Các lý thuyết khác nhau trong quan hệ quốc tế: Một góc nhìn toàn diện về Việt Nam và thế giới
Course Description
This course brings together International Relations theory and real-world Vietnamese foreign policy decisions and outcomes. The primary goal is to give students conceptual and critical tools to understand and analyze how theories of international relations, Vietnamese foreign policy outcomes, and current political events fit together. The course pays attention to the application of international relations theories to the problems we study, and also takes an interest in policy issues facing decision-makers in Vietnam as well as those facing decision-makers in other countries who deal with Vietnam. It is designed to develop students’ capacity both to explain the foreign policy-making process in Vietnam, and to better understand the underlying patterns, logic, and implications of Vietnam’s foreign policy in the world at large.
The course is divided into three main topics. First, we will discuss International Relations theory that grounds Vietnam’s foreign policy by examining the core international relations paradigms: realism, liberalism and social constructivism. It presents their historical origins, the evolution of their various branches (classical realism, neo-realism, neo-liberal institutionalism, etc.), and studies the contemporary application of the most important theories in the field. The second part of the class will examine the peculiar institutions and processes that guide foreign policy formation and implementation. Questions will revolve around who set the foreign policy agenda and what are the important institutions attempting to implement this agenda. Finally, the last third of the course will review some of the major elements and the more salient foreign policy challenges facing Vietnam since 1975. We seek to understand the security-based rationale of policy as well as other factors – institutional, ideological cultural, perceptual, and so on – that influence Vietnamese foreign policy. We also analyze decision-making processes that shape Vietnamese foreign policy, and Vietnam’s relations with various countries and regions.
Learning Objectives
1. Explain the major theories of international relations (hereinafter IR).
2. Identify and describe the main similarities and differences among the major IR theories.
3. Identify the leading authors in the IR field, as well as the theories, seminal works and key concepts they are associated with.
4. Understand the historical evolution of IR theory over time.
5. Apply theoretical frameworks to understanding practical international relations issues.
6. Assess the behavior of actors in international politics in light of IR theories.
7. Enhance the students’ understanding of contemporary Vietnamese foreign policy (hereinafter VFP) and its historical development through the study of Vietnam’s relations with major countries and regions of the world, and also exploring the key issues in these relations.
8. Provide students with structured knowledge of VFP and enable them to independently explain VFP decisions by presenting the key principles and factors shaping VFP.
Course Policies
Attendance
Fulbright students are expected to fully engage with the courses in which they are enrolled at Fulbright, including classes, seminars, talks, and other keystone events. Students are generally expected to miss no more than three days of class, but specific attendance policies may vary depending on the course instructors.
Instructors are expected to:
Students are encouraged to:
Fulbright is committed to supporting student learning when absences are unavoidable.
Assessment of Learning
i) Attendance and Participation (attendance + participation: 10%)
ii) THREE quizzes (10% each, 30% in total): There will be around 10 multiple choice questions apiece.
iii) ONE critical review (15% each): Students should prepare a response paper for one class session. The essays should be around 600-800 words long. Response papers should not summarize the reading but instead, the response paper should focus on analyzing the strengths and weakness of the chosen reading(s), discuss topics you think the author has ‘gotten wrong’ or left out, analyze current events vis-à-vis the theory presented, highlight questions that we might face on this topic in the near future (including things not discussed in the reading), and pose suggestions for research agendas that are motivated by the reading.
iii) Final group project (45%): Each group (2-3 students) should select an area of interest or specialization. This area of interest could be a specific foreign policy with another country (U.S., China, Japan, Russia, India, or South Korea) in a given period; or some factors (national interests, ideology, culture, history, or economy) that affect Vietnamese foreign policy; or an influential figure of Vietnamese politics; or a survey. The project can be conducted in the form of essay films or an essay of 2,500-3,000 words.
You need to indicate this interest to me with your topic proposal in a message or upload onto Canvas for approval by the sixth week. Likewise, the following steps in this procedure must have the instructor’s approval before proceeding to the next. By the tenth week, students will submit a detailed outline and an annotated bibliography for at least four sources. On the final day of the course, students will present their projects to the whole class and receive feedback from their peers.
Tentative Course Schedule
Week 1: Course Introduction + What is Theory?
- Stephen Walt. 2005. “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science (8): 23-48.
- Stephen Walt. 1998. “One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy (Spring): 25-35.
- Jack Snyder. 2004. “One World, Rival Theories.” Foreign Policy. (November/December): 52-61.
Week 2: Anarchy, Conflict and Cooperation, Levels of Analysis, Decision Making in IR
- Thucydides, “The Melian Dialogue,” History of the Peloponnesian War [excerpt]. Access at: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
- Helen Milner. 1991. “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations: A Critique.” Review of International Studies 17(1): 67-85.
- David Lake. 2003. “The New Sovereignty in International Relations.” International Studies Review (5): 303-323.
Week 3: The Process of VFP Making: Key Sources and Actors
- Carlyle Thayer, “The Evolution of Vietnamese Diplomacy, 1986-2016,” in Le, Hong Hiep & A. Tsvetov (eds) Vietnam’s Foreign Policy under Doi Moi (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing) (Chapter 2)
- Alexander Vuving. 2004. “The Two-headed Grand Strategy: Vietnamese Foreign Policy since Doi Moi.” Paper to be presented at the conference “Vietnam Update 2004: Strategic and Foreign Relations” in Singapore.
Week 4: Classical Realism
- Hans J. Morgenthau, “Six Principles of Political Realism,” in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (eds.), International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, pp. 19-27. Access at: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
- Robert Jervis. 1998. “Realism in the Study of World Politics.” International Organization. (52): 971‐992.
FIRST IN-CLASS QUIZ
Class 5: Neorealism / Structuralism (Power and Structure)
- Charles Glaser. 1994. “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self‐Help.” International Security, (19): 50‐90.
- John J. Mearsheimer. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company), pp. 29-54.
- Kenneth Waltz. 1986. “Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 98-130.
- Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik. 1999. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security (24): 5‐55.
Week 6: Liberalism
- Immanuel Kant. 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Access at: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm
- Michael W. Doyle. 2005. “The Pillars of the Liberal Peace.” The American Political Science Review 99(3): 463-466.
- Andrew Moravcsik. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Relations.” International Organization 51(4): 513-553.
SECOND IN-CLASS QUIZ
Week 7: Democratic Peace Theory
- John Owen. 1994. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security, (19): 87‐125.
- Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review, (93):791‐807.
Week 8: Vietnam-U.S. Relations: Shared Interests Pull Together?
- Carlyle Thayer. 2017. “Vietnam’s Foreign Policy in an Era of Rising Sino-US Competition and Increasing Domestic Political Influence.” Asian Security, (13): 1-18.
- Phương Nguyễn (2018). “The Evolution of Strategic Trust in Vietnam-U.S. Relations.” in Le Hong Hiep & A. Tsvetov (Eds). Vietnam’s foreign policy under Doi Moi. (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing) (Chapter 3)
SUBMISSION OF THE CRITICAL REVIEW
Week 9: Neo-liberalism / Institutionalism
- Joseph Grieco. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42(3): 485-507
- Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane. 1985. “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38 (October): 226-254.
- Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin. 1995. “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.” International Security 20(1): 39-51.
- John Mearsheimer. 1994. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security, (19): 5‐49.
Week 10: Constructivism (International Society, Culture, Norms, Identity)
- Alexander Wendt. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46(2): 391-425.
- Ted Hopf. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23(1): 170-200.
- Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 54(4): 887-917.
- David Lake. 2011. “Why ‘isms’ are Evil.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465- 480.
- Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19: 405-420
THIRD IN-CLASS QUIZ
Week 11: Vietnam-China Relations: Communist Ideology Above All?
- Alexander Vuving. 2006. “Strategy and Evolution of Vietnam's China Policy: A Changing Mixture of Pathways.” Asian Survey (46): 805-824.
- Carlyle Thayer. 1994. “Sino-Vietnamese Relations: The Interplay of Ideology and National Interest.” Asian Survey (34): 513-528.
- Nguyen Thanh Trung and Truong Minh-Vu. 2018. “The 2014 Oil Crisis and Its Implications for Vietnam-China Relations” in Le Hong Hiep & A. Tsvetov (eds) Vietnam’s Foreign Policy under Doi Moi (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing) (Chapter 4)
Week 12: Vietnam’s Relations with Great Powers: Beyond Economic Interests?
- Derek Grossman. 2018. “Can Vietnam’s Military Stand Up to China in the South China Sea.” Asia Policy, (13): 113-134.
- Carlyle Thayer. 2016. “Vietnam's ‘Strategy of Cooperating and Struggling’ with China over Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea.” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, (3): 1-21.
Week 13: Multilateral Diplomacy: Vietnam’s Relations with Intergovernmental Organizations: The Case of ASEAN.
- Goodman, A. E. 1996. “Vietnam and ASEAN: Who Would Have Thought It Possible?” Asian Survey, 36, 592-600.
- Nguyen Vu Tung and Dang Cam Tu. 2018. “Vietnam’s Decision to Join ASEAN: The South China Sea Disputes Connection” in Le Hong Hiep & A. Tsvetov (eds). Vietnam’s Foreign Policy under Doi Moi. (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing) (Chapter 9).
Week 14: Final Project Submission