Lesson Report:
**Lesson Summary Report**
—
**Title:** Applying International Relations Theories to US Foreign Policy Events
*Synopsis:*
This lesson focused on using three international relations (IR) theories—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—to analyze historical and contemporary US foreign policy events. After reviewing key elements of each theory, students engaged in group work to apply these theories to specific case studies: the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement (2015), the War on Terror, and Obama’s Pivot to Asia (2011). Through discussion, students critically explored how each IR theory could explain the logic and impacts of these events. The session also introduced a multi-theory lens approach to deepen understanding of complex foreign policy decisions.
—
**Attendance:**
– One student (Humdam) was noted as attending online, but struggled with connection issues. No specific mentions of absent students.
—
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Review of International Relations Theories (10-15 minutes)**
– Reviewed realism, liberalism, and constructivism to prepare for group activities:
– **Realism:**
– International system is anarchic.
– States are in constant competition for power and survival.
– Zero-sum nature (one state’s gain is another’s loss).
– **Liberalism:**
– Anarchy persists but cooperation is possible.
– Interdependence reduces conflict.
– Institutions help states cooperate and achieve mutual benefits.
– **Constructivism:**
– State behavior is influenced by norms, beliefs, and identities.
– Actions align with what states perceive as just and consistent with their ideologies.
2. **Introduction to Group Activity (5 minutes): Case Study Analysis**
– Groups were assigned one of three major US foreign policy events:
– **Paris Climate Agreement (2015)**
– Focused on the institutional framework of climate cooperation.
– **War on Terror (2001)**
– Centered around ideological and security justifications.
– **Obama’s Pivot to Asia (2011–2016)**
– Focused on shifting US priorities to address China’s rise.
– Activity structure emphasized building arguments in four stages:
1. Summarizing the case (what happened and why it’s significant).
2. Restating the chosen IR theory and its principles.
3. Matching theory principles to specific aspects of the case.
4. Synthesizing an argument explaining why the chosen theory best fits.
3. **Group Research (15 minutes)**
– Students used online resources to gather information on their assigned event:
– **Paris Climate Agreement:** International cooperation to address climate security threats using institutions.
– **War on Terror:** Ideological (freedom vs. terrorism) and national security concerns shaped policy.
– **Pivot to Asia:** Balance of power concerns over China’s rise guided realist strategies.
– Groups created bullet-pointed summaries to analyze their cases.
4. **Group Presentations and Feedback (15-20 minutes)**
– Groups presented their arguments and received critical feedback from the instructor:
– **Paris Climate Agreement:** Seen as a liberalist triumph for cooperation (use of institutions to address global security). Shift to realism noted during Trump administration’s withdrawal.
– **War on Terror:** Seen through a constructivist lens (ideological justification of “freedom vs. terrorismâ€�) and realist tactics of power projection and balance of power maintenance.
– **Pivot to Asia:** Realism explained through balance of power (China as a rising threat). Instructor suggested constructivist analysis could involve norms and ideological framing of the US as a defender of democracy.
5. **Multi-Theory Analysis of Foreign Policy (15 minutes)**
– Students reassigned to analyze their original case through a second theoretical lens and compare findings:
– *Results:*
– **Pivot to Asia:** Incorporating constructivism highlighted ideological factors (democracy vs. authoritarianism). Students noted differences in realist and constructivist priorities, such as short-term security versus ideological alignment.
– **War on Terror:** Combining realism and constructivism revealed parallels between ideological identity (“protecting democracy”) and underlying power/security concerns.
– **Paris Climate Agreement:** Liberalism’s emphasis on cooperation and institutions paired well with realism’s acknowledgment of state self-interest in combating risks like climate instability.
6. **Closure and Preview of Next Lesson (5 minutes)**
– Summarized the semester’s initial focus: introducing IR theories, defining US foreign policy, and analyzing specific events.
– Preview: Next week begins a detailed historical exploration of US foreign policy, starting with the Monroe Doctrine and its enduring significance.
—
**Actionable Items:**
1. **Technical Issues (Urgently Address for Humdam):**
– Poor internet connection disrupted participation for Humdam. Consider strategies for smoother remote access or accommodations in future classes.
2. **Reading Assignments (High Priority):**
– Students to read two assigned articles:
– Historical overview of the Monroe Doctrine.
– Analysis of its legacy in modern US foreign policy.
– Articles available on e-course and syllabus.
3. **Classroom Setup (Optional):**
– Verify Wi-Fi stability and ensure students can access necessary resources during activities.
4. **Future Integration:**
– Ensure that lessons build on the multi-theory analysis framework demonstrated today to enhance understanding in subsequent historical case studies.
—
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the class, including critical details on activities, examples, and follow-up tasks.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The professor explicitly assigned no homework related to the activities conducted during the lesson. The only homework mentioned pertains to next week’s Monroe Doctrine module, which involves reading two articles from the course syllabus or eCourse, as indicated at the end of the transcript.