Scholarship in an era of anxiety: The study of international politics during the cold war

Review of International Studies

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 17-45

  Holsti, K J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040843575     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0260210598000175     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. The primacy of intellectual discourse over context as explanation for the development of a field is argued by Brian C. Schmidt, 'The Historiography of Academic International Relations', Review of International Studies, 20 (October 1994), pp. 349-67. For the argument that theoretical renderings in the field are formed by both ideology and diplomatic context, see Torbjørn L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory, 2nd edn (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1997), esp. ch. 9.
2. The primacy of intellectual discourse over context as explanation for the development of a field is argued by Brian C. Schmidt, 'The Historiography of Academic International Relations', Review of International Studies, 20 (October 1994), pp. 349-67. For the argument that theoretical renderings in the field are formed by both ideology and diplomatic context, see Torbjørn L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory, 2nd edn (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1997), esp. ch. 9.
3. Schmidt criticizes many recent renditions of disciplinary history for legitimizing contemporary intellectual positions ('presentism'). I employ Hobbes, Rousseau, and others not to establish, as Schmidt suggests, a 'false sense of coherence and continuity' (p. 356) but to show that Cold War era normative concerns in IR theory were similar to those that preoccupied certain historical figures. Rousseau and Kant read Hobbes (and each other) and were engaged in a 'discourse' on the sources of war and the conditions of peace - just as Morgenthau and Waltz were. Morgenthau invoked Hobbes (via Niebuhr) in the first chapter of his famous text. Waltz' Theory of International Politics probably would have been very different had the author not fully studied Rousseau's writings on war. Stanley Hoffmann acknowledged that the works of Rousseau and Kant inspired his own scholarship - and thus constitute part of the history of the field. See Stanley Hoffmann, 'A Retrospective', in Joseph Kruzel and James N. Rosenau (eds.), Journeys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travelers (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 275. For an analysis of the continuity of analytical themes, see Jürgen Martin Gabriel, Worldviews and Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1994). The view that there is no continuity or discourse between generations separated by two or more centuries does not agree with the evidence. There is a 'classical tradition' that is continuous in the normative problem to diagnose, the perceived images of the world, the nature of actors, and other matters.
4. Schmidt criticizes many recent renditions of disciplinary history for legitimizing contemporary intellectual positions ('presentism'). I employ Hobbes, Rousseau, and others not to establish, as Schmidt suggests, a 'false sense of coherence and continuity' (p. 356) but to show that Cold War era normative concerns in IR theory were similar to those that preoccupied certain historical figures. Rousseau and Kant read Hobbes (and each other) and were engaged in a 'discourse' on the sources of war and the conditions of peace - just as Morgenthau and Waltz were. Morgenthau invoked Hobbes (via Niebuhr) in the first chapter of his famous text. Waltz' Theory of International Politics probably would have been very different had the author not fully studied Rousseau's writings on war. Stanley Hoffmann acknowledged that the works of Rousseau and Kant inspired his own scholarship - and thus constitute part of the history of the field. See Stanley Hoffmann, 'A Retrospective', in Joseph Kruzel and James N. Rosenau (eds.), Journeys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travelers (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 275. For an analysis of the continuity of analytical themes, see Jürgen Martin Gabriel, Worldviews and Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1994). The view that there is no continuity or discourse between generations separated by two or more centuries does not agree with the evidence. There is a 'classical tradition' that is continuous in the normative problem to diagnose, the perceived images of the world, the nature of actors, and other matters.
5. Schmidt criticizes many recent renditions of disciplinary history for legitimizing contemporary intellectual positions ('presentism'). I employ Hobbes, Rousseau, and others not to establish, as Schmidt suggests, a 'false sense of coherence and continuity' (p. 356) but to show that Cold War era normative concerns in IR theory were similar to those that preoccupied certain historical figures. Rousseau and Kant read Hobbes (and each other) and were engaged in a 'discourse' on the sources of war and the conditions of peace - just as Morgenthau and Waltz were. Morgenthau invoked Hobbes (via Niebuhr) in the first chapter of his famous text. Waltz' Theory of International Politics probably would have been very different had the author not fully studied Rousseau's writings on war. Stanley Hoffmann acknowledged that the works of Rousseau and Kant inspired his own scholarship - and thus constitute part of the history of the field. See Stanley Hoffmann, 'A Retrospective', in Joseph Kruzel and James N. Rosenau (eds.), Journeys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travelers (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 275. For an analysis of the continuity of analytical themes, see Jürgen Martin Gabriel, Worldviews and Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1994). The view that there is no continuity or discourse between generations separated by two or more centuries does not agree with the evidence. There is a 'classical tradition' that is continuous in the normative problem to diagnose, the perceived images of the world, the nature of actors, and other matters.
6. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
7. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
8. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
9. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
10. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
11. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985); William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991); Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988); Torbjørn Knutson, A History of International Relations Theory; Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945', in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53; Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, Tombstones and Milestones: International Organization and International Relations Theory, 1968-1998 (forthcoming).
12. Morton Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York: Wiley, 1957).
13. Charles A. McClelland, Theory and the International System (New York: Macmillan, 1966); Herbert J. Spiro, World Politics: The Global System (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1966); Richard Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in International Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963).
14. Charles A. McClelland, Theory and the International System (New York: Macmillan, 1966); Herbert J. Spiro, World Politics: The Global System (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1966); Richard Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in International Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963).
15. Charles A. McClelland, Theory and the International System (New York: Macmillan, 1966); Herbert J. Spiro, World Politics: The Global System (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1966); Richard Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in International Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1963).
16. Frank Simonds and Brooks Emeny, The Great Powers in World Politics (New York: American Book Co., 1935).
17. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1979), ch. 3.
18. Alan Ned Sabrosky (ed.), Polarity and War (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985) and Daniel S. Geller and J. David Singer, Nations at War A Scientific Study of International Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), ch. 6.
19. Alan Ned Sabrosky (ed.), Polarity and War (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985) and Daniel S. Geller and J. David Singer, Nations at War A Scientific Study of International Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), ch. 6.
20. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, ch. 6; John Mearsheimer, 'Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War', International Security, 15 (1990), pp. 5-56.
21. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, ch. 6; John Mearsheimer, 'Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War', International Security, 15 (1990), pp. 5-56.
22. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977).
23. Gerrit Gong, The 'Standard of Civilization' in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984); and Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
24. Gerrit Gong, The 'Standard of Civilization' in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984); and Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
25. Martin Wight, Systems of States (Leicester: University of Leicester Press, 1977); and Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge, 1992).
26. Martin Wight, Systems of States (Leicester: University of Leicester Press, 1977); and Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge, 1992).
27. John Burton, World Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
28. Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (eds.), World Politics and Transnational Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972).
29. K.J. Holsti, 'Along the Road to International Theory', International Journal, 39, 2 (1984), p. 350.
30. Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout, The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965).
31. Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin, Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics, Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series No. 3 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954); and Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin (eds.), Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1962).
32. Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin, Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics, Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series No. 3 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954); and Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin (eds.), Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1962).
33. Ole R. Holsti, 'The Belief-System and National Images: A Case Study', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6 (1962), pp. 244-52.
34. Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976).
35. Cf. Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972).
36. Alexander L. George, 'The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy', American Political Science Review (September 1972), pp. 751-85; and Alexander L. George, Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980).
37. Alexander L. George, 'The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy', American Political Science Review (September 1972), pp. 751-85; and Alexander L. George, Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980).
38. For the example of the Cuban crisis, see Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972); for a summary of the comparative study, see Ole R. Holsti, Crisis, Escalation, War (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1972). For general essays on crisis decision-making, see Charles F. Hermann, Crises in Foreign Policy (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).
39. For the example of the Cuban crisis, see Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972); for a summary of the comparative study, see Ole R. Holsti, Crisis, Escalation, War (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1972). For general essays on crisis decision-making, see Charles F. Hermann, Crises in Foreign Policy (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).
40. For the example of the Cuban crisis, see Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972); for a summary of the comparative study, see Ole R. Holsti, Crisis, Escalation, War (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1972). For general essays on crisis decision-making, see Charles F. Hermann, Crises in Foreign Policy (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).
41. For a comprehensive review of the development of this literature, see Richard Ned Lebow, 'Beyond Parsimony: Rethinking Theories of Coercive Bargaining', European Journal of International Relations, 4, 1 (March 1998), pp. 31-66.
42. Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, translated and edited by Anne M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 339.
43. David Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966).
44. Karl W. Deutsch, Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1954); and Karl W. Deutsch, et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967).
45. Karl W. Deutsch, Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1954); and Karl W. Deutsch, et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967).
46. Edward L. Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: The Free Press, 1976); Robert O. Keohane, 'International Institutions: Two Approaches', International Studies Quarterly, 32, 4 (December 1988), pp. 379-96; and Peter Haas (ed.), International Organization (Special Issue on Epistemic Communities), 46 (1992).
47. Edward L. Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: The Free Press, 1976); Robert O. Keohane, 'International Institutions: Two Approaches', International Studies Quarterly, 32, 4 (December 1988), pp. 379-96; and Peter Haas (ed.), International Organization (Special Issue on Epistemic Communities), 46 (1992).
48. Edward L. Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: The Free Press, 1976); Robert O. Keohane, 'International Institutions: Two Approaches', International Studies Quarterly, 32, 4 (December 1988), pp. 379-96; and Peter Haas (ed.), International Organization (Special Issue on Epistemic Communities), 46 (1992).
49. Robert M. A. Crawford, Regime Theory in the Post-Cold War World: Rethinking Neoliberal Approaches to International Relations (Aldershot, Hants.: Dartmouth, 1996).
50. A comprehensive survey of the various strands of liberalism in international relations theory is in Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in Charles Kegley (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50.
51. See Nicholas Onuf, World of our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbus, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989).
52. Andre Gunder Frank, 'The Development of Underdevelopment', in James Cockroft (ed.), Dependence and Under-Development (New York: Doubleday, 1972), pp. 3-17.
53. Johan Galtung, 'A Structural Theory of Imperialism', Journal of Peace Research, 8 (1971), pp. 81-117.
54. Domination of the field in the United States by realism is empirically supported in the important study by John A. Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983).
55. The most important English-language non-theoretical treatment of imperialism remains Parker T. Moon Imperialism and World Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1926).
56. Hedley Bull, Anarchical Society, ch. 9.
57. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, pp. 72-3.
58. K.J. Holsti, 'International Theory and War in the Third World', in Brian Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992), pp. 37-62; and K.J. Holsti, 'International Relations Theory and Domestic Wars in the Third World: The Limits of Relevance', in Stephanie Neuman (ed.), International Relations Theory and the Third World (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998), pp. 103-32.
59. K.J. Holsti, 'International Theory and War in the Third World', in Brian Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992), pp. 37-62; and K.J. Holsti, 'International Relations Theory and Domestic Wars in the Third World: The Limits of Relevance', in Stephanie Neuman (ed.), International Relations Theory and the Third World (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998), pp. 103-32.
60. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline.
61. Stanley Hoffmann, 'An American Science: International Relations', Daedelaus, 106, 3 (1977), pp. 41-60.
62. See a further elaboration in Miles Kahler, 'Inventing International Relations'.
63. Hoffmann's argument is more accurate if it refers primarily to the extent and pattern of funding, the relationship between scholars and government, and the organization of academic departments and schools.
64. Torbjørn Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory, p. 1.
65. See the critiques of the balance of power concept by Ernst B. Haas, 'The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?' World Politics, 5 (July 1953), pp. 442-77; and by A. F. K. Organski, World Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958).
66. See the critiques of the balance of power concept by Ernst B. Haas, 'The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?' World Politics, 5 (July 1953), pp. 442-77; and by A. F. K. Organski, World Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958).
67. Hedley Bull, 'International Relations Theory 1919-1969', in Brian Porter (ed.), International Politics 1919-1969 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 32.
68. Inis L. Jr. Claude, Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1962); and Ernst Haas, 'The Balance of Power', pp. 442-77.
69. Inis L. Jr. Claude, Power and International Relations (New York: Random House, 1962); and Ernst Haas, 'The Balance of Power', pp. 442-77.
70. Ian Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); see also Torbjørn Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory.
71. Ian Clark, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); see also Torbjørn Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory.
72. For a review of the intellectual pedigree of various contemporary approaches to theories of international relations, see Vendulka Kubalkova, 'The Twenty Years' Catharsis: E. H. Carr and IR', in Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf, and Paul Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World (Armonka, NY and London: E. M Sharpe, 1998), pp. 25-57.
73. Richard Ashley, 'The Poverty of Neorealism', International Organization, 38(2) (1984), pp. 225-86.
74. In his 'The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era', International Studies Quarterly, 33(4) (September 1989), pp. 235-54.
75. J. David Singer, 'The Responsibilities of Competence in the Global Village', International Studies Quarterly, 29 (September 1985), pp. 245-62.
76. Hedley Bull, 'International Relations Theory 1919-1969', p. 39.
77. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline, ch. 2; Schmidt disagrees strongly with this position. See Brian C. Schmidt, 'The Historiography of Academic International Relations', pp. 349-68.
78. K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline, ch. 2; Schmidt disagrees strongly with this position. See Brian C. Schmidt, 'The Historiography of Academic International Relations', pp. 349-68.
79. This is the argument in Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach, The Elusive Quest. Areas of notable cumulation included studies on crisis decision-making, alliances, international regimes, correlates of war, and the democratic peace literatures.
80. Hedley Bull, 'International Relations Theory 1919-1969', pp. 50-2.
81. Ernst Haas, 'The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory' (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1975).
82. Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations.
83. James N. Rosenau, 'Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy', in R.B. Farrell (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Ill: The Free Press, 1966), pp. 27-92.
84. K.J. Holsti et al., Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring Since World War II (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982); Kjell Goldmann, Change and Stability in Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Declaring this subject obsolete may be premature. A major resuscitation effort is Jerel A. Rosati, Joe D. Hagan, and Martin W. Sampson III (eds.), Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change (Columbus, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994).
85. K.J. Holsti et al., Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring Since World War II (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982); Kjell Goldmann, Change and Stability in Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Declaring this subject obsolete may be premature. A major resuscitation effort is Jerel A. Rosati, Joe D. Hagan, and Martin W. Sampson III (eds.), Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change (Columbus, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994).
86. K.J. Holsti et al., Why Nations Realign: Foreign Policy Restructuring Since World War II (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982); Kjell Goldmann, Change and Stability in Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Declaring this subject obsolete may be premature. A major resuscitation effort is Jerel A. Rosati, Joe D. Hagan, and Martin W. Sampson III (eds.), Foreign Policy Restructuring: How Governments Respond to Global Change (Columbus, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994).
87. Cf., Margaret G. Hermann, 'Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders', International Studies Quarterly, 24 (1980), pp. 7-46.
88. Bahgat Korany and Ali Hillal Dessouki (eds.), The Foreign Policies of Arab States (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984); See also Bahgat Korany (ed.), How Foreign Policy Decisions are Made in The Third World (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986).
89. Bahgat Korany and Ali Hillal Dessouki (eds.), The Foreign Policies of Arab States (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984); See also Bahgat Korany (ed.), How Foreign Policy Decisions are Made in The Third World (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986).
90. Valerie Hudson, 'Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow', Mershon International Studies Review, 39, supplement no. 2 (1995), pp. 238-309.
91. K.J. Holsti, 'The Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy: Some Notes on the Pitfalls and Paths to Theory', in David Wurfel and Bruce Burton (eds.), The Political Economy of Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia (London: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 9-10.
92. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984).
93. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982).
94. Terry Nardin, Law, Morality, and the Relations of States (Princeton: Princeton Univetsity Press, 1983).
95. Chris Brown, International Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1992); Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel (eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
96. Chris Brown, International Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1992); Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel (eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
97. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, pp. 8-16.
98. Georg Schwartzenberger, Power Politics (London: Jonathan Cape, 1941, New York: Praeger, 1951).
99. Friedrich V. Kratochwill, Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On The Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Onuf, World of Our Making.
100. Friedrich V. Kratochwill, Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On The Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Onuf, World of Our Making.
101. Cf., Bahgat Korany, 'Strategic Studies and the Third World: A Critical Evaluation', International Social Science Journal, 38 (1986), pp. 547-62.
102. Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995); and K.J. Holsti, The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
103. Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995); and K.J. Holsti, The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
104. Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995); and K.J. Holsti, The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
105. James Goldgeier and Michael McFaul, 'A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in Post-Cold War Era', International Organization, 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 467-92; and Max Singer and Aaron Wildawsky, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1993).
106. James Goldgeier and Michael McFaul, 'A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in Post-Cold War Era', International Organization, 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 467-92; and Max Singer and Aaron Wildawsky, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1993).
107. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).
108. J. David Singer, Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 1-2.
109. Arthur Lee Burns, 'Scientific and Strategic-Political Theories of International Polities', in Brian Porter (ed.), International Politics, 1919-1969, pp. 60-1.
110. Norman Angell, The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relations of Military Power to National Advantage (London: Heinemann, 1909).
111. Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane (eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).
112. Martin Wight, Systems of States.
113. Cf., Terry O'Callahan, 'The Real World of Normative Theory in International Relations', Department of Politics, University of Adelaide, South Australia (mimeo), 1996.
114. Stanley Hoffmann, 'An American Social Science', pp. 59.
115. Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach, The Elusive Quest.
116. The claim that 'orthodox' theories of international politics 'marginalize' certain classes of people and their everyday experiences rests on the valid point that one of the costs of generalization is knowledge of the particular. It cannot be any other way. Ryszard Kapuscinski summarizes the dilemma well: 'The language of . . . political discourse forces out, from the mass media and, what is worse, from our memory, the vocabulary with which one can express his private problems, personal drama, individual pain . . . And yet it is impossible to avoid this abstract approach. One can present the enormous scale of . . . unfolding events only through language and concepts that are general, synthesizing - yes, abstract - all the while remaining aware that time and time again one will fall into the trap of simplification and statements easily undermined.' See Ryszard Kapuscinski, Imperium, translated by Klara Glowczewska (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 1995), pp. 308-9.
117. Hoffmann argued in 1977 that American policy-makers used scholarship after it was produced; thought preceded policy. Later, policy and scholarship, particularly in security studies, became entwined and blended, invigorating each other. Stanley Hoffmann, 'An American Social Science', pp. 47-8.
118. Robert Cox, 'Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory', in Robert Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), pp. 204-55, especially p. 207.