Since i would guess so many would jump to Mearsheimer here I'm going to say the emergence of the neoclassical realists with Gideon Rose's article "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy", Fareed Zakaria's book From Wealth to Power, and Randall Schweller's article "Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back in". I think they deal with defensive realism's status-quo bias better than Mearsheimer does (even if they do have to look at what is going on inside a state and not just at structure)

Alex Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics is a good start, I'd think. It bridges the positivist/post-positivist divide (somewhat), and returns ideas to a central place in international theory.

For the security crowd, both Fearon's Rationalist Expectations for War and Goemans' War and Punishment seem absolutely essential to me. More generally, I agree with Social Theory, and I would also add BDM et al.'s Logic of Political Survival. The richness and sophistication of these books show realism to be the wave of the past.

Robert Jervis, Systemic Effects.

I am figuring out what's left... boh... will say later.

bye, aa.

ps: GIMME SOME BOOKS, SINCE I GONNA BEGIN GRAD STUDIES IN IR! LOL

Looking for innovation? One place to find it is on the borders between often contesting paradigms. Wendt's work comes close to bridging structural realism and constructivism. Work in that area, constructivist realists/realist constructivists, is bearing fruit. Buzan and Little (and Jones earlier) work on the intersection of neorealism and the English School--The Logic of Anarchy would be on my essential reading list, and International Systems in World History expands the empirical scope of systems theory. Daniel Deudney's work on borders of realism and liberalism is another that shows the artificiality of paradigmatic divisions that are so ingrained.

To follow on Bill's post, I suggest Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. (Winter, 2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization, 59(Winter), 39-75.

I also suggest any work dealing with change in international systems. Units are not static and neither are individuals' relationship to them and, by extension, collectivities' relationship to the formation of units and norms. Finnemore and Sikkink come to mind, as well as some work done by the notable academic bloggers over at Duck of Minerva as well as interesting region-specific work by Lynch over at Abu Aardvark.

although it has more to do with strategic studies than IR, I'd say everything written by Colin S. Gray.

greetings, aa.

I'm not well enough versed to tell you if it's really innovative, but Jon Ikenberry's "After Victory" is phenomenal. Liberal institutionalism isn't anything new, but he adds a ton of historical context to the argument.

Some thoughts on Dan's editorial comments here. I'd actually flag a number of debates/articles/books in a few different areas. I'm pretty excited by the increasing number of works in what might be called "relational theorizing." I'm also pretty enthusiastic about the emerging debate about hierarchy and domination in IR. Example include the aforementioned Ikenberry book and the Barnett and Duvall piece, as well as:

• Cooley, Alexander (2005). Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Nations in Transit. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
• Hobson, John M. and J.C. Sharman (2005). "The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change." European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 63-98.
• Lake, David A. (1996). "Anarchy, Hierarchy and the Variety of International Relations." International Organization 50(1): 1-33.
• Lake, David A. (2003). "The New Sovereignty in International Relations." International Studies Review 5(3): 303-324.

Good question.

I think the analogy to Economics is a good one. Seems to me there have been fewer really big new ideas over the past 10 years in IR than there were in the previous decade. It does not necessarily follow that this is a bad thing. Could just be that we are now entering a phase of actual normal science where people test hypotheses and specify scope conditions.

But, we still need to answer Dan's question. Must reading for incoming graduate student??

A previous poster suggested Ikenberry's book "After Victory." Princeton 2000. That is a very clearly written book that synthesizes lots of insights from the liberal institutionalist tradition (both domestic and international). But it probabaly does not qualify as a book with original big new idea.

A similar book that would introduce students to a different literature would be Lipson's book, "Reliable Partners." Princeton 2003. Alternative on dem peace is "Tringulating Peace" by Russett and Oneil, but it is dumbed down.

The must reads over the past decade (give or take) for incoming grad student are:

Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. 1996.

Wendt, Social Theory of IP.

Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders

Fearon and Laitin, APSR, 2003.

David Lake, Anarchy, Hierarchy, etc.. 1996.

Huntington, Clash of Civ. And his critics.

Moravcsick, The Choice for Europe. 1998.

Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Powers. 2001.

For exemplars of normal science using multiple methods see Randall Stone's book, "Lending Credibility".

Lisa Martin's book, "Democratic Commitments." 2001.

Mark Pollack's book on the EU.

Here's my two cents, for what it's worth: I found very compelling Nina Tannenwald's eclectic approach in "Stigmatizing the Bomb: The Origins of the Nuclear Taboo," International Security, 29:4 (Spring 2005). Also, Michael Williams, "Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics," International Organization, 58:4 (Fall 2004) is very interesting, and perhaps on the frontier. He notes, "the desire of neoclassical realism, for example, to reach back to the "classical" tradition for a richness lost in the neorealist quest for parsimony represents a laudible move toward more complex and nuanced forms of analysis. But a fuller engagement with classical realism involves more than just the explanatory integration of domestic politics into an essentially neorealist theoretical edifice, and taking Morgenthau's contribution to classical realism seriously would challenge neoclassical realism to push its reconstruction of the realist project in directions well beyond the neorealist confines within which it has tended to remain." Williams also has looked at the relationship of neoconservatism to international relations theory (European Journal of International Relatoins, 11:3 [2005]), and he's got two books that further develop his project. Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth continue to confound scholars seeking to put realism to bed. See "Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas," International Security, 25:3 (Winter 2001-01), and "Hard Times for Soft Balancing," International Security, 30:1 (Summer 2005). I'm throwing in Charles Krauthammer's "The Unipolar Moment Revisited," National Interest, 70 (Winter 2002/03), for fun -- perhaps not pathbreaking IR theory, but a good reminder of how prescient some of his writings have been (plus, Helen Milner assigns it in her graduate IR survey course).

I feel that the progress IR has made on intrastate (not interstate) war has been amazing. The best IR stuff is in journals like International Security and International Organization and APSR.

I'm a fan of James D. Fearon's work and I think the below articles are some of his best:

James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Weak States, Rough Terrain, and Large-Scale Ethnic Violence since 1945,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1999;

James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97:1 (Spring 2003): 75–90

Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52, 2 (Spring 1998), 269-306.

Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49 (Summer 1995), 379-414. ( i think someone mentioned this before)

I also recommend:

Robert Pape. Bombing to Win, Air Power and Coercion in War. (book)

Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Robert Pape (book)

In the Shadow of Power by Robert Powell (book)

Strategic Choice and International Relations. (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999) by David Lake and Robert Powell (book)

War and Reason : Domestic and International Imperatives -- by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, David Lalma (book)

Michael E. Brown, ed., Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, revised ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2001). (book)

Kydd, Andrew and Barbara Walter. 2002. Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Religious Violence. International Organization 56 (2): 263-296

Walter, Barbara. 1997. The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement. International Organization 51 (3): 335-64.

Posen, Barry R. 1993. The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival 35 (1): 27-47

The International Spead of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and Escalation, edited by David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild (book)

I feel that the progress IR has made on intrastate (not interstate) war has been amazing. The best IR stuff is in journals like International Security and International Organization and APSR.

I'm a fan of James D. Fearon's work and I think the below articles are some of his best:

James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Weak States, Rough Terrain, and Large-Scale Ethnic Violence since 1945,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1999;

James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97:1 (Spring 2003): 75–90

Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52, 2 (Spring 1998), 269-306.

Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization 49 (Summer 1995), 379-414. ( i think someone mentioned this before)

I also recommend:

Robert Pape. Bombing to Win, Air Power and Coercion in War. (book)

Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Robert Pape (book)

In the Shadow of Power by Robert Powell (book)

Strategic Choice and International Relations. (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999) by David Lake and Robert Powell (book)

War and Reason : Domestic and International Imperatives -- by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, David Lalma (book)

Michael E. Brown, ed., Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, revised ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2001). (book)

Kydd, Andrew and Barbara Walter. 2002. Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Religious Violence. International Organization 56 (2): 263-296

Walter, Barbara. 1997. The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement. International Organization 51 (3): 335-64.

Posen, Barry R. 1993. The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival 35 (1): 27-47

The International Spead of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and Escalation, edited by David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild (book)

Grad school is a ways down the road for me yet, but I thought Peter Singer's "Corporate Warriors" and Deborah Avant's "The Market for Force" were quite interesting on the relations between states and private security companies. The latter book probably offers more in the way of a theoretical framework, with the former offering more of an overview of the market's development.

I think the biggest development was that we realized the importance of intrastate conflict. Different aspects of civil wars (onset, end, mortality rates, role of foreigners, refugees etc) are being systematically investigated.
The two books that will be very important in the future are:
- Fearon and Laitin's forthcoming book
- Stathis Kalyvas' "Logic of Violence in Civil War"

If the standard is *new* (which I take to be within the last few years) and *groundbreaking*, I should add: Lars-Erik Cederman's working on agent-based modeling. Here's the question for the intrastate conflict crew: that's some brilliant work, no question about it, but a lot of it (arguably) applies preexisting models to a new area. So that would seem a rather precise analogy with Tyler Cowen's claim about economics, no?

Roger Petersen's and Libby Wood's work on civil war is fairly novel and widely-respected. The micro-level studies that focus on social networks and emotions are one important wave of the future (and have a lot to say about contemporary Iraq and Afghanistan).

KF: thanks. I've actually thought better of the second part of my comment.

Very little is actually "novel," most "novelty" comes from applications of old ideas to new areas.

Anyway, I agree about, for example, Wood's work... as well as the whole explosion of network and network-influenced studies of contentious politics. I also, in retrospect, even agree about the application of commitment problems and the like to issues of intra-ethnic policing, etc. etc.

So mea culpa and all that.

Legalization and World Politics (International Organization Special Issues)
Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics by Margaret E. Keck, Kathryn Sikkink
"Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics" International Organization (Autumn 1997).

For more in the intrastate strand, Ben Valentino's "Final Solutions" book recently won the Furniss and is very good.

In IR/security, I'd also point to Dale Copeland's "Origins of Major War," Daryl Press' "Calculating Credibility," and Trachtenberg's "A Constructed Peace." Herbst's "States and Power in Africa" is excellent. Van Evera's "Causes of War" book is definitely worth a close read (much better than the article version), whether you agree with offense-defense analysis or not.

Moravcsik's "Choice for Europe" and Parsons' "A Certain Idea of Europe" are worth reading in tandem for different takes on European integration.

I'll second Dan Nexon's recommendation of the work of Lake and others that introduce the concepts of hierarchy and relational contracting theory into the study of IR. This is a great example of how theory can illuminate previously understudied by very important phenomena. The ideas are pretty basic (in a good way) but have wide-ranging implications for the study of IR (and for policy-relevant work , too, I might add).