Duke University · POLSCI 763S · Fall 2025

A Genealogy of IR Scholarship

Built on Professor Rachel Myrick’s Fall 2025 version of POLSCI 763S (Foundational Scholarship in International Relations) at Duke University. There is no single standard way to teach foundational IR scholarship; this tree reorganizes the readings from Professor Myrick’s syllabus into a genealogy, paired with my notes. The trunk and its branches trace how paradigms evolved and split; a separate color axis marks which level of analysis each theory works at.

What this tree is

This page reorganizes a semester of foundational IR readings into a single genealogy. The course had five aims: to grasp the field’s major concepts and debates, to read classic texts against one another, to learn the basics of theory-building and research design, to apply theory to real-world problems, and to find openings for one’s own research. Reading week by week, those aims kept pointing back to one structure underneath, a family tree of paradigms that keep answering, and re-answering, the same few questions.

The story runs from classical realism’s focus on human nature (Thucydides, Carr, Morgenthau), through Waltz’s move to structure, to the liberal and institutionalist reply that cooperation can survive anarchy, to constructivism’s claim that anarchy and interest are made rather than given, with critical voices hanging off the trunk to ask what each paradigm cannot see. The lower band is where these paradigms meet real fights: the causes of war, alliances, institutions, and power transition. Click any node to read the week behind it: the readings, my notes on the discussion questions, the weekly exercise, and how the theory lands in current events.

How to Read This Tree

  1. Paradigm is the trunk; level of analysis is a cross-cutting axis: The vertical flow and the branchings show how paradigms evolve and oppose one another over time. Level I / II / III is a different dimension: it marks where a theory places its causal explanation, the individual and cognition, domestic politics, or the international structure. Because of that, level cuts across all the paradigms; it does not flow along any single branch.
  2. Where the framework comes from: The three levels descend from Waltz’s 1959 Man, the State, and War and its three images, human nature, the state, and the international system. Its core insight: the level an analyst chooses systematically decides what can be explained and what is ignored. A large part of every paradigm war is really an argument over which level should carry the explanation.
  3. How it appears here: Because level is a cross-cutting dimension rather than a timeline, it does not occupy the vertical axis. Instead it shows up as colored badges on each node (see the legend). You can see at a glance which level a school uses, and notice that Waltz’s 1979 turn uses the third image (structure) to suppress the first two. That “argument over levels” is itself one of the moves on the tree.

Legend · Levels of Analysis

I Level I · Individual / Cognition Human nature, beliefs, perception, leaders, bureaucracy.
II Level II · Domestic Politics Regime type, preferences, institutions, two-level games.
III Level III · International Structure Anarchy, polarity, material structure, norms and shared ideas.

A node may carry more than one badge when it works across levels. Dashed cards are critiques that hang off the trunk.

The Genealogy

Left rail: real years. Columns, left to right: critiques · the realism branch · the liberal / institutionalist branch · the constructivist branch. Hover the dashed keyword chips to read how one node answers another. Open any week, then use the ← / → arrow keys to move to the previous / next week.

Foundations
c. 416 BCE
1939
1948
1969
1976
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1988–97
1991
1992
1998
1999
2001
2003
2004
2009
2012
2024

Week 1 · Foundations

The Great Debates

What is IR, and how do we study it?

Thucydides · c. 416 BCE

Melian Dialogue
I

E. H. Carr · 1939

The Twenty Years’ Crisis
I

Morgenthau · 1948

Politics Among Nations
I
Open the black boxMorgenthau → Foreign Policy AnalysisForeign Policy Analysis breaks open the unitary-state assumption: bureaucratic bargaining (Allison) and leaders’ beliefs (Saunders, McFaul) shape outcomes from within.

Allison · Saunders · McFaul · 1969–2022

Foreign Policy Decision-Making
III

Jervis · 1976

Security Dilemma & Misperception
I
From human nature to structureMorgenthau → WaltzWaltz removes the first image (human nature). International outcomes are determined by the structure of anarchy, not by human nature or regime type; this move founded structural realism.

Waltz, Theory of Int’l Politics · 1979

Structural Realism
III

Gilpin · Friedberg · Shifrinson · 1981–2018

Power Transition
III

Walt (1987) · Schweller (1994)

Alliance Theory
III

Mearsheimer · 1991

Offensive Realism
III
How much power is enough?Waltz → Defensive RealismDefensive realism (security dilemma, perception) says states seek enough security, not maximal power; offensive realism says structure pushes states to maximize relative power. Perception drives the spiralJervis → Defensive RealismJervis’s spiral model and security dilemma supply the micro-foundations of defensive realism: defensive moves look offensive, and misperception manufactures conflict.

Glaser · Kertzer et al. · 2024

Defensive Realism
IIII

Doyle · Maoz & Russett · Weeks · 1983–2014

Democratic Peace & Regime Type
II
Can cooperation survive anarchy?Waltz → Axelrod & KeohaneRealism says relative-gains worries make cooperation fragile; institutionalism answers with repeated play, the shadow of the future, and institutions that lower transaction costs.

Axelrod & Keohane · 1985

Cooperation Under Anarchy
III

Moravcsik (1997) · Putnam (1988)

Liberal Preference Theory
II

Leeds · 1999

Domestic Credibility
II

Koremenos et al. · 2001

Rational Design of Institutions
III

Barnett & Finnemore · 2004

IO Authority
III
Given vs. constructed interestsRealism + Liberalism → WendtConstructivism rejects treating interests and identities as exogenously given; the meaning of anarchy is constructed through state practice and shared ideas.

Wendt · 1992

Anarchy Is What States Make of It
III

Finnemore & Sikkink · 1998

Norm Life Cycle
III

Tannenwald · 1999

Nuclear Taboo
III

Zacher · 2001

Territorial Integrity Norm
III
Is anarchy real?Waltz → MilnerMilner questions the sharp anarchy/hierarchy dichotomy: domestic and international politics differ by degree, not kind, so “anarchy” is a weaker foundation than realism assumes.

Milner · 1991

Critique: The Anarchy Assumption
III

Rosato · 2003

Critique: Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace
II
Hierarchy, not anarchyWaltz → LakeLake reconceives international order as relations of authority and hierarchy, not pure anarchy, challenging the structural premise that all units are functionally alike.

Lake · 2009

Critique: Hierarchy, not Anarchy
III
What structure can’t seeWaltz → SjobergSjoberg argues Waltz’s third image renders gendered hierarchies invisible: structure is not gender-neutral, and what it omits is itself a political choice.

Sjoberg · 2012

Critique: What Waltz Couldn’t See
III