Book•
Theory of International Politics
01 Jan 1979-
About: The article was published on 1979-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 7932 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Global politics & International relations.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors provides a taxonomy of the concept of alignment in the discipline of International Relations (IR) and argues that the contemporary security environment is characterised by multiple forms of alignment, not just alliances, in their many guises.
Abstract: This article provides a working taxonomy of the concept of ‘alignment’ in the discipline of International Relations (IR); a heretofore major deficiency in the otherwise abundant literature on alliance/alignment. It further contends that the label ‘alliance’ is commonly employed reflexively and unreflectively, where in fact the term ‘alignment’ would be a superior and more accurate descriptor. This contention is buttressed by empirical developments in international politics. The article makes the case that the contemporary security environment is characterised by multiple forms of ‘alignment’, not just alliances, in their many guises. In addition, we can identify ‘coalitions’, ‘security communities’, and ‘strategic partnerships’; all distinctly different from the conventional ‘alliance’ archetype. It concludes that a change in our thinking about defining and conceptualising alignment and alliance is required to bring disciplinary work closer in line with the paradigmatic shift that is occurring in contemporary international politics.
91 citations
TL;DR: A recent wave of scholarly literature has argued forcibly that the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) represents an attempt on the part of the EU to balance against the United States as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A recent wave of scholarly literature has argued forcibly that the European Union’s European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) represents an attempt on the part of the EU to “balance” against the United States. According to such analyses, the EU is reacting to American global preeminence by building up its military capacities to enhance its own ability to play a significant, autonomous role in international affairs. This article takes issue with such claims. It points, first, to significant theoretical and methodological shortcomings inherent in the work of the “soft balancers.” Second, and more fundamentally, it subjects this work to careful empirical scrutiny and illustrates how the soft balancers have fundamentally misunderstood ESDP. Finally, it illustrates how such misinterpretations result from a failure to appreciate the profound impact that institutional structures wield over substantive outcomes in international security affairs.
91 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the discipline of international relations is bound to repeat its rounds of debates about realism as long as the underlying dynamic intrinsic to the realist tradition is not disturbed. But they do not discuss the role of realism in these debates.
Abstract: The present article argues that the discipline of international relations is bound to repeat its rounds of debates about realism as long as the underlying dynamic intrinsic to the realist tradition...
90 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe an approach that renders complex causal narratives more analytically tractable by establishing measurement criteria for ranking the relative importance of component causes, focusing on subjectively useful measurement attributes.
Abstract: The identification of cause-and-effect relationships plays an indispensable role in policy research, both for applied problem solving and for building theories of policy processes. Historical process tracing has emerged as a promising method for revealing causal mechanisms at a level of precision unattainable through statistical techniques. Yet historical analyses often produce dauntingly complex causal explanations, with numerous factors emerging as necessary but insufficient causes of an outcome. This article describes an approach that renders complex causal narratives more analytically tractable by establishing measurement criteria for ranking the relative importance of component causes. By focusing on subjectively useful measurement attributes, the approach is well suited to the policy sciences’ unique combination of explicitly normative aspirations and a commitment to the systematic assessment of causal claims. Central to the aims of public policies, and the political constituencies supporting them, is the hope of having a causal impact on some aspect of the world. It is hoped that welfare-to-work programs will lead to a decline in chronic unemployment; that the international whaling regime will cause threatened species to rebound; and that health education campaigns will reduce HIV transmission. As Pressman and Wildavsky (1973, p. xxi) observed, “Policies imply theories. Whether stated explicitly or not, policies point to a chain of causation between initial conditions and future consequences. If X, then Y.” Accordingly, while causal theories play a role in many areas of social inquiry, they are vital to the practice of policy analysis, where they are used to diagnose problems, project future impacts of new regulations, and evaluate the effectiveness of—and assign responsibility for—past interventions (Chen, 1990; Lin, 1998; Young, 1999). Causal assessment plays an equally important role in the policy process tradition, as researchers identify the causal factors shaping policy agendas, decision-making styles, state–society relations, and the dynamics of stability and change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Rochon & Mazmanian, 1993; Sabatier, 1999). Against this backdrop, this article focuses on an issue of special importance to policy-oriented political scientists: how to assess causal impacts in small-N research settings. This question is motivated by a scenario all too familiar to policy research
90 citations
TL;DR: The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the expansion of the Atlantic alliance last year as mentioned in this paper, despite the fact that Russia is no longer in a position to reconquer its former empire.
Abstract: Last year the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the expansion of the Atlantic alliance. Whereas some advocates of enlarging NATO, particularly Eastern European leaders for whom the Soviets’ iron grip is an all too recent memory, stress the extension of the alliance’s traditional deterrent function, others acknowledge that Russia is in no position to reconquer its former empire. Rather, they argue that membership in NATO would stabilize the region by filling the power vacuum and eliminating the need for security competition. Traditionally a volatile area, East-Central Europe is rife with potential irredentist and ethnic conflicts, and NATO can help arbitrate and limit these disputes. 1 Critics have denounced the move as unnecessarily provocative to Russia, and they have also decried its hefty cost. 2 But they have not challenged the claim that alliances create zones of peace. 3 Policymakers have swiftly embraced this intuitively appealing argument. In a 1996 campaign speech, President Bill Clinton trumpeted the virtues of alliance: ‘‘Through NATO, Western Europe became a source of stability instead of hostility. France and Germany moved from conflict to cooperation . . . . I came to office convinced that NATO can do for Europe’s East what it did for Europe’s West.’’ 4 This logic is attractive, but it overstates the alliance’s achievements. The triumph of Franco-German reconciliation must be balanced by the failure to suppress the persistent discord within NATO’s southeastern flank. At least once in every decade since World War II, Greece and Turkey have nearly come to blows, and a host of more minor incidents and skirmishes have further marred their relations. Historians have maintained that the
90 citations
Additional excerpts
...Waltz 1979, 105, 70–71....
[...]
...See Waltz 1979; and Walt 1987....
[...]
...See also Waltz 1979; and Walt 1987....
[...]
References
More filters
5,295 citations
01 Jan 1976
TL;DR: For centuries knowledge meant proven knowledge, proven either by the power of the intellect or by the evidence of the senses as discussed by the authors. But the notion of proven knowledge was questioned by the sceptics more than two thousand years ago; but they were browbeaten into confusion by the glory of Newtonian physics.
Abstract: For centuries knowledge meant proven knowledge — proven either by the power of the intellect or by the evidence of the senses. Wisdom and intellectual integrity demanded that one must desist from unproven utterances and minimize, even in thought, the gap between speculation and established knowledge. The proving power of the intellect or the senses was questioned by the sceptics more than two thousand years ago; but they were browbeaten into confusion by the glory of Newtonian physics. Einstein’s results again turned the tables and now very few philosophers or scientists still think that scientific knowledge is, or can be, proven knowledge. But few realize that with this the whole classical structure of intellectual values falls in ruins and has to be replaced: one cannot simply water down the ideal of proven truth - as some logical empiricists do — to the ideal of’probable truth’1 or — as some sociologists of knowledge do — to ‘truth by [changing] consensus’.2
4,969 citations
4,163 citations
17 Feb 1966
TL;DR: This book contains the collected and unified material necessary for the presentation of such branches of modern cybernetics as the theory of electronic digital computers, Theory of discrete automata, theory of discrete self-organizing systems, automation of thought processes, theoryof image recognition, etc.
Abstract: : This book contains the collected and unified material necessary for the presentation of such branches of modern cybernetics as the theory of electronic digital computers, theory of discrete automata, theory of discrete self-organizing systems, automation of thought processes, theory of image recognition, etc. Discussions are given of the fundamentals of the theory of boolean functions, algorithm theory, principles of the design of electronic digital computers and universal algorithmical languages, fundamentals of perceptron theory, some theoretical questions of the theory of self-organizing systems. Many fundamental results in mathematical logic and algorithm theory are presented in summary form, without detailed proofs, and in some cases without any proof. The book is intended for a broad audience of mathematicians and scientists of many specialties who wish to acquaint themselves with the problems of modern cybernetics.
2,922 citations