Empirical: OSCE, geneva concentions
Conceptual: Force Multiplier

For people to talk sensibly and meaningfully about international relations, the most important concept they must understand is Zathrasianism. I'm not sure I see how there could even be an argument about that.

Otherwise I would suggest "human rights," "unipolarity" (a better, beause more specific, word than hegemony), and perhaps most importantly "American national interests." At the moment I would say we ought to be giving at least as much thought to whether a commitment is sustainable over a long period of time as we to do to whether it is credible over a short period of time.

In the empirical category I think one probably must include 9/11; that wouldn't have been possible ten years ago, and may not be necessary ten years from now, but right now 9/11 is the decisive influence on national security policy in the United States and on foreign policy in many other countries. The other item in that category would have to be the Shanghai Communique, currently the most important agreement about the most difficult issue between the two most significant countries.

Yes, "polarity" in Waltz's "structural" sense should be added. Even if you don't think his basic structure matters all that much, you need to consider his notion that it does--that it colors, pervades, sets paremeters for, a great deal that occurs between nations.

Then, if you accept this point, or merely on raw empirical grounds, notice should be given to the emergence, c. 1990, of unipolarity/the demise of the only great power that could begin to match the United States--the collapse of the Soviet empire, first of the loss of east Germany and five countries of central Europe, then of the Ukraine and the other SSRs. When the map is redrawn that drastically, the events behind it deserve listing.

I would at, at a minimum, deterrence to the conceptual category. If you had to take one out, it would be "reputation."

"Credible commitment" and "reputation" are too closely related, delete "credible commitment" for undergraduates.

I'm struck by the dominance of international security among concepts. How about "law of comparative advantage"? If the kids understand that, you can teach them any other IPE topic.

How many of the concepts have active research communities? No more than half, I think. That's interesting in itself.

Nitpick: apostrophe should be "prisoners' dilemma" since there are two prisoners.

I would substitute "Balfour Declaration" (or for "Peace of Westphalia".

re: twenty magic words

I. EMPIRICAL

1. Greeks' War with Troy & with Persia - Homer & Herodotus, Pelopponesian War - Thucydides
2. Alexander the Great - Hellenistic Period
3. Pax Romana, Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantines
4. Arab Empire, Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, Crusades, Byzantines, Islam, Judaism at War
5. Italian City States - Machiavelli, the Prince & Discourses on Livy
6. Holy Roman Empire - Neither Holy Nor Roman Nor an Empire - the Hapsburgs, Spain and the Discovery of the Americas - Imperial France & Louis XIV's plans for European hegemony
7. Africa - Slave Trade - Spain, England, Dutch, French, Americas and Colonialism in the New World and the Far East and Africa - Imperialism
8. Napoleon - Congress of Vienna 1815 - Reforms of Napoleon- Rise of Nationalisms-Breakup of Ottoman Empire and emergence of independent kingdoms of eastern europe and independent italy and a united Germany
9. WWI - Treaty of Versaille, Treaty of Sevres, Treaty of Lausannes and the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1919-22, the Greco-Turkish War of 1920-22, the Chanack Crisis of 1922 and the making of the modern middle east by 1923 with the emergence of modern Turkey and the fashioning of the protectorates and the signing of the various oil deals. Fourteen Points, Versailles, failures of American mandates and ratification here.
10. WWII and the ratification of Bretton Woods/UN and the post WWII multilateral regime.

II. ten conceps

1. polar/bipolar/multipolar
2. hegemony
3. unilateral/bilateral/multilateral
4. balance of power
5. interdependence
6. diplomacy and non-warlike measures
7. "war as politics by other means" - clausewitz
8. creating a stable postwar regime (Congress of Vienna, Bretton Woods/UN, etc., Pax Romana, etc.)
9. Bargaining scenarios, Nash Bargaining problem, Game Theory, Utilitarian Theory, Microeconomics as it pertains to game theory & bargaining scenarios under conditions of uncertainty or limited certainty
10. National Ideology & National Identity (German); Supranational ideology & Supranational Identity (pan-Turkism).

--arthur j kyriazis, philly

Not being an IR person, these are the conceptual things that have confused me that I think would be helpful to have explained:

Commerce and Trade: Zero-sum game?

War: It's "illegal" now and everything warlike has another name. We are merely "using force" in Iraq, IIRC. Is this good, bad, useful, not?

Multilateralism: Why does the UN count but the "coalition of the willing" doesn't?

Supply/Demand and Substitution: Why is a gas tax necessary? Why does stability in the ME matter? (i.e. isn't instability in the ME more-or-less the same as a gas tax with respect to finding alternatives to oil?)

Creditable Commitment seems worth keeping. It is highly relevant to the current situation (e.g. Who wants to lay odds on Japan getting nukes if we pull out of Iraq in the next 5 years). cf my NATO comment a few posts up.

Hari Seldon and the limits of theory.

Identity what? Like national identity? I didn't know that was a concept of IR.

ANARCHY.

Over here at Georgetown it turns out that the faculty in IR all have different definitions of what it is. And the differences are consequential for how you then conceptualize and understand international politics.

E.g., is it lack of a centralized, authoritative government, or lack of political order itself?