prosecutorial accommodation with powerful states. Using the work of transitional justice and IR scholars, evaluate whether and the extent to which the record of
the contemporary ad hoc international tribunals, the ICC, and the World War-II-era Nuremberg and Tokyo
tribunals in 1) obtaining state cooperation and in 2) challenging state impunity for atrocity crimes can be
explained by rationalist, constructivist, and legalist theories.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|