Robert D. Putnam. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization.
Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), pp. 427-460. INSTRUCTION FOR BOTH QUESTION, USE YOUR OWN WORDS CRITICAL THINKING ( I AM LOOKING FOR 500 WORDS NICE FORMAT ESSAY, DON NOT FORGET TO FOLLOW UP SHORT ANSWERS BOTH QUESTIONS)
Also available at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5154-putnamdi...
o Why does Putman argue that it is necessary to look beyond “the mere observation” that domestic and
international politics influence each other?
o Follow-up question to the first one: According to Putman, how much are domestic politics and
international politics indeed “entangled”? How does he explain this?
o What is ‘game theory’ in foreign policy and international politics?
o What are negotiation “win-sets”, as defined by Putman? What are their components? How are they
relevant to negotiators of international agreements?
o Think on how the “misinformation” of negotiators that Putman refers to reflect also the concept of
“misconception” in Foreign Policy that Jack Snyder set forth in 1968 (see below).
2-Question: Stephen D. Krasner. 2004. Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States. International Security.
Vol. 29, No. 2 (Fall, 2004). pp. 85-120.
o School of thought: Neo-realism.
o Check Krasner’s biography. Note that he is a member of the Hoover’s Institution (think tank).
o What are “failed States” according to the author?
o What is “conventional sovereignty”? How is this concept challenged by “failed states” in Krasner’s
o Why is it important for “strong powers” to ensure the stabilization of failed States in Krasner’s view,
aka from a neo-realist perspective?
o How does this justify, in Krasner’s opinion, the interference in the weakest states’ sovereignty? What
are the possible options to interfere and protect one’s security from the failure of weak states or the
failure of conventional sovereignty?
o What are the characteristics of the following instruments: “transitional administration”; “de facto
trusteeships”; and “shared sovereignty”?