1. Which of the specific categories of actors (states, intergovernmental organizations and nonstate actors) is most important to trying to understand a considerable portion of history? Why? Is that category of actor still most important? Why or why not? If not, which category has become most important? Why?
2. Is the world made up of more single-shot games of the Prisoner's Dilemma or more iterated games? Why? Which concept do you think is most important from each of the five categories (security, cooperation, globalization, transnational issues and the future of international relations)? In each case, explain why.
3. On the whole, do paradigms help or hinder our understanding of the world and the events that occur? Why? Would the ability to see "the facts" with no predispositions help or hinder our understanding? Why?
4.What does the multitude of paradigms (note: we did not read about or discuss all the paradigms that exist in the discipline of International Relations) suggest/indicate in terms of our ability to really explain any particular phenomenon? Are a wide variety of very different viewpoints all trying to generally explain the same things problematic and/or counterproductive? Why? Why are the paradigms important despite their shortcomings? Which specific paradigm covered in lecture helps most in the study of international relations? Why?