We present the first dataset, an annotation scheme, discourse analysis, and baseline experiments on argumentation and domain content types in scholarly articles on political science, specifically on the theory of International Relations (IR). The dataset comprises over 1 600 sentences stemming from three foundational articles on Neo-Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. We show that our annotation scheme enables educationally-relevant insight into the scholarly IR discourse and that state-of-the-art classifiers, while effective in distinguishing basic argumentative elements (Claims and Support/Attack relations) reaching up to 0.97 micro F1 , require domain-specific training and fine-tuning on the more fine-grained tasks of relation and content type prediction.