First of all, how do they get out of the coffins and dig themselves out of 6 feet underground, when they're lying on their backs. For those who are in mausoleums, same issue.

Second of all, how do they do this after partially decomposing.

Third of all, what's their motivation? Why do we always assume that the undead want to kill the living? Is it for the same reason we assume that cats don't know how to spell?

And fourth...did someone actually pay someone to do this study? I would love to see that grant proposal. I'm sure it's epic.

First of all, how do they get out of the coffins and dig themselves out of 6 feet underground, when they're lying on their backs. For those who are in mausoleums, same issue.

The coffin is only there if we agree it is there. Also, your use of the term "lying on their backs" exemplifies a gendered discourse equating the zombie "other" with femininity and the zombie threat with a deviant sexuality borne of an insistence on changing one's subject position.

Second of all, how do they do this after partially decomposing.

"Mostly dead" means "partly alive"? And at any rate, your question betrays too static an understanding of bodies, which are constructed as much through discourse as through materiality.

Third of all, what's their motivation? Why do we always assume that the undead want to kill the living? Is it for the same reason we assume that cats don't know how to spell?

Or that "boys are messy." We assume it because of the gendered binary opposition created by the human/zombie dichotomy. As you rightly point out, there is too little room in the zombie-human war narrative for a nuanced understanding of hierarchical relations among zombies, the impact of marauding zombie mayhem on zombie women and children, and the power relations required to make the zombie community hang together.

And fourth...did someone actually pay someone to do this study? I would love to see that grant proposal. I'm sure it's epic.

The NSF's resurrected Cross-Cutting Program on Zombie-Human Social Dynamics of course!

The thing about zombies is that they are unthinking, uncaring machines whose only goal is to eat the flesh of the living. All of the above models of foreign policy fail to analyze the problem properly, because this is a military battle, a war. There will be no reasoning with them. Except for neo-cons lack of proper military funding, their us vs.them philosophy is probably best for the problem. Unfortunately, also like the neo-cons, we are un prepared to fight this 5th generation warfare, or undead-centric counter-insurgency.

Unless the zombie brain is destroyed, it will keep attacking. All of our modern weaponry--especially in the age of fourth generation, population-centric COIN--are not designed to kill zombies. Bombs and rockets won't work because shrapnel and explosions won't provide the killing strike we need. And what will a tank do against the undead? We will waste way too many shells and bombs and men fighting an enemy we don't understand.

What strategy am I employing? The survivalist one. I'm heading to Alaska where the zombies will freeze.

BTW, World War Z is an excellent book on this subject.

Eric C (www.onviolence.com)

What about historical materialism/marxism? Perhaps the developed capitalist states of the world would find a way to exploit zombie labor -- they are cheap -- or transform them into commodities for mass consumption. This would, of course, involve exploitation of those living in the developing world, perhaps even coercing them into "producing" zombies for the developed world.

Michael Swanwick's short story "The Dead" in the great collection of zombie stories "The Living Dead" paints this picture in vivid detail.

Does international law apply to a zombie holocaust? As any international law academic can tell you, non-state actors and individuals (as opposed to states) are frequently the focus of international law. The main difficulty would be whether zombies could count as non-state actors or individuals or if they are simply not protected.

It is possible to posit that the zombies as a group, like al-Qaida, which has a limited international legal personality for the sake of the law of armed conflict. However, a lack of organization would make this a difficult argument. In this sense, any legal protections afforded zombies may have to be from the fact that they constitute a "levee en masse" (mass, spontaneous uprising). (See the Third Geneva Convention of 1949)

However, the larger question (particularly from the standpoint of international human rights law and the law of armed conflict) is whether zombies constitute "humans". They are more like post-humans. So does this mean they can have human rights? Or humanitarian protections?

There are international laws protecting corpses, desecration of the dead, etc. But does this apply to animated corpses? And if those animated corpses are trying to eat your braaaaaaiiinnnsss.....

Um...

So this this a complicated issue. I therefore propose a multi-million dollar grant for a new Protocol to the Geneva Convention on Rules Applicable to a Zombie Holocaust.

Quote: "Bombs and rockets won't work because shrapnel and explosions won't provide the killing strike we need. And what will a tank do against the undead?"

Agreed. And I doubt that the 'hearts and minds' approach would work if one party was more interested in eating hearts and minds than winning them.

Quote: "But an "us vs. them" approach fails to recognize the zombie raison d'etre: procreation. Only by killing humans can the zombie race expand its species."

If this is true, I would be advocating for a policy of complete disengagement for as long as it takes - but not an American-centric one like Jayeslos proposes. Once the remainder of the human race has been zombie-fied and eventually either starved or eaten itself due to lack of other food, the world will be repopulated by New Zealanders.

A friend at work sent me a link to this news earlier today and I remember thinking "who on earth could waste so much time reading an entire report about zombies?" yet here I am laughing so much after reading this entire post and all the comments haha. This post was brilliant!

I wonder though, how would South American nations respond to the invasion? We are so used to nothing "undead" going on here (zombies, aliens and the like usually keep to Washington, L.A. and Europe) that we'd probably not know what to do.

My guess is Chavez and Morales would blame it on the US and say zombies are just another form of cultural imperialism, while Uribe would simply use aerial pestizide spraying to counter the threat, to which Ecuador would object of course, citing environmental concerns on the Ecuadorean side of the border. As for us Peruvians, we'd probably just call for Zombie disarmament...

I'm afraid that banning the import of zombies themselves is a non-tariff trade barrier, and a form of protectionism. As has been documented by Romero (1968, 1978), the United States is the primary exporter of zombies, followed by Japan, with Russia and the UK also forming major producers.

As most countries have restrictions on the import of live animals, and strict quarantine requirements, zombies could legally be rejected. Zombies are thought to be disease carrying, and could be refused on this basis. However, if the US was to ignore these restrictions in order to increase its zombie exports, it could precipitate a trade war.

I fear for the global economy.

This post made my day.

I've been working around defense issues for long enough that I'm having an easier time figuring out how the advocates of various military doctrines would respond rather than figuring out the Marxist analysis. Here's my take on how advocates of the conventional warfare, counter insurgency, net-centric warfare, and anti-interventionist doctrines would suggest we reply to a zombie outbreak.

I've already posted this response on my blog (www.acollegialcow.blogspot.com) but I figure there is no problem posting some of it here as well.

I believe there exists a significant problem in his analysis; zombies are not cognitive and rational beings. I do not claim to be an expert of zombies in any manner but the way I understand them, they are driven solely by their desire to eat the brains of other people. There is no greater motive than them other than sustenance.

In his structural realist analysis, Drezner claims "that there is no inherent difference between human states and zombie states. Regardless of individual traits or domestic institutions, human and zombie actors alike are subject to the same powerful constraint of anarchy." Furthermore, he adds that "it might even be tactically wise to fashion temporary alliances with certain zombie states as a way to balance against human states that try to exploit the situation with some kind of idealistic power grab made under the guise of anti-zombeism." The problem I see here is that both instances require the zombies to be thinking and acting like rational beings. Zombies and humans are not equally subject to the constraint of anarchy because zombies are unable to comprehend what anarchy is and how it threatens them as well lacking the mental capability to devise a strategy that is in their best interests. Therefore, I believe he is wrong when he concludes that "the introduction of zombies would not fundamentally alter the character of world politics." World politics would indeed be changed because of the introduction of a threat that will recklessly chase after its one goal; brains. An entity which has yet to be seen in world politics.

In terms of his liberal institutionalist and constructivist analyses, Drezner is counting on the fact that the zombies would have the cognitive ability to calculate the benefits and drawbacks to collaborating with other actors. As such, any ideas of building an international organization, including the presence of zombies, to deal with the presence of zombies or to build a world state inclusive of zombies appears to be quite impossible.

Lastly, when he addresses neoconservatism he recognizes that the zombie threat was an existential threat, noting that the threat from zombies is from their jealously over our freedom and not from their desire for our brains. Like the faults with the other theories, this analysis is based on the faulty assumption that zombies have the ability to make cognitive decisions like that. The unavoidable fact is simple, zombies pose a threat to humans because of their desire for brains and for no other reason.

The way I see it, it is possible from the perspective of humans to account for the presence of a zombie threat in this world, in international relations theory. However, in all the different ways that I have looked at it I do not see a way to include zombies into a theory in any role more than a threat. By this I mean that like environmental degradation, zombies pose a threat to the existence of humans but are not able to think rationally and are dependent on their natural circumstances (the need to consume brains). Thus, zombies are a threat and not an actor in international relations theory.

And I just finished my paper on the significant differences between traditional and critical IT theory - this would have made one hell of a case study!

is she thinking she may have picked the wrong side?

Strictly speaking, Putnam posits the two-level game metaphor as an illustration of international bargaining dynamics, albeit a non-formal model. In the strictest sense, then, the two-level game is only applicable to the impending zombie takeover at the point at which states (human, zombie, or other), have entered into negotiations. As I have argued here, however, there is no inherent preclusion against using the metaphor as a broader framework through which to understand IR. So here goes…

The 2LG conceives of a system politic in which there are complex and multidirectional linkages between the two dominant spheres of politics, the domestic and the international. The statesperson, or government, sits at the nexus of these games, and thus faces the unique challenge of being compelled to operate simultaneously in both (as compared to other actors who have the luxury of operating only in one, implicitly simplifying their preference formation). Yes, the theory is liberal, so we will later be forced to assume that zombies have preferences. While Putnam assumed a rational statesperson, Prof. Drezner has already pointed out that preferences are not synonymous with rationality. So we’ll relax that assumption, but figure that zombies still have preferences, which may simply be to consume more braaaaiiiiiinnnnsss. (Making negotiations with the zombies rather similar to most other international negotiations; at the end, everybody is still brain-dead).

The statesperson, our central actor, is driven by two goals. At level I (the international), they “Seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments.” At level II, meanwhile, they “seek power by constructing coalitions among those groups…that pursue their interests by pressuring government.” Of course, the difficulty is that one level’s optimal move is the other level’s suicide. On the upside, the nimble statesperson can find moves that “will trigger realignments on other boards, enabling them to achieve otherwise unattainable objectives.”

So, this all means the outcome under the 2LG depends on the specific governments and their domestic coalitions. Let’s take them to be as they currently are.

In the U.S., Obama would obviously spot an ability to rally forces around a patriotic cause, linking the need for healthcare reform with a new international existential threat. With a large domestic priority accomplished and a new war abroad, the administration’s popularity would surge to new levels.

In Russia, Medvedev would exploit the opportunity as a chance to rally the siloviki around him, as the security forces would be necessary to face the new threat. Having thereby consolidated his power base amongst the elite, we would then have a chance to observe his true colors. If he is the liberal many hope, the situation might offer a face-saving way to again collaborate with NATO. Should he actually prove an autocrat, the situation is much less predictable, and would depend on the specific geo-politics of the zombie attack, which would in any case be exploited to extend Russia’s sphere of influence.

African leaders would ask for more aid. It may be assumed that the many civil wars would lead to complicated and shifting alliances in the sub-Saharan region. Dictators would point to the need for a strong leader to marshal their forces again a threat to all humanity, thus seeking to relieve international pressure against their regime.

Australia would support the U.S. with troops. This has little to do with the 2LG, they just don’t like to miss out on wars.

Europe is tricky. The domestic national psyche and memory of WWII atrocities would hinder Merkel from decisive action to eliminate all zombies, while Anglo pressure to contribute to an anti-zombie effort would prevent the government from making too strong a defense of zombies. In Britain, the government would fall, so obviously having not foreseen the impending crisis, despite a lengthy tenure. Cameron would be expected to urge a hawkish reaction.

In France, Sarkozy would extol the foresight of rejoining the NATO command, and desire a decisive NATO victory to prove this. At the same time, an already war-weary population might be expected to articulate the first post-structuralist zombie theory, and give rise to an artistic and scholarly tradition decrying humanity and celebrating the zombie ways. Depending on the success of the NATO campaign against the zombies, Sarkozy would either win plaudits, or suffer the fate of Gordon Brown. In the case of the former, Sarkozy would then demand SHAPE be moved back to France, and other concessions. In the case of the latter, a new socialist president would question the commitment of NATO, arguing the U.S. would never sacrifice New York to save Paris. France would then seek to appease the zombies.

In Italy, the mafia would have already cut a deal with the zombies (braaaaiiiins being a black market with incredible growth potential). The new EU states would argue that the zombies are a needless distraction from the real threat, Russia, which is certainly behind the zombie menace.

Spain’s government wouldn’t have a chance to respond. Since the whole country is out all night, they’d be the first to be zombified.

Thoughts?

Well, I think that this issue can be understood better in a global system that utilizes class structure. The so-called zombie menace has a need for brains and nothing more. In return, the zombie population that I know, viewed without stereotype and without sins of the father to account for, is quite easily agreeable, so long as they are left to themselves.

I would think that simply accomodating these walking undead would be a much easier solution than engaging in some hateful apartheid occuring all across the globe. If we reintegrate these newcomers to society and provide them the means to allow themselves to perpetuate, we can fully explore what the zombie men and women in the world have to offer us.

Why, perhaps some UN or other international construct can be entrusted with the ability to provide the necessary brains to the zombie citizens of the international climate. Just think, a global institution capable of categorizing and monitoring the safety of every zombie on earth, caring for them with food. I submit that this very idea is achievable so long as all the world's many governments submit themselves to the charge of whatever industry can assist in providing for this final solution.

Therefore, it seems clear that our global society must accept that zombies are simply a new class of person, a proletariat, if you will, seeking to survive in a world that absolutely refuses to let them. Why, I would even venture to guess that most zombies are simply products of their environment when it comes to their known crimes of murder and cannibalism. Surely we can accept these people as a class that can serve us just as well as we can serve them?

Previous commenters seem to be omitting even a rudimentary game theoretic analysis. A zombie apocalypse presents a very difficult dilemma with regards to strategic cooperation in the face of this threat. I would reference Dr. Gent's work in regards to major power military interventions: http://www.unc.edu/~gent/research/gent_sb.pdf Every power has the same goal in mind with regards to the zombie threat: completely eliminate it. This implies that coordination in military intervention will be especially difficult, insomuch as the costs of engaging the zombie hordes will be very high in terms of lives and, as addressed previously, with regards to the fact that modern militaries are ill-equipped to such a disorganized horde of attackers vulnerable only through direct cranial injury. Classic COIN theory will not be adequate to this threat: hearts are not beating and minds are only interested in acquiring "BRAAAAIIINNNSSSSSS". The excessive costs of developing a new strategy capable of addressing the threat alongside the more direct costs will lead all major powers into a familiar Prisoner's Dilemma. All actors will prefer that another actor bear these costs. There is no current international institution capable of directing states to cooperate easily. This will lead to a situation in which most states take little to no action to face the threat.

It's unfortunate to acknowledge, but the case of a zombie epidemic, even of the "slow and dumb" variety, will inevitably lead to a rapid escalation of the dangers. Only once zombies represent an immediate existential threat will world leaders be willing to succumb to popular pressure to confront the threat. Unfortunately, this delay will greatly exacerbate the dangers posed by the zombie horde, as a fast, powerful response will not be possible.

Our attitudes to rise of those once considered dead is shaped by powerful assumptions handed down by the elite whose position is threatened by Zombies. Zombies are after all the original inhabitants of every country but they have been shoehorned into a binary distinction of dead/undead that has turned them into an 'other' to be feared and hated. The degradation of Zombies into shambling flesh-eaters has been caused by the destruction of their native cultures by the 'living' who have played on this in order to essentialise Zombie culture.

The living have used their hold over international ethics and determiners to declare the Zombie renaissance a 'threat' and refuse to grant the Zombies legitimacy. In actual fact what is happening is that the Zombies are trying establish for themselves a place on Earth where they can be their own masters. Only by taking into account Zombie viewpoints will we come to understand this.

Mainly capatalistic societies will find an economic use for the zombie wave as a means to replace immigrant labor, especially when its an inexhaustible resource. I see zombies entering the cultural milieu first as "volunteers" in the military, earning their citizenship, until the day when laws are passed that give native dead zombies a passport and full legal rights they had when alive. Though their penchant for braaaiiins will render many of them in the prison system, they will be seen as model prisoners. No NEED for food, or decent living conditions; possibly "converting" living prison populations while the state turns a blind eye. Then they will all be released on parole, because most will only be guilty of "attempted homicide", few for actual homicide due to lack of success or witnesses. So when the political elite see zombies as the superior citizen compared to the living citizen, ie no need for utilities, health care, insurance, public services, employment or housing, then the elite will conspire to speed up the zombification of the country either through law or force. The labor market and real wages will collapse so it will become an economic choice for the living to make the "transition" just to compete. So, the future is nations built on a zombie populace with a super wealthy elite and their mercenary bodyguards. I see China doing very well in the new economy because of population density and India suffering (because of cremation burials). So not too much change from today. The average person may get by if they are quick and willing to work at or slightly above subsistence level and dont shake the status quo. Are YOU a zombie?

Previous comments mis-characterize zombies as a "class," or otherwise as a population that can be negotiated with or appeased. Zombism is not a life style, nor is it an identifiable ethnic group or tribe; it is an epidemic, as some comments have pointed out, and it must be treated as such. It spreads like a virus, with each zombie capable of creating more zombies, limited only by the zombie's own physical disabilities and whatever external resistance it encounters, which can take many forms: shotguns, flamethrowers, sniper rifles, walls, etc. A zombie "population" must be isolated and prevented from spreading, and then destroyed, otherwise it will continue to grow outward in a spiral pattern branching wherever it encounters paths of lesser resistance and greater fertility. Containment is not a long-term solution, because zombies are un-dead and they have no stopping point and will continue to seek human victims eternally until they themselves are terminated.
A zombie apocalypse is not a game, but to the extent that it resembles a game, it is a zero-sum game.

In recent days, Scotland, a civilized European country with high standards, has been considering the release on humanitarian grounds, of the mortally ill Libyan man convicted in a very highly politicized process of the Lockerbie Scotland airliner terrorist attack. He will not live long enough, to see through his legal appeals of his conviction. He is sure to die of cancer.

And yet, with today's news that he is being released, the American White House releases a statement of disapproval. Thanks for nothing, President Obama and Company. Further, I took note just a few days ago, of Massachusetts "Liberal" Senators Ted Kennedy and Skull & Bones Man and former U.S. Presidential Candidate John Kerry, Chairman of an important Senate Foreign Affairs committee, weighing in AGAINST this today approved humanitarian prison release. Reminds me of that other famous Massachusetts Politician, Mitt Romney, Republican, Candidate for his Party's nomination for Presidential Office, who himself never lifted a political finger, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to release anyone. Not one person was granted a pardon or commutation under his illustrious tenancy in office. Thanks for nothing, you incredibly useless, ignorant and cheap point scoring politicians. In my own view, nobody should serve more than ten years, maximum, no matter the crime. Let's see; ten years living in the equivalent of a federal post office, 24 x 7, is the equivalent of 30 years of full time, 40 hours/week labor in the vineyards of Liberalism. If that level of thralldom to an encapsulating Statist or Nation State run environment cannot do the trick, in terms of penalty, crime and punishment, and rehabilitation, then maybe Nation States are not as good for us, as our politicians like to pretend they are. Give me Italian or Greek City States, any day of they year.

The engagement spawned (ha) is impressive. A communication theorist has many choices for analysis: as a media text, from the viewpoint of audience, in terms of effects, as a language game (Wittgenstein), as a social use of information and communications technology, not to mention the rich data seeded throughout regarding regional, national, and gendered points of view (classist, ableist, etc), and the production of online identities. It can be critiqued from a variety of viewpoints, including (for instance) political economy, pragmatism, or cultural studies, and at differing levels, such as mass media or interpersonal communication.

My own take is to regard the entry and comments as an instance of discourse: academic, specific to one discipline, and (probably, as goes the zeitgeist) rooted more in space than time. The use of wit (humor) to display breadth, depth, and precision of one's knowledge in fast repartee is the most valorized contemporary mode of intellectual engagement. Everyone who can find a way in, does, and those who can't find their way quickly enough, don't. By the time the entry point clarifies into a path (or the perceptible path finds its entry point), the exchange is over, the event is closed. The instigators and participants have moved on to the next sexy thing. The normative behavior is that the immediate "space" occupied by this interaction has been effectively controlled: everyone (who matters?) gets to have their say in shining flashes of inspiration.

What strikes me, as an action researcher and a constructivist, is multileveled. First, unadulterated admiration. I envy the lightening comprehension and instant formulation of coherent, contextualized, educative information. Second, awe. WE KNOW SO MUCH. Ok, so I'm liberally folding myself into the "we," but seriously: look at the range of knowledge pouring out! It isn't as if there aren't tons of "us" out here who understand the historical momentum of the social forces we're working with - or against, as the case may be. blenCOWe continues:

"In terms of his liberal institutionalist and constructivist analyses, Drezner is counting on the fact that the zombies would have the cognitive ability to calculate the benefits and drawbacks to collaborating with other actors. As such, any ideas of building an international organization, including the presence of zombies, to deal with the presence of zombies or to build a world state inclusive of zombies appears to be quite impossible.

"Lastly, when he addresses neoconservatism he recognizes that the zombie threat was an existential threat, noting that the threat from zombies is from their jealously over our freedom and not from their desire for our brains. Like the faults with the other theories, this analysis is based on the faulty assumption that zombies have the ability to make cognitive decisions like that. The unavoidable fact is simple, zombies pose a threat to humans because of their desire for brains and for no other reason."

Zombies pose a threat not only because of their desire for eating brains, but - crucially - because that primal desire is coupled with an accompanying lack of brains. The implicit message in the IR discourse about Zombies is that there are, already, zombies among us. I suggest there are three broad types:

a) the undead who have accepted a singular social and ideological "programming" as the one and only way to make sense of their lives,
b) the undead who have embraced a particular intellectual framework in order to cope with existential anxiety and/or the evolutionary pressures of anarchy, and
c) the undead who have selected to master the terms of the zeigeist, "Let's get cynical!"

NOW WHAT?

With the "what" of varying ideological understandings so thoroughly grasped in the space of two days' interaction, enter the dimension of time. I'm speaking of deep time (esp. deep history), small time (i.e., Bakhtin), and time inclusive of the future. Politically, time is apprehendible in norms of culture and forms of institutions. Simply, what changes and what stays the same? As the Human versus Zombie IR debate unfolds, applications are posed or elaborated, such as two-level game theory and accepting Zombies as a new class to be integrated into the existing global structure. Erin, quoted above, offered

"a brief survey (n=3) I conducted in the last 5 minutes unanimously suggest[ing] that zombies should probably be considered alongside Kosovo to understand IR theory."

She also adds "an important caveat," to her random sampling:

"...2/3 of respondents volunteered that they conditioned their response on zombie attacks, unlike extraterrestrial visitations, remaining confined to the realm of hypothetical thought experiments."

While I agree with the pedagogical impulse, the effect of continuing to deploy ONLY such discrete strategies extends temporally into the future, replicating the same momentum of monological thought that substantively prevents us from finding collective means for creatively managing the diversity of human ways of being. In other words, will the brilliance of insight and potential demonstrated by Drezner & Company be translated into wisdom with a voice?

_____
excerpted from Brains: "an entity yet to be seen in world politics" at http://www.reflexivity.us/blog/archives/2009/08/brains-an-entit.html

This is my worst nightmare come true (and sometimes I believe it will actually happen) but I did see this mockumentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765430/) and enjoy the possible issues that would plague zombies rights and zombie living. Here the zombies exist on a scale of cognition, sometimes they seem totally normal with occasinoal smells and decomposing issues but on the other end, sometimes they are completely brute and cannot speak, but can be directed. This allows for a range of possible rights. It's kind of long and kind of independent, but following up this conversation I think it's worth the two hours!

The Italian School will try to discern which zombies are members of the Transnational Capitalist Class and how the remainder are articulated within the Global Political Economy Hardt and Negri will explain how this new form of footloose scavenger forms an advance guard of the Multitude. John Bellamy Foster will examine the metabolic rift underlying the emergence of zombies. Mike Davis will explain why zombie-ridden Riverside is still to be preferred to zombie-free gated enclaves. David Harvey and Neil Smith will explain the uneven development of scavenging zombie populations as an artifact of the annihilation of space by time and vice versa. Ellen Meiksins Wood will explain that the United States will maintain its position as the guarantor of capitalist accumulation through its DMD policy. The British SWP and ISO in America will invite zombies to seminars on the continuing relevance of the 1938 Transitional Programme. The few non-sectarian Marxist grouplets will grumble that the zombies should be locked in a room and not let out until they've agreed on the correct line. And the News and Letters crowd will finally find the mass base it's been looking for as hordes of zombies don Raya Dunayevskaya t-shirts.

Someone has to consider Hardin in this discussion. After all if it is in the best interest of every zombie to eat as many brains as possible then a zombie maximizing its own personal benefits would be foolish to leave behind the sole surviving living couple. As we all know, there is no economic rent in human brains. I fear that unless zombies can develop strong societal institutions to regulate the rate of brain consumption, humans are doomed!

Two hypothesis drawn from the neoclassical realist school would suggest:

a) The unique nature of zombies implies a harmony of interests among all individual units within zombie society, and consequently a perfect harmony between any zombie state and all of its members. Therefore, the domestic mobilization and resource extraction capabilities of any zombie state should far exceed that of any human state, and provided such a zombie state should seek to implement a policy of brain-consumption maximization (and what else would they do?), the potential power and therefore threat to other human states would weigh largely in any foreign policy calculations we were to make.

b) Though the global distribution of capabilities remains the most important factor in determining relations toward zombie states or otherwise, the taboo of dealing with the undead would lead to leaders to view any zombie actions as more threatening than might otherwise be implied, either because of their own cognitive bias or because of costs imposed by a hostile public.

Therefore, regardless of how ordinary relations with zombies would be in the structural realist school, the likelihood of war with zombies must be exceedingly greater than with human states.

I would just like to start by saying that this ranks alongside the debate over Jay-Z's hegemony as two of the best discussions ever.

Setting my enjoyment aside, I prefer the theory that some nations would deal with it better than others.
When we look at a potential Zombie infestation I presume that this Zombie 'epidemic' or however you call it will spread quickly and have more ease of spread in poorly-governed regions (just as conventional epidemics) and that the Zombies will have traditionally low levels of intelligence and mobility along with the common hunger for human flesh. In addition I presume that the animals that generally feed on dead flesh either would be unaffected or that they would avoid eating Zombies.

It seems to me that small to medium-sized nations with strong governments, disciplined police and soldiers, and efficient health services would probably be able to lead masses of unthinking Zombies into traps where conventional arsenals could be employed to destroy thousands in one blow (assuming that the epidemic could not be spread by winds created by the intense heat of course) while also searching through refugee populations for infected victims. Larger states might have more difficulty due to the large areas that could potentially hide large 'populations' of Zombies, but at the same time the amount of land available would be useful in retreating and exchanging territory for time much like a guerrilla force.

If we change the assumption to presume that the Zombies would keep a level of intelligence comparable to that of a human or at least an early ancestor of humans it isn't difficult to imagine that in two to three generations human leaders would begin to make treaties with Zombie states or tribes against other human or Zombie states, assuming that the basic nature of the Zombies doesn't force them to constantly break such treaties and attack. While there would obviously be a great deal of prejudice and fear at the idea, it seems rather like the alliances made between Christian and Muslim states before the 20th century.

On a last note, if we assume that the Zombies would have a level of intelligence comparable to humans but retain a constant aggressive hunger or that the Zombie epidemic would spread from Zombie flesh to carnivorous animals then I would predict a general collapse of all human (and eventually all animal) life on the planet. At that point humans would be dealing with an enemy of greater endurance or an epidemic too quick and devastating to be stopped. Humanities only hope for survival would be to leave the planet and annihilate the Zombie population with nuclear weapons to prevent pursuit.