Short circuits: Society and tradition in international relations theory

Review of International Studies

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 339-360

  Bartelson, Jens ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030509288     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0260210500118613     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. J. S. Dryzek and S. T. Leonard, 'History and Discipline in Political Science', American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), pp. 1245-60, p. 1249. These authors draw heavily upon ideas developed by Imre Lakatos and Alasdair MacIntyre. See I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Cambridge, 1978); A. MacIntyre, 'Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narratives, and the Philosophy of Science', The Monist, 60 (1977), pp. 468-9.
2. J. S. Dryzek and S. T. Leonard, 'History and Discipline in Political Science', American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), pp. 1245-60, p. 1249. These authors draw heavily upon ideas developed by Imre Lakatos and Alasdair MacIntyre. See I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Cambridge, 1978); A. MacIntyre, 'Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narratives, and the Philosophy of Science', The Monist, 60 (1977), pp. 468-9.
3. J. S. Dryzek and S. T. Leonard, 'History and Discipline in Political Science', American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), pp. 1245-60, p. 1249. These authors draw heavily upon ideas developed by Imre Lakatos and Alasdair MacIntyre. See I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Cambridge, 1978); A. MacIntyre, 'Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narratives, and the Philosophy of Science', The Monist, 60 (1977), pp. 468-9.
4. B. C. Schmidt. 'The Historiography of Academic International Relations', Review of International Studies, 20 (1994), pp. 349-67.
5. See for example Bernstein's discussion of the different functions of history in R. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge, 1991 ), ch. 1. See also R. Rorty. 'The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres', in R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind and Q. Skinner (eds.), Philosophy in History (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 49-75: J. J. E. Gracia, Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical Historiography (New York, 1992).
6. See for example Bernstein's discussion of the different functions of history in R. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge, 1991 ), ch. 1. See also R. Rorty. 'The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres', in R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind and Q. Skinner (eds.), Philosophy in History (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 49-75: J. J. E. Gracia, Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical Historiography (New York, 1992).
7. See for example Bernstein's discussion of the different functions of history in R. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (Cambridge, 1991 ), ch. 1. See also R. Rorty. 'The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres', in R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind and Q. Skinner (eds.), Philosophy in History (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 49-75: J. J. E. Gracia, Philosophy and Its History: Issues in Philosophical Historiography (New York, 1992).
8. For earlier comments, see W. Olson and N. G. Onuf, 'The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed', in S. Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985); R. E. Jones, 'The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure', Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1-12; G. Berridge, 'The Political and Institutional History of States-Systems', British Journal of International Studies, 6 (1980), pp. 82-92; O. Wæver, 'International Society - Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?', Cooperation and Conflict, 27 (1992), pp. 97-128.
9. For earlier comments, see W. Olson and N. G. Onuf, 'The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed', in S. Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985); R. E. Jones, 'The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure', Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1-12; G. Berridge, 'The Political and Institutional History of States-Systems', British Journal of International Studies, 6 (1980), pp. 82-92; O. Wæver, 'International Society - Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?', Cooperation and Conflict, 27 (1992), pp. 97-128.
10. For earlier comments, see W. Olson and N. G. Onuf, 'The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed', in S. Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985); R. E. Jones, 'The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure', Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1-12; G. Berridge, 'The Political and Institutional History of States-Systems', British Journal of International Studies, 6 (1980), pp. 82-92; O. Wæver, 'International Society - Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?', Cooperation and Conflict, 27 (1992), pp. 97-128.
11. For earlier comments, see W. Olson and N. G. Onuf, 'The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed', in S. Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985); R. E. Jones, 'The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure', Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1-12; G. Berridge, 'The Political and Institutional History of States-Systems', British Journal of International Studies, 6 (1980), pp. 82-92; O. Wæver, 'International Society - Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?', Cooperation and Conflict, 27 (1992), pp. 97-128.
12. M. Wight, 'An Anatomy of International Thought', Review of International Studies, 13 (1987), p. 222.
13. Ibid., p. 222.
14. H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London, 1977), p. 13.
15. Ibid., pp. 9-10.
16. S. Hoffmann, 'Hedley Bull and his Contribution to International Relations', International Affairs, 62 (1986), pp. 182-93.
17. H. Bull and A. Watson, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984), p. 1.
18. Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 46.
19. Ibid., p. 16.
20. Hoffmann, 'Hedley Bull', p. 186.
21. A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis (London, 1992), p. 14.
22. Ibid., pp. 13-18.
23. Cf. B. Buzan, 'From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School', International Organization, 47 (1993), pp. 327-52, pp. 343f; see also B. Buzan, 'The Idea of "International System": Theory Meets History', International Political Science Review, 15 (1994), pp. 231-56.
24. Cf. B. Buzan, 'From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School', International Organization, 47 (1993), pp. 327-52, pp. 343f; see also B. Buzan, 'The Idea of "International System": Theory Meets History', International Political Science Review, 15 (1994), pp. 231-56.
25. Buzan, 'From International System', p. 332.
26. Cf. B. Buzan, 'Rethinking System and Structure', in B. Buzan, C. Jones and R. Little, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (New York, 1993), pp. 20-80, p. 71, where he uses the concept 'interaction capacity' to distinguish between international system and international society.
27. Buzan. 'From International System', p. 342.
28. Ibid., pp. 345-6; Cf. E. Ringmar, 'The Relevance of International Law: A Hegelian Interpretation of a Peculiar Seventeenth-Century Preoccupation', Review of International Studies, 21 (1995), pp. 87-103.
29. Ibid., pp. 345-6; Cf. E. Ringmar, 'The Relevance of International Law: A Hegelian Interpretation of a Peculiar Seventeenth-Century Preoccupation', Review of International Studies, 21 (1995), pp. 87-103.
30. Buzan, 'Rethinking System', p. 31.
31. M. Hollis and S. Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford, 1990), p. 211.
32. A. James, 'System or Society?', Review of International Studies, 19(1993), pp. 269-88.
33. See for example A. Wendt, 'The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory', International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 335-70; D. Dessler, 'What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?', International Organization, 43 (1989), pp. 441-73.
34. See for example A. Wendt, 'The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory', International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 335-70; D. Dessler, 'What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?', International Organization, 43 (1989), pp. 441-73.
35. See for example A. Wendt. 'Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics', International Organization, 46 (1992), pp. 391-425; A. Wendt, 'Collective Identity Formation and The International State', American Political Science Review, 88 (1994), pp. 384-96.
36. See for example A. Wendt. 'Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics', International Organization, 46 (1992), pp. 391-425; A. Wendt, 'Collective Identity Formation and The International State', American Political Science Review, 88 (1994), pp. 384-96.
37. See T. Nardin, 'Ethical Traditions in International Affairs', in T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel, Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 6-8; Cf. also M. Krygier, 'Law as Tradition', Law and Philosophy, 5 (1986), pp. 237-62.
38. See T. Nardin, 'Ethical Traditions in International Affairs', in T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel, Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 6-8; Cf. also M. Krygier, 'Law as Tradition', Law and Philosophy, 5 (1986), pp. 237-62.
39. A. MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (London, 1988), p. 327.
40. For a well-known criticism of this view, see Q. Skinner, 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas', in J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 29-67.
41. The failure to grasp this connection has fuelled some debate; see M. Bevir, 'Are There Perennial Problems in Political Theory?', Political Studies, 42 (1994), pp. 662-75.
42. Cf. J. G. Gunnell, 'The Myth of the Tradition', American Political Science Review, 72 (1978), pp. 122-34.
43. E. J. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, 1983), p. 13.
44. This way of defining the concept of tradition is consistent with Pocock's notion of languages as the basic units of investigation in the history of ideas. See J. G. A. Pocock, 'The State of the Art', in J. G. A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce and History (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1-34; J. G. A. Pocock, 'The Concept of Language and the métier d'historien: Some Considerations on Practice', in A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 19-38.
45. This way of defining the concept of tradition is consistent with Pocock's notion of languages as the basic units of investigation in the history of ideas. See J. G. A. Pocock, 'The State of the Art', in J. G. A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce and History (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1-34; J. G. A. Pocock, 'The Concept of Language and the métier d'historien: Some Considerations on Practice', in A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 19-38.
46. Just to mention a few examples of this widespread practice: J. E. Dougherty and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 10f, 65f; K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA, 1985), ch. 1; I. Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge, 1989), chs. 1-4 ; R. Gilpin, 'The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism', in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 301-21; S. Forde, 'International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 141-60.
47. Just to mention a few examples of this widespread practice: J. E. Dougherty and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 10f, 65f; K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA, 1985), ch. 1; I. Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge, 1989), chs. 1-4 ; R. Gilpin, 'The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism', in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 301-21; S. Forde, 'International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 141-60.
48. Just to mention a few examples of this widespread practice: J. E. Dougherty and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 10f, 65f; K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA, 1985), ch. 1; I. Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge, 1989), chs. 1-4 ; R. Gilpin, 'The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism', in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 301-21; S. Forde, 'International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 141-60.
49. Just to mention a few examples of this widespread practice: J. E. Dougherty and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 10f, 65f; K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA, 1985), ch. 1; I. Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge, 1989), chs. 1-4 ; R. Gilpin, 'The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism', in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 301-21; S. Forde, 'International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 141-60.
50. Just to mention a few examples of this widespread practice: J. E. Dougherty and R. L. Pfaltzgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, PA, 1971), pp. 10f, 65f; K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA, 1985), ch. 1; I. Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge, 1989), chs. 1-4 ; R. Gilpin, 'The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism', in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), pp. 301-21; S. Forde, 'International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 141-60.
51. This practice is not confined to international relations theory, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one has animated most textbook histories of international law, sometimes to the point of being their unquestioned foundation. Just to take a few examples: J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Oxford, 1942), pp. 20f; H. Lauterpacht, 'The Grotian Tradition in International Law', British Yearbook of International Law 1946; C. de Visscher, Théories et réalités en droit international public (Paris, 1953), pp. 22-3, 27-8; K. Ipsen, Völkerrecht (Munich, 1990), pp. 19ff.
52. This practice is not confined to international relations theory, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one has animated most textbook histories of international law, sometimes to the point of being their unquestioned foundation. Just to take a few examples: J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Oxford, 1942), pp. 20f; H. Lauterpacht, 'The Grotian Tradition in International Law', British Yearbook of International Law 1946; C. de Visscher, Théories et réalités en droit international public (Paris, 1953), pp. 22-3, 27-8; K. Ipsen, Völkerrecht (Munich, 1990), pp. 19ff.
53. This practice is not confined to international relations theory, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one has animated most textbook histories of international law, sometimes to the point of being their unquestioned foundation. Just to take a few examples: J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Oxford, 1942), pp. 20f; H. Lauterpacht, 'The Grotian Tradition in International Law', British Yearbook of International Law 1946; C. de Visscher, Théories et réalités en droit international public (Paris, 1953), pp. 22-3, 27-8; K. Ipsen, Völkerrecht (Munich, 1990), pp. 19ff.
54. This practice is not confined to international relations theory, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one has animated most textbook histories of international law, sometimes to the point of being their unquestioned foundation. Just to take a few examples: J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Oxford, 1942), pp. 20f; H. Lauterpacht, 'The Grotian Tradition in International Law', British Yearbook of International Law 1946; C. de Visscher, Théories et réalités en droit international public (Paris, 1953), pp. 22-3, 27-8; K. Ipsen, Völkerrecht (Munich, 1990), pp. 19ff.
55. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
56. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
57. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
58. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
59. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
60. Wight, 'Anatomy', pp. 222f; M. Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester, 1991), pp. 30f; H. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966), pp. 37f; Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24f. My omission of the Revolutionist or Kantian tradition can be justified on three separate grounds. First, since the opposition between a Grotian tradition and a Hobbesian one seems to be more widely taken for granted in the literature, and since their respective founders were roughly contemporaneous, it deserves more critical attention. Second, I have treated Kant and interpretations of him extensively elsewhere. See for example 'The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39 (1995), pp. 255-79. Third, the interpretation of Kant to which theorists of international society conventionally have subscribed has been questioned to the extent that the question of whether there exists a Kantian tradition or not has become quite uninteresting. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 183-205.
61. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 226.
62. H. Bull, 'Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations', British Journal of International Studies, 2 (1976), pp. 101-16, p. 111.
63. Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 24.
64. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 222; cf. M. Wight, 'Western Values in International Relations', p. 92, and 'Why is There No International Theory?', p. 31, both in Wight and Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, pp. 89-131, 17-34.
65. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 222; cf. M. Wight, 'Western Values in International Relations', p. 92, and 'Why is There No International Theory?', p. 31, both in Wight and Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, pp. 89-131, 17-34.
66. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 222; cf. M. Wight, 'Western Values in International Relations', p. 92, and 'Why is There No International Theory?', p. 31, both in Wight and Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, pp. 89-131, 17-34.
67. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 222; cf. M. Wight, 'Western Values in International Relations', p. 92, and 'Why is There No International Theory?', p. 31, both in Wight and Butterfield (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, pp. 89-131, 17-34.
68. Bull, 'Society and Anarchy', p. 40.
69. T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Cambridge, 1989), ch. XIII, p. 90.
70. H. Bull, 'Hobbes and International Anarchy', Social Research, 48 (1981 ), pp. 717-38, p. 721.
71. Bull, 'Society and Anarchy', p. 37.
72. Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 24-5.
73. Wight, 'Western Values', p. 95.
74. Bull and Watson, Expansion of International Society, p. 1.
75. Wight, 'Anatomy', p. 223.
76. Wight. 'Western Values', pp. 96-7.
77. Bull, Anarchical Society, pp. 26-7.
78. H. Bull, 'The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations', p. 78, in H. Bull, B. Kingsbury and A. Roberts (eds)., Hugo Grotius and International Relations (Oxford, 1990), pp. 65-93.
79. H. Bull, 'The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations', p. 78, in H. Bull, B. Kingsbury and A. Roberts (eds)., Hugo Grotius and International Relations (Oxford, 1990), pp. 65-93.
80. Wight, International Theory, p. 39.
81. Bull. 'Society and Anarchy', p. 39.
82. Wight, International Theory, p. 39.
83. Bull, 'Importance of Grotius', p. 83.
84. Ibid., p. 78.
85. Wight, International Theory, p. 37.
86. Bull, 'Importance of Grotius', pp. 84, 87.
87. To take two important examples: R. Coke, Justice Vindicated from the False Focus put Upon It, by Thomas White Gent, Mr. Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius (London, 1660); A. Ascham, Of the Confusions and Revolutions of Governments (London, 1649).
88. To take two important examples: R. Coke, Justice Vindicated from the False Focus put Upon It, by Thomas White Gent, Mr. Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius (London, 1660); A. Ascham, Of the Confusions and Revolutions of Governments (London, 1649).
89. S. von Pufendorf, Specimen controveriarum circa jus naturale ipsi nuper motarum (Uppsala, 1678), discussed in R. Tuck, 'The "Modern" Theory of Natural Law', in Pagden (ed.), Languages, pp. 99-122.
90. S. von Pufendorf, Specimen controveriarum circa jus naturale ipsi nuper motarum (Uppsala, 1678), discussed in R. Tuck, 'The "Modern" Theory of Natural Law', in Pagden (ed.), Languages, pp. 99-122.
91. J. Barbeyrac, 'An Historical and Critical Account of the Science of Morality', preface to S. von Pufendorf, The Law of Nature and Nations, tr. B. Kennet (London, 1749).
92. Wight, International Theory, p. 38.
93. R. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, 1979); R. Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 154ff, 279ff.
94. R. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development (Cambridge, 1979); R. Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 154ff, 279ff.
95. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, pp. 50-7, 67, ch. 6; cf. D. Baumgold, Hobbes's Political Theory (Cambridge, 1988), p. 26.
96. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, pp. 50-7, 67, ch. 6; cf. D. Baumgold, Hobbes's Political Theory (Cambridge, 1988), p. 26.
97. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, p. 61.
98. H. Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, tr. F. W. Kelsey (Oxford, 1925), p. 186.
99. Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, p. 15.
100. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, p. 62.
101. For an influential interpretation, see A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York, 1950), pp. 112-18; more recently J. M. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford, 1992), pp. 212f.
102. For an influential interpretation, see A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York, 1950), pp. 112-18; more recently J. M. Kelly, A Short History of Western Legal Theory (Oxford, 1992), pp. 212f.
103. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 111.
104. Ibid., p. 91.
105. A. Pizzorno, 'On the Individualistic Theory of Social Order', in P. Bourdieu and J. S. Coleman (eds.), Social Theory for a Changing Society (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 209-34, pp. 217-19.
106. R. E. Ewin, Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 4, 66-8; D. Chabot, 'Thomas Hobbes: Skeptical Moralist', American Political Science Review, 89 (1995), pp. 401-10.
107. R. E. Ewin, Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 4, 66-8; D. Chabot, 'Thomas Hobbes: Skeptical Moralist', American Political Science Review, 89 (1995), pp. 401-10.
108. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
109. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
110. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
111. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
112. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
113. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
114. To Grotius, the law of nature 'can easily be brought into systematic form', hence it is possible to treat matters of jurisprudence in the same fashion as 'mathematicians treat their figures as abstracted from bodies' (Grotius, 'Prolegomena', De iure belli ac pacis, pp. 21, 30); Cf. E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and International Relations (New York, 1975), p. 148; S. Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago, 1990), p. 76; L. Dupré, Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature (New Haven, CT, 1993), pp. 126-34. To Hobbes, the 'skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 145). Cf. Q. Skinner, '"Scientia Civilis" in Classical Rhetoric and in the Early Hobbes', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner (eds.), Political Discourse in Early-Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 67-93; F. S. McNeilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan (London, 1968), p. 63.
115. B. Kingsbury and A. Roberts, 'Introduction: Grotian Thought in International Relations', pp. 51-64, in Bull et al. (eds.), Hugo Grotius, pp. 1-64.
116. B. Kingsbury and A. Roberts, 'Introduction: Grotian Thought in International Relations', pp. 51-64, in Bull et al. (eds.), Hugo Grotius, pp. 1-64.
117. Wight, International Theory, p. 37.
118. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, p. 63.
119. See for example T. L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory (Manchester, 1986), p. 86: 'Grotius created a conception of international relations as political interaction in a society of states'.
120. H. Suganami, 'A Note on the Origin of the Word "International"', British Journal of International Studies, 4 (1978), pp. 226-32.
121. Cf. Knutsen, History of International Relations Theory, pp. 90f, who strangely reads into Leviathan the doctrine that the international anarchy emerged as a result of the establishment of states - a doctrine which had to await a Rousseau for its articulation.
122. C. Cutler, 'The "Grotian Tradition" in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 41-65, p. 49.
123. Cf. K. Haakonsen, 'Hugo Grotius and the History of Political Thought', Political Theory, 13 (1985), pp. 239-65; Midgley, Natural Law Tradition, passim.
124. Cf. K. Haakonsen, 'Hugo Grotius and the History of Political Thought', Political Theory, 13 (1985), pp. 239-65; Midgley, Natural Law Tradition, passim.
125. B. V. A. Röling, 'Are Grotius' Ideas Obsolete in an Expanded World?', in Bull, et al. (eds.), Hugo Grotius, pp. 281-99; G. Schwarzenberger, 'The Grotius Factor in International Law and Relations: A Functional Approach', ibid., pp. 301-12.
126. B. V. A. Röling, 'Are Grotius' Ideas Obsolete in an Expanded World?', in Bull, et al. (eds.), Hugo Grotius, pp. 281-99; G. Schwarzenberger, 'The Grotius Factor in International Law and Relations: A Functional Approach', ibid., pp. 301-12.
127. H. Suganami, 'Grotius and International Equality', ibid., pp. 221-40.
128. D. Kennedy, 'Primitive Legal Scholarship', Harvard International Law Journal, 21 (1986), pp. 1-98, p. 90.
129. Cf. M. Forsyth, 'The Tradition of International Law', pp. 26, 37-8, in Nardin and Mapel (eds.), Traditions, pp. 23-41.
130. Cf. M. Forsyth, 'The Tradition of International Law', pp. 26, 37-8, in Nardin and Mapel (eds.), Traditions, pp. 23-41.
131. Kennedy, 'Primitive Legal Scholarship', p. 96.
132. H. Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 6-12.
133. Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. XIII, p. 90.
134. J. Bartelson, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1995), ch. 6.
135. G. Vico, The New Science, tr. T. G. Bergin and M. H. Fisch (Ithaca, NY, 1968), pp. 78ff.
136. J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, p. 183, in J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract and the Discourses, tr. G. D. H. Cole (London, 1990).
137. J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, p. 183, in J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract and the Discourses, tr. G. D. H. Cole (London, 1990).
138. See I. Berlin, Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas (London, 1976).
139. Cf. D. Faucci, '"L'Estimazione del giusto" selon Grotius et selon Vico', Grotiana, 1 (1980).
140. See for example F. Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and its Place in Modern History,tr. D. Scott (Boulder, CO and London, 1984), pp. 207ff.
141. See for example G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present (Middletown, CT, 1968), pp. 63-174; W. J. Mommsen, 'Ranke and the Neo-Rankean School in Imperial Germany', in G. G. Iggers and J. M. Powell (eds), Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline (Syracuse, NY, 1990), pp. 124-140.
142. See for example G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present (Middletown, CT, 1968), pp. 63-174; W. J. Mommsen, 'Ranke and the Neo-Rankean School in Imperial Germany', in G. G. Iggers and J. M. Powell (eds), Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline (Syracuse, NY, 1990), pp. 124-140.