Inventing international relations: International relations theory after 1945

New Thinking in International Relations Theory

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 20-53

  Kahler, Miles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85059414758     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780429498688     Document Type: Chapter

References (127)

1. Steve Smith, “The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory,” in International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), pp. 1-37.
2. John G. Gunnell, The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993);
3. Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988);
4. Dorothy Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991);
5. Raymond Seidelman, Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884-1984 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985).
6. “The State in Political Science: How We Became What We Study,” American Political Science Review 86, 1 (March 1992): 1-7.
7. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
8. Stanley Hoffmann, “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus 106, 3 (1977):41-60
9. K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1985), chapter 6
10. Miles Kahler, “International Relations: Still an American Social Science?" in Ideas and Ideals: Essays on Politics in Honor of Stanley Hoffmann, edited by Linda B. Miller and Michael Joseph Smith (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 395-414.
11. Michael Banks, “The Evolution of International Relations Theory,” in Conflict in World Society, edited by Michael Banks (Brighton, UK: Wheatsheaf Books, 1984), pp. 3-21
12. Jack Donnelly, “Realism and the Academic Study of International Relations,” in Political Science in History, edited by James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 175-197.
13. Brian C. Schmidt argues forcefully for such an “internal discursive history” in “The Historiography of Academic International Relations,” Review of International Studies 20, 4 (October 1994):349-367.
14. Schmidt, “Historiography,” p. 362.
15. Michael Joseph Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986).
16. Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (1909; reprint of 1911 edition, with an introduction by S. J. Stearns, New York: Garland Publishing, 1972), p. 44.
17. William J. Barber, “British and American Economists and Attempts to Comprehend the Nature of War,” in Economics and National Security: A History of Their Interaction, edited by Craufurd D. Goodwin (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991)
18. Jaap de Wilde, “Norman Angell: Ancestor of Interdependence Theory,” in Interdependence and Conflict in World Politics, edited by James N. Rosenau and Hylke Tromp (Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1989), pp. 13-30.
19. John Mueller rehabilitates some of Angell’s arguments in Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (New York: Basic Books, 1989).
20. The Autobiography of James T Shotwell (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961), pp. 69-70.
21. James T. Shotwell, War as an Instrument of National Policy [New York: Garland Publishing, 1974], p. 9.
22. James T. Shotwell, War as an Instrument of National Policy [New York: Garland Publishing, 1974], pp. 27-28;
23. James T. Shotwell, On the Rim of the Abyss (New York: Macmillan, 1937), p. 42.
24. James Bryce, International Relations (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1966), p. 264.
25. Frederick L. Schuman, International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933), p. viii.
26. William C. Olson and AJ.R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991), pp. 81, 69-70.
27. Hans J. Morgenthau, “Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography: 1904-1932,” in Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans Morgenthau, edited by Kenneth Thompson and Robert J. Myers (Washington, DC: New Republic Book Company, 1977), pp. 1-17.
28. Morgenthau’s antiliberal and antirational stance is clearest in Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946)
29. Anders Stephanson, Kennan and the Art of Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 180-181.
30. Ross, Origins of American Social Science, p. xiii.
31. Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967), pp. 110-113.
32. William T.R. Fox, “Pluralism, the Science of Politics, and the World System,” World Politics 27, 4 (July 1975):597-611.
33. Joseph Kruzel and James N. Rosenau, Journeys Through World Politics (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 237.
34. Kenneth W. Thompson, “Philosophy and Politics: The Two Commitments of Hans J. Morgenthau,” in Truth and Tragedy, ed. Thompson and Myers, p. 24.
35. Edith E. Ware, ed., The Study of International Relations in the United States: Survey for 1934 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 12-13.
36. Harold Josephson, James T. Shotwell and the Rise of Internationalism in America (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1975), pp. 99-115, 188-193.
37. Ross, Origins of American Social Science, pp. 463-467;
38. Somit and Tanenhaus, Development of American Political Science, pp. 117-118.
39. Grayson Kirk, The Study of International Relations (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1947), pp. 4-5.
40. “Interwar International Relations: The American Experience,” World Politics 2, 1 (October 1949):67-79.
41. Dwight Waldo, Political Science in the United States (Paris: UNESCO, 1956), pp. 55-56.
42. William T.R. Fox and Annette Baker Fox, “The Teaching of International Relations Research in the United States,” World Politics 13, 3 (April 1961):343.
43. Waldo, Political Science, p. 56.
44. Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 332.
45. William T.R. Fox, “E. H. Carr and Political Realism: Vision and Revision,” Review of International Studies 11, 1 (January 1985):7.
46. Nicholas John Spykman, America’s Strategy in World Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1942), p. 470.
47. Novick, That Noble Dream, pp. 27-29;
48. Somit and Tanenhaus, Development of American Political Science, pp. 87-88
49. William T.R. Fox, “A Middle Western Isolationist-Internationalist’s Journey Toward Relevance,” in Journeys Through World Politics, ed. Kruzel and Rosenau, pp. 239-240.
50. John H. Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study in Theories and Realities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).
51. Quincy Wright, “Realism and Idealism in International Politics,” World Politics 5, 1 (October 1952):116-128.
52. Harold Lasswell, “Introduction,” in Dynamics of International Relations, edited by Ernst B. Haas and Allen S. Whiting (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. xix.
53. Thomas I. Cook and Malcolm Moos, Power Through Purpose: The Realism of Idealism as a Basis for Foreign Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1954).
54. Waldo, Political Science, p. 61.
55. Ernst B. Haas, “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propoganda?" World Politics, 5, 4 (July 1953): 442-447.
56. Christopher Hill, "1939: The Origins of Liberal Realism,” Review of International Studies 15, 4 (October 1989):319-328.
57. John Gange, University Research on International Affairs (Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1958), p. 112;
58. Claude E. Hawley and Lewis A. Dexter, “Recent Political Science Research in American Universities,” American Political Science Review 46, 2 (June 1952): 113.
59. Olson and Groom, International Relations Then and Now, pp. 96-97.
60. Stephen Krasner makes this point in “Fortune, Virtue, and Systematic Versus Scientific Inquiry,” in Journeys Through World Politics, ed. Kruzel and Rosenau, pp. 417-428.
61. Novick, That Noble Dream, p. 332.
62. Institutes and Their Publics (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1953), p. 97.
63. Gabriel A. Almond, The American People and Foreign Policy (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950).
64. Gange, University Research, p. 128.
65. Fox, “E. H. Carr and Political Realism,” p. 10.
66. Ross, Origins of American Social Science, p. 388.
67. Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau, eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
68. Somit and Tanenhaus, Development of American Political Science, pp. 183-201.
69. Somit and Tanenhaus, Development of American Political Science, pp. 186-187.
70. Marion Levy, "‘Does It Matter If He’s Naked?’ Bawled the Child,” in Contending Approaches, ed. Knorr and Rosenau, pp. 87-109, quotation on p. 106.
71. A. Claire Cutler, “The ‘Grotian Tradition’ in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 17, 1 (January 1991):41-65;
72. Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, “Institutions and International Order,” in Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s, edited by Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989).
73. Hedley Bull, “International Relations Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” in Contending Approaches, ed. Knorr and Rosenau, p. 37.
74. Robert Jervis, “Deterrence Theory Revisited,” World Politics 31, 2 (January 1979):289-324.
75. Emanuel Adler, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” International Organization 46, 1 (Winter 1992):109-124.
76. Peter Wallensteen, ed., Peace Research: Achievements and Challenges (Boulder: Westview Press, 1988).
77. Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).
78. C. Fred Bergsten and Lawrence B. Krause, eds., World Politics and International Economics (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1975);
79. Richard Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1968);
80. Raymond Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay (New York: Basic Books, 1971).
81. Edward Morse, Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations (New York: Free Press, 1976), especially chapter 5.
82. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977).
83. Novick, That Noble Dream, pp. 445-455.
84. Perception and Misperception in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976);
85. Graham Allison introduced organizational process and bureaucratic politics models in Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972).
86. Joseph L. Love, “The Origins of Dependency Analysis,” Journal of Latin American Studies 22, 1 (February 1990):154-157.
87. Joseph A. Kahl, Three Latin American Sociologists (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 136.
88. Love, “Origins of Dependency Analysis,” p. 167.
89. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline, pp. 87-89, 100.
90. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979).
91. “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,” in Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 158-203.
92. John A. Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983).
93. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Power and Interdependence Revisited,” International Organization 41, 4 (Autumn 1987):737.
94. Dependent Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979);
95. “After Dependency: Recent Studies of Class, State, and Industrialization,” Latin American Research Review 20 (1985): 149-160
96. “Class, State, and Dependence in East Asia: Lessons for Latin Americanists,” in The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, edited by Frederick Deyo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. 203-226.
97. Keohane, “Theory of World Politics,” pp. 40, 46.
98. Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” World Politics, 40, 2 (January 1988);
99. Richard W. Mansbach, “The Realists Ride Again: Counterrevolution in International Relations,” in Interdependence and Conflict in World Politics, ed. Rosenau and Tromp, p. 220.
100. Robert G. Gilpin, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1975);
101. Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (London: Allen Lane, 1973).
102. Ernst B. Haas, The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, 1975).
103. Ross, Origins of American Social Science, p. 473.
104. I. M. Destler, Leslie H. Gelb, and Anthony Lake, Our Own Worst Enemy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983)
105. R. Kent Weaver, “The Changing World of Think Tanks,” PS: Political Science and Politics 22, 3 (September 1989):563-578.
106. David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
107. “Is the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria a New Paradigm?" in The Dynamics of Evolution, edited by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 139.
108. John Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, 15, 1 (Summer 1990):5-56.
109. David Lake, “Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?" International Studies Quarterly 37, 4 (December 1993):459-489.
110. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman, War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).
111. Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).
112. Pauline Marie Rosenau, Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
113. Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, “Institutions and International Order,” in Global Changes, ed. Czempiel and Rosenau, p. 54.
114. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism and Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
115. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline, pp. 130-131.
116. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline, p. 131.
117. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 46, 2 (Spring 1992):391-425;
118. Stephen D. Krasner, “Compromising Westphalia,” International Security 20, 3 (Winter 1995/1996):115-151.
119. David Lake and Robert Powell, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).
120. Barry Buzan, Charles Jones, and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
121. Miles Kahler, “Evolution, Choice, and International Change,” in Strategic Choice and International Relations, ed. David Lake and Robert Powell, (forthcoming).
122. Ernst B. Haas, When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990);
123. George W. Breslauer and Philip E. Tetlock, eds., Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991);
124. Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet Security Regimes,” International Organization 41, 3 (Summer 1987):371-402;
125. Nancy Bermeo, “Democracy and the Lessons of Dictatorship,” Comparative Politics 24, 3 (April 1992):273-292;
126. Peter Hall, “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State,” Comparative Politics (forthcoming).
127. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, “Soviet Reform and the End of the Cold War: Explaining Large-Scale Historical Change,” Review of International Studies 17, 3 (July 1991):225-250.