Historiography and international relations

Review of International Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 291-299

  Little, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039850202     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210599002910     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Cited in Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, 1957), p. 3.
2. This idea was popularised by Stanley Hoffmann. See 'An American Social Science: International Relations'. Daedalus: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 106 (Summer 1977), pp. 41-59.
3. See Richard Little 'The Evolution of International Relations as a Social Science', in R. C. Kent and G. P. Nielsson (eds.), The Study and Teaching of International Relations (London: 1980).
4. Westel Woodbury Willoughby, 'The Juristic Conception of the State', American Political Science Review, 12 (1918), pp. 192-208. Cited in Schmidt, p. 90.
5. Schmidt, p. 231.
6. See Robert L. Rothstein 'On the Costs of Realism' Political Science Quarterly, 87 (1972), pp. 347-62.
7. There is a growing interest in the role played by ideology in US foreign policy amongst both diplomatic historians - see Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and US Foreign Policy (New Haven and London, 1987) - and political scientists - see Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the World Wide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1994). For a more extensive discussion of the role of ideology in International Relations see Richard Little 'Ideology and Change' in Barry Buzan and R. J. Barry Jones (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension (London, 1981).
8. There is a growing interest in the role played by ideology in US foreign policy amongst both diplomatic historians - see Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and US Foreign Policy (New Haven and London, 1987) - and political scientists - see Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the World Wide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1994). For a more extensive discussion of the role of ideology in International Relations see Richard Little 'Ideology and Change' in Barry Buzan and R. J. Barry Jones (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension (London, 1981).
9. There is a growing interest in the role played by ideology in US foreign policy amongst both diplomatic historians - see Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and US Foreign Policy (New Haven and London, 1987) - and political scientists - see Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the World Wide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1994). For a more extensive discussion of the role of ideology in International Relations see Richard Little 'Ideology and Change' in Barry Buzan and R. J. Barry Jones (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension (London, 1981).
10. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, trans. L.Wirth and E. Shils (1936), new edn (London, 1991). For a discussion of the epistemological problems that flow from Mannheim's conception of ideology, see Martin Landau, Political Theory and Political Science: Studies in the Methodology of Political Inquiry (New York, 1972) pp. 34-42.
11. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, trans. L.Wirth and E. Shils (1936), new edn (London, 1991). For a discussion of the epistemological problems that flow from Mannheim's conception of ideology, see Martin Landau, Political Theory and Political Science: Studies in the Methodology of Political Inquiry (New York, 1972) pp. 34-42.
12. Frederick L. Schuman, International Politics: The Destiny of the Western State System, 4th edn (New York, 1948 [1933]), p. 81.
13. For an important new account of US foreign policy which shows how the spread of liberalism has been bound up with an unprecedented production of military power see Robert Latham, The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security and the Making of the Postwar International Order (New York, 1997).
14. See Martin Griffiths Realism, Idealism and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (London, 1992) for another unorthodox historiographical assessment of International Relations. See R. D. McKinlay and R. Little, Global Problems and World Order (London, 1986) for an attempt to distinguish liberal and realist perspectives on international relations.
15. See Martin Griffiths Realism, Idealism and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (London, 1992) for another unorthodox historiographical assessment of International Relations. See R. D. McKinlay and R. Little, Global Problems and World Order (London, 1986) for an attempt to distinguish liberal and realist perspectives on international relations.