often with the weaker or with the stronger side in Do states ally more a conflict? In the parlance of international relations theory: do states tend to balance against or bandwagon with a rising state or coalition? The answer to this question is critical to the formulation of grand strategy and the definition of vital interests. If states resist the gains of their neighbors by drawing together to redress the balance, then conquest does not pay’ and interventions to defend far-flung commitments are not only unnecessary, but often counterproductive in causing local states to unite against the meddling great power and its protege. Conversely, if states gravitate to expanding power, then bandwagons will roll, dominoes will fall, and great powers will find it wise, even at the cost of blood and treasure, to defend remote areas of little or no intrinsic value to their national interests.2 While international relations scholars have traditionally accepted the view that states balance against threatening increases of power, paradoxically, practitioners through the ages have held a bandwagoning image of international politics. As Jack Snyder remarks, “most imperial strategists defending far-flung commitments have feared falling dominoes, and most rising chal-

Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and de‹ciency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. (Ibn al-Haytham)1

국제정치이론 = Theory of international politics

1. Introduction 2. Fear, interest and honor 3. The spirit and its expression 4. The ancient world 5. Medieval Europe 6. From Sun King to Revolution 7. Imperialism and World War I 8. World War II 9. Hitler to Bush and beyond 10. General findings and conclusions.

/pdf/a-cultural-theory-of-international-relations-4bpcaeiy8z.pdf

A Cultural Theory of International Relations

The field of security studies has been the subject of considerable debate in recent years. Attempts to broaden and deepen the scope of the field beyond its traditional focus on states and military conflict have raised fundamental theoretical and practical issues. Yet, adherents to the prevailing neorealist approach to security studies have often reacted to these challenges in ways that preclude a recognition of the issues raised by alternative understandings. An examination of the debates over "rethinking security" in particular reveals an unfortunate tendency to foreclose debate between scholars taking critical and neorealist approaches. Coming to terms more fully with the foundations of these debates allows both a better view of the positions within the field and a clearer assessment of their relevance for understanding the dynamics of contemporary security.

Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods

(1996). Horses for courses: Why nor neorealist theories of foreign policy? Security Studies: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 7-53.

Horses for courses: Why nor neorealist theories of foreign policy?

(1992). “To Balance or To Bandwagon?” Alignment Decisions in 1930s Europe. Security Studies: Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 417-447.

Robert G. Kaufman

Papers

“To Balance or To Bandwagon?” Alignment Decisions in 1930s Europe