Showing papers on "International relations published in 1987"
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: Gilpin this paper argued that American power had been essential for establishing these institutions, and waning American support threatened the basis of postwar cooperation and the great prosperity of the period, and argued that a great power such as the United States is essential to fostering international cooperation.
Abstract: After the end of World War II, the United States, by far the dominant economic and military power at that time, joined with the surviving capitalist democracies to create an unprecedented institutional framework. By the 1980s many contended that these institutions--the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund--were threatened by growing economic nationalism in the United States, as demonstrated by increased trade protection and growing budget deficits. In this book, Robert Gilpin argues that American power had been essential for establishing these institutions, and waning American support threatened the basis of postwar cooperation and the great prosperity of the period. For Gilpin, a great power such as the United States is essential to fostering international cooperation. Exploring the relationship between politics and economics first highlighted by Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and other thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Gilpin demonstrated the close ties between politics and economics in international relations, outlining the key role played by the creative use of power in the support of an institutional framework that created a world economy. Gilpin's exposition of the in.uence of politics on the international economy was a model of clarity, making the book the centerpiece of many courses in international political economy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, when American support for international cooperation is once again in question, Gilpin's warnings about the risks of American unilateralism sound ever clearer.
1,761 citations
TL;DR: The authors survey contending definitions of regimes and suggest dimensions along which regimes vary over time or across cases; these dimensions might be used to operationalize "regime change" and conclude that the major shortcoming of the regimes literature is its failure to incorporate domestic politics adequately.
Abstract: Over the last decade, international regimes have become a major focus of empirical research and theoretical debate within international relations. This article provides a critical review of this literature. We survey contending definitions of regimes and suggest dimensions along which regimes vary over time or across cases; these dimensions might be used to operationalize “regime change.” We then examine four approaches to regime analysis: structural, game-theoretic, functional, and cognitive. We conclude that the major shortcoming of the regimes literature is its failure to incorporate domestic politics adequately. We suggest a research program that begins with the central insights of the interdependence literature which have been ignored in the effort to construct “systemic” theory.
801 citations
Book•
[...]
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: The Seduction of War: Beautiful Souls/Just Warriors: The Seduction and seduction of war as mentioned in this paper is an excellent account of women as warriors in the First World War.
Abstract: Preface Acknowledgments Introduction: Beautiful Souls/Just Warriors: The Seduction of War 1: Not-a-Soldier's Story: An Exemplary Tale A Child of the 1950s: Images of War and Martyrdom The Growing Up of a Political Theorist 2: The Discourse of War and Politics: From the Greeks to Today Taming Homer's Warrior: Plato and Aristotle The Ideal Republic: Machiavelli and Rousseau The Nation-State The Revolutionary Alternative: Marx and Engels The "Science" of War and Politics: International Relations Becomes an Academic Discipline 3: Exemplary Tales of Civic Virtue Women and the Civil War The First World War: "My Nation-State, of Thee I Shout" 4: The Attempt to Disarm Civic Virtue The Christian Conundrum: From Pacifists to Reluctant Warriors Just War, Holy War, and the Witness of Peace Female Privatization: The Beautiful Soul Implications of the Just-War Tradition 5: Women: The Ferocious Few/The Noncombatant Many The Historic Cleavage Female Group Violence The Ferocious Few The Noncombatant Many 6: Men: The Militant Many/The Pacific Few The Militant Many The Pacific Few The Literature of War Structures of Experience: The Good Soldier/The Good Mother 7: Neither Warriors nor Victims: Men, Women, and Civic Life The Liberal Conscience Uncertain Trumpet: Feminism's War with War Women as Warriors: "You're in the Army Now" Beyond War and Peace Epilogue Notes Index
671 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reread and reevaluated Power and Interdependence, and took stock of the research program to which it contributed, in order to enrich and enrich scholarly understanding of the politics of interdependence and to stimulate reflection on directions for the field of international relations over the next decade.
Abstract: Ten years ago we published Power and Interdependence. 1 The passage of a decade makes this an appropriate time to reread and reevaluate that book, and to take stock of the research program to which it contributed. In doing this, we hope to deepen and enrich scholarly understanding of the politics of interdependence and to stimulate reflection on directions for the field of international relations over the next decade.2 Such a reappraisal seems particularly opportune given the changes in world politics, and especially in American policy, that have marked the intervening years. Stanley J. Michalak commented in 1979 that the authors "may cringe from the analogy but Power and Interdependence may well become the Politics Among Nations of the 1970s."3 But from the perspective of the late 1980s, the world may look different: while the 1970s were seen as the decade of interdependence, many observers regard the use of force and concern for security as characteristic of the 1980s. Indeed, the view is widespread in some circles that the 1980s resemble the 1950s more than the 1970s, and that Hans J. Morgenthau's work is more relevant to contemporary issues of world politics than Power and Interdependence.
391 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the U.S. and the former USSR have been examined in terms of learning and regimes in the context of the security relationship between the two countries, and different degrees of learning have been identified.
Abstract: The concepts of regimes and learning have been developed in the Liberal theory of international relations, but their application has been mostly in the area of international political economy. U.S.–Soviet relations are generally explained solely in terms of Realist theory. The dichotomy is unfortunate because both strands of theory have something to contribute. Although the injunctions of an overall regime do not govern the U.S.–Soviet security relationship, it is possible to identify the injunctions and constraining effects of regimes in subissues of the security relationship. In five areas of the nuclear relationship (destructive power, control problems, proliferation, arms race stability, and deterrent force structure), it is possible to identify different degrees of learning and to see how such learning affects and is affected by the development of regimes. Looking at the U.S.–Soviet security relationship in terms of learning and regimes raises new questions and opens a research agenda which helps us to think more broadly about the processes of political change in this area.
319 citations
TL;DR: The idea of a critical social inquiry into international politics would appear to be a contradiction in terms as mentioned in this paper, in contrast to positivistic approaches to social inquiry, approaches meriting the label stress the community-shared background understandings, skills, and practical predispositions without which it would be impossible to interpret action, assign meaning, legitimate practices, empower agents, and constitute a differentiated, highly structured social reality.
Abstract: Upon first encounter, the idea of a critical social inquiry into international politics would appear to be a contradiction in terms. By its very nature, the sphere of international politics would seem to lack what a critical inquiry must presuppose. Whereas a critical social inquiry comprehends all social action against the background of community, the sphere of international politics would seem to lack a basis in community. Two propositions make the contradiction plain enough. The first is that critical social scientific approaches, in their various guises, are inherently communitarian. In contrast to positivistic approaches to social inquiry, approaches meriting the label stress the community-shared background understandings, skills, and practical predispositions without which it would be impossible to interpret action, assign meaning, legitimate practices, empower agents, and constitute a differentiated, highly structured social reality. Such background understandings and preunderstandings might be entitled a “lebenswelt” with Husserl, a “ground plan” with Heidegger, a “disciplinary matrix” with Kuhn, a “common sense reality of everyday life” with Berger and Luckmann, a “habitus” with Bourdieu, an “episterne” or “dispositif’ with Foucault, or simply a “background consensus” with Habermas. But whatever the label, critical social scientists understand such shared background knowledge and skills to be “the very ontological condition of human life in society as such” (Giddens, 1976: 19). Themselves the products of historical practices, such background knowledge and skills are seen to orient the parties’ interpretations of their worlds and themselves. They
292 citations
TL;DR: For instance, the authors argues that International Relations as an academic discipline is at a major crossroads, and that the lack of an agreed core to the subject has led to confusion and a degree of intellectual insecurity.
Abstract: International Relations as an academic discipline is at a major crossroads. Since it was first constituted as an academic discipline in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, International Relations has moved through a series of ‘debates’ with the result that in the course of its development, and as a consequence of these debates, International Relations theory has been undergoing constant change and modification. After moving through the debate between Idealism and Realism in the inter–war period, between Realism and Behaviouralism in the Great Debate of the 1960s, through to the complementary impact of Kuhn’s development of the idea of ‘paradigms’ and the post-Behavioural revolution of the early 1970s and on to the rise of International Political Economy and neo-Marxist, Structuralist dependency theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s, International Relations has arrived at a point that Banks has termed the ‘inter-paradigm debate’.1 The effect of this evolutionary process is contradictory. On the one hand, it makes the discipline exciting and alive because of the diversity of approaches, issues and questions within it, creating opportunities for research which would previously have been deemed to be outside the boundaries of the discipline. On the other hand, the lack of an agreed core to the subject has lead to confusion and a degree of intellectual insecurity.
252 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a dual international civil regime in which two standards of statehood now coexist: the traditional empirical standard of the North and a new juridical standard in the South, and the biases in the constitutive rules of the sovereignty game arguably favor the weak.
Abstract: Decolonization in parts of the Third World and particularly Africa has resulted in the emergence of numerous “quasi-states,” which are independent largely by international courtesy. They exist by virtue of an external right of self-determination— negative sovereignty—without yet demonstrating much internal capacity for effective and civil government—positive sovereignty. They therefore disclose a new dual international civil regime in which two standards of statehood now coexist: the traditional empirical standard of the North and a new juridical standard of the South. The biases in the constitutive rules of the sovereignty game today and for the first time in modern international history arguably favor the weak. If international theory is to account for this novel situation it must acknowledge the possibility that morality and legality can, in certain circumstances, be independent of power in international relations. This suggests that contemporary international theory must accommodate not only Machiavellian realism and the sociological discourse of power but also Grotian rationalism and the jurisprudential idiom of law.
174 citations
Book•
19 Feb 1987
TL;DR: In this article, a general introduction to international law considered in a political and historical perspective is presented, where an effort is made to identify the ideological and political motivation underlying international legal rules and institutions, which are examined through the prism of the principal actors in the international community: Western, socialist and developing countries.
Abstract: This is a general introduction to international law considered in a political and historical perspective. Throughout, an effort is made to identify the ideological and political motivation underlying international legal rules and institutions, which are examined through the prism of the principal actors in the international community: Western, socialist and developing countries. This book differs from standard textbooks in an important respect: it covers some topics neglected by traditional works, such as the historical evolution of the international community or the law of economic relations and of development, while some traditional topics are dealt with only tangentially, such as international arbitration. The book will thus appeal to lawyers who wish to explore the background and context to this subject and to political scientists who want to know more about the policy pursued by each of the three major groupings of States in international law-making.
166 citations
TL;DR: This paper argued that the philosophical dilemmas posed by the concern with change and the claim to political realism are intimately related, and argued that political realism should be understood less as a coherent theoretical position in its own right than as the site of a great many interesting claims and metaphysical disputes.
Abstract: Much recent commentary on the theory of international politics has focused on the analysis of change and the continuing vitality of political realism. This paper argues that the philosophical dilemmas posed by the concern with change and by the claim to political realism are intimately related. The argument is pursued in the context of contrasting traditions of political realism, of the antithesis between structuralism and historicism in contemporary social and political theory, and of recent tendencies and controversies in the literature on neorealist theories of international politics. The paper concludes that political realism ought to be understood less as a coherent theoretical position in its own right than as the site of a great many interesting claims and metaphysical disputes. As there is no single tradition of political realism, but rather a knot of historically constituted tensions and contradictions, these tensions and contradictions might be reconstituted in a more critical and creative manner. This involves an examination of the way the core categories of international political theory depend upon a particular formulation of the relationship between identity and difference—a formulation which must be refused.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe the four elements for the emergence of a rule of customary international law: concordant practice by a number of States with reference to a type of situation falling within the domain of international relations, continuation or repetition of the practice over a considerable period of time, conception that the practice is required by, or consistent with, prevailing international law, and general acquiescence in the practice by other States.
Abstract: Every student who has ever taken a traditional international law course has learned Manley Hudson’s four elements for the emergence of a rule of customary international law: (a) concordant practice by a number of States with reference to a type of situation falling within the domain of international relations; (b) continuation or repetition of the practice over a considerable period of time; (c) conception that the practice is required by, or consistent with, prevailing international law; and (d) general acquiescence in the practice by other States.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors make a distinction between the concept of a system of states and that of an international society, where states are in regular contact with one another, and where in addition there is interaction between them sufficient to make the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculations of the other.
Abstract: Hedley Bull's contribution to the theory of international relations is considerable; and nowhere more acute than in the distinction which he made between the concept of a system of states and that of an international society. His definitive formulation is set out in Chapter I of The Anarchical Society. ‘Where states are in regular contact with one another, and where in addition there is interaction between them sufficient to make the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculations of the other, then we may speak of their forming a system.’ ‘A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.’
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors apply the theory of hegemonic stability to international monetary policy, arguing that dominance by one country is needed to ensure the smooth functioning of an international regime.
Abstract: An international monetary system is a set of rules or conventions governing the economic policies of nations. From a narrowly national perspective, it is an unnatural state of affairs. Adherence to a common set of rules or conventions requires a certain harmonization of monetary and fiscal policies, even though the preferences and constraints influencing policy formulation diverge markedly across countries. Governments are expected to forswear policies that redistribute economic welfare from foreigners to domestic residents and to contribute voluntarily to providing the international public good of global monetary stability. In effect, they are expected to solve the defection problem that plagues cartels and – equivalently in this context – the free-rider problem hindering public good provision. Since they are likely to succeed incompletely, the public good of international monetary stability tends to be underproduced. From this perspective, the paradox of international monetary affairs is not the difficulty of designing a stable international monetary system, but the fact that such systems have actually persisted for decades. Specialists in international relations have offered the notion that dominance by one country – a hegemonic power – is needed to ensure the smooth functioning of an international regime. The concentration of economic power is seen as a way of internalizing the externalities associated with systemic stability and of ensuring its adequate provision. The application of this “theory of hegemonic stability” to international monetary affairs is straightforward.
TL;DR: In this article, an attempt at analysing the political philosophy of international relations in a very short span of time is presented. But the authors do not propose to discuss questions of method.
Abstract: This is an attempt at analysing the political philosophy of international relations in a very short span of time, so I do not propose to discuss questions of method. Indeed I may sound dogmatic, but that is merely because I shall not have the time to exhibit my diffidence.
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a theory of world politics based on the Melian Dialogue, the state, power, and the balance of power, which they call realism.
Abstract: (NOTE: Each chapter includes "Notes" and "Selections for Further Readings and Reference.") 1. Theory, Images, and International Relations: An Introduction. What Is Theory? Alternative Images. The Levels of Analysis. Scientific Understanding. Summation. Selected Readings. Thinking Theory Thoroughly, James N. Rosenau. Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith. 2. Realism: The State, Power, and the Balance of Power. Major Actors and Assumptions: A Summary. Intellectual Precursors and Influences. Power. System. Interdependence. Change. Realists and Their Critics: An Overview. Selected Readings. The Melian Dialogue, Thucydides. On Princes and the Security of Their States, Machiavelli. Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, Thomas Hobbes. The State of War: Confederation as Means to Peace in Europe, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Does Order Exist in World Politics? Hedley Bull. Explaining War, Kenneth N. Waltz. War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin. Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond, Robert O. Keohane. The Accomplishments of International Political Economy, Stephen Krasner. 3. Pluralism: Decision Making, Transnationalism, and Interdependence. Major Actors and Assumptions: A Summary. Intellectual Precursors and Influences. Decision Making. Transnationalism. System. Change. Pluralists and Their Critics: An Overview. Selected Readings. Liberalism and World Politics, Michael W. Doyle. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics, Andrew Moravcsik. Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Robert Jervis. Crisis Decision Making, Ole R. Holsti. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham T. Allison. Ideas and Foreign Policy, Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane. Realism and Complex Interdependence, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Multilateralism, Knowledge, and Power, Ernst B. Haas. Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution, John Gerard Ruggie. 4. Globalism: Dependency and the Capitalist World-System. Major Actors and Assumptions: A Summary. Intellectual Precursors and Influences. Dependency Theorists. The Capitalist World-System. Change. Globalists and Their Critics: An Overview. Selected Readings. The Economic Taproot of Imperialism, J. A. Hobson. Patterns and Perspectives of the Capitalist World-Economy, Immanuel Wallerstein. The Neostructuralist Agenda in International Relations, Barry Gills and Ronen P. Palan. International Organization and Industrial Change, Craig N. Murphy. 5. Normative Considerations and International Relations Theory. Moral Choice: Alternative Criteria. The Problem of Justice and War. Justice and Human Rights. Alternative Images and Foreign Policy Choice. Rationality and Foreign Policy Choice. Values, Choices, and Theory. Selected Readings. War, Peace, and the Law of Nations, Hugo Grotius. Morality, Politics, and Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant. The Nature of Politics, E.H. Carr. 6. The Future of International Relations Theory: Toward a New Synthesis? Underlying Images. Theory Building. Normative Concerns. Selected Readings. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, Alexander Wendt. Turbulent Change, James N. Rosenau. Glossary. Index.
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: An Introduction to Strategic Studies as mentioned in this paper addresses some of the major questions that govern both international relations and human survival and provides a comprehensive introduction to the core concepts of contemporary strategic thinking, arguing that strategic studies is about the impact of military technology on relations between states, and that its specialised contribution must always be seen within the broader context of international economic and political relations.
Abstract: An Introduction to Strategic Studies addresses some of the major questions that govern both international relations and human survival. This book provides a comprehensive introduction to the core concepts of contemporary strategic thinking. It argues that strategic studies is about the impact of military technology on relations between states, and that its specialised contribution must always be seen within the broader context of international economic and political relations.
TL;DR: In this paper, the US view of International Relations as a social science has led to the subject strongly reflecting US policy concerns, and this US concern with policy relevance has made it very difficult for the subject to evolve on a cross-national, cumulative basis.
Abstract: The concern of this study is admittedly narrow; it is focused on the issue of how International Relations has developed as a social science. Within that general focus it is concerned specifically with the dominance of a US view of the subject as a social science. Of course, such a definition of International Relations theory is partial, and certainly many Would resent the very suggestion that the subject is, or should become, a social science. However, my interest is with the reasons why US views of the subject have dominated the broad development of paradigms within the discipline. This issue has crucial relevance for any understanding of the evolution of the discipline, and for any possibility of inter-paradigm debate. My broad argument will be two-fold: on the one hand, the US view of International Relations as a social science has led to the subject strongly reflecting US policy concerns; on the other, this US concern with policy relevance has made it very difficult for the subject to evolve on a cross-national, cumulative basis. Both of these factors make the task of paradigm confrontation even more complex than is implied by those philosophers of social science who have taken the concept of ‘paradigm’ to imply an essentially relativistic epistemology. After outlining the development of the subject as a social science, this study will discuss the existence of a US dominance of the discipline, then conclude with an examination of the implications for the inter-paradigm debate.
Journal Article•
Abstract: 1. What are \"Middle Powers\"? (and Why do they Matter?) 3 a) Systemic Trends and Middle Power Potentials 8 b) Interdependence and Its Reach 9 c) Multilateral Cooperation-Demand and Supply 10 d) After Hegemony, What Leadership? 14 2. Precedents and Prospects for Effective 18 \"Middle Power\" Action a) Early Precedents 18 b) Perceived Interests and Perceived Influence 22 c) \"Cooperation-Mindedness\" and Multilateral Systems 25 3.
TL;DR: For the last two decades much of the theoretical debate within International Relations has focused on the question of the state as mentioned in this paper, which has reasserted traditional positions on the state and asserted new ones, especially in the field of international economic relations.
Abstract: For the last two decades much of the theoretical debate within International Relations has focused on the question of the state. Some discussion has been around the analytic primacy of the state as the constitutive actor in international relations, while some has focussed on normative questions, of the degree to which the state can be regarded as the primary guarantor of what is good, within and between states. ‘State-centric’ realism has reasserted traditional positions on the state and has, through the emergence of Neorealism, asserted new ones, especially in the field of international economic relations. Other paradigms have challenged the primacy of the state, either by asserting the role of non-state actors, as in theories of interdependence and transnationalism, or by asserting the primacy of global systems and structures over specific actors, state or non-state. All three of these approaches have been influenced by broader trends within political science: Realism by orthodox political theory; Transnationalism by the Pluralist and Behavioural rejection of the state in favour of studying actions; Structuralism by theories of socioeconomic determination.
TL;DR: The authors show that there is no relation between the distribution of power and war, and that the key lies in the transition of power from one power to another, rather than the transition from one authority to another.
Abstract: International relations scholars do not agree on the connection between the balance of power and war. They question whether or not an equal distribution of power among states or alliances leads to stability, whether the preponderance of power in favor of one actor or alliance leads to peace, or whether the key lies in the transition of preponderance from one power to another. Everyone is familiar with these questions; yet, more than twenty years of rigorous elaboration and sophisticated quantitative testing have done little to produce the answers.1 Do these inconclusive results suggest that there is no relation between the distribution of power and war?
TL;DR: Amier and Maier as mentioned in this paper discuss the challenges of institutional politics in the modern era, and the changing paradigms of collective time and private time in modern political life, as well as the changing boundaries of political activity.
Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction Charles S. Amier Part I. Re-forming the Political: 1. Politics unbound Alessandro Pizzorno 2. Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics: social movements since the 1960s Claus Offe 3. Religious transformation and the future of politics Suzanne Berger 4. The politics of time: changing paradigms of collective time and private time in the modern era Charles S. Maier Part II. Changing Boundaries of Political Activity: 5. Long waves in the development of welfare systems Massimo Paci 6. Family, women, and the state: notes toward a typology of family roles and public intervention Laura Balbo 7. Health care and the boundaries of politics Paul Starr and Ellen Immergut 8. The politics of Wissenschaftspolitik in Weimar Germany: a prelude to the dilemmas of twentieth-century science policy Gerald D. Feldman 9. The survival of the state in European international relations Miles Kahlar Part III. Uncertain Boundaries for Political Economy: 10. Expanding budgets in a stagnating economy: the experience of the 1970s Jan Pen 11. Problems of political economy after the postwar period John H. Goldthorpe Index.
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: The authors examines international relations from a variety of perspectives connected by timeless and common themes: the conflict between die ever-present risk of violence and the quest for international order, the tensions between the imperatives of power and those of morality, the ties that bind domestic and foreign policy, the ambiguities of the nuclear revolution, the break between pre-nuclear and post-1945 politics, and the dangers created by the competition between the nuclear superpowers.
Abstract: In these essays, one of the most eminent political scientists of our time examines international relations from a variety of perspectives connected by timeless and common themes: the conflict between die ever-present risk of violence and the quest for international order, the tensions between the imperatives of power and those of morality, the ties that bind domestic and foreign policy, the ambiguities of the nuclear revolution, the break between prenuclear and post-1945 politics, and the dangers created by the competition between the nuclear superpowers Assessing the development of the discipline of international relations, the author presents both a summary of the field's significant findings and a critical discussion of its most representative traditions of realism and liberalism Written between 1960 and 1985, many of these essays have not been previously published in English They reflect the author's own intellectual evolution and represent a complete picture of his approach to the study of world politics
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: Iriye as mentioned in this paper analyzed the origins of the 1941 conflict against the background of international relations in the preceding decade in order to answer the key question: Why did Japan decide to go to war against so formidable a combination of powers?
Abstract: Professor Iriye analyses the origins of the 1941 conflict against the background of international relations in the preceding decade in order to answer the key question: Why did Japan decide to go to war against so formidable a combination of powers?
TL;DR: There is hardly any scholarly text or general treatise on International Relations, trying to be as objective, sober, unbiased and clear-mindedly neutral as possible towards its subject (the relations between by now more than 150 nation-states and the so-called international system formed by them) where we would not find that innocuous little phrase "a big power such as the United States" as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: There is none like it. Here, in a nutshell, we have the whole problem. There is hardly any scholarly text or general treatise on International Relations, trying to be as objective, sober, unbiased and clear-mindedly neutral as possible towards its subject (the relations between by now more than 150 nation-states and the so-called international system formed by them) where we would not find that innocuous little phrase ‘a big power such as the United States’. It implies normality, a rational approach, equidistance, a neutral assessment of the general laws and rules of politics, and yet we all know that there is no other such power. Everybody knows that the second so-called superpower, the USSR, is a superpower remotely comparable to the United States only in terms of its military capacity and, upon closer examination, not even here. And there is certainly, for the forseeable future at least, no ‘third superpower’ emerging anywhere, let alone in existence. Neither Western Europe nor China, India or Japan, each ‘big’ in a certain way, can qualify let alone aspire to such rank and status. At first sight the innocent sounding modesty and self-belittlement of the ‘such as’ qualification, to be found, as I said, in scholarly textbooks as well as in high-level, policy-orientated analyses of the foreign affairs offices (but certainly also in journalistic columns) contains the very problem and challenge we are trying to deal with.
TL;DR: For over forty years the United Nations General Assembly has been meeting annually to examine a broad range of international issues, and at the conclusion of its debates, it adopts resolutions and decisions on each of its agenda items as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: For over forty years the United Nations’ General Assembly has been meeting annually to examine a broad range of international issues. At the conclusion of its debates, it adopts resolutions and decisions on each of its agenda items. While some resolutions are procedural, many can be considered important, even historic, because of the events they spawned or because they marked a turning point in international relations. These include, among others, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Partition of Palestine, and the recognition of the People's Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China in the UN.
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: In this paper, a comprehensive study of the 1982 Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and its painful aftermath is presented, focusing on what factors were involved in Israeli decision-making, who the actors were, and how a hard'realpolitik' mentality shaped Israel's thinking.
Abstract: This is a most comprehensive study to date of the 1982 Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and its painful aftermath. It looks at what factors were involved in Israeli decision-making, shows who the actors were, and demonstrates how a hard 'realpolitik' mentality shaped Israel's thinking. Drawing on extensive research and his own first-hand knowledge of how the Israeli government and military forces operate, the author confronts the difficult questions that have been thrown into sharp relief by the Lebanese conflict and occupation. Readership: students of contemporary Middle Eastern politics and hist ory, and international affairs.
TL;DR: Burton and Sandole as discussed by the authors argue that their generic theory of conflict and conflict resolution is applicable at all "levels" of social intercourse, from interpersonal, marital and domestic, to international.
Abstract: John W Burton has been a leading theorist in the study of conflict and conflict resolution for more than two decades. While it is possible to trace the development of Burton's theory through a number of writings (e.g., Burton, 1962; 1965; 1972; 1979; and 1984), this paper will concentrate on two statements of it: the comprehensive monograph Deviance, Terrorism and War (Burton, 1979) and "Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution," an article written with Dennis]. D. Sandole that appeared in the October 1986 issue of this journal (Burton and Sandole, 1986). In the monograph Burton proclaims a Kuhnian "paradigm shift" in the study of conflict, and indeed of society itself. This shift entails moving away from a power/coercion/zero-sum game model of social exchange to one based on mutual "problem-solving," settlement, and "win-win" outcomes. Underlying this shift is a theory of society based upon universal, ontological, and generic/ genetic "human needs." This theory is sharply distinguished by him from one that emphasizes social institutions, structures, norms, laws or conventions more so than the individual. Burton views the two theories as inimically opposed, and much of Deviance, Terrorism and War is framed as a critique of the institutional theory, and as a brief for his needs-based alternative. The latest effort (Burton and Sandole, 1986) carries this work further. Because Burton's theory of conflict is postulated on a set of human needs that are held to be universal, Burton and Sandole are able to argue strongly for the generic nature of this theory, as well as for the processes of conflict resolution which are, in their view, deducible from the theory. This is one sense in which they mean "generic": transcending observable differences of race, class, culture, and so on. The second sense in which they claim their theory of conflict and conflict resolution is generic has to do with its range of applicability Specifically, Burton and Sandole argue that their generic theory of conflict and conflict resolution is applicable at all "levels" of social intercourse, from interpersonal, marital and domestic, to international. If we accept this second sense of "generic," then we may understand why the authors believe that the old discipline-based paradigm for the study of conflict-psychology, sociology or anthropology, international relations, etc.-is outmoded. These disciplines all implicitly accept the reality and integrity of different levels of social discourse and interaction. Burton and Sandole reject this in favor of a theory that makes possible a radically adisciplinary science of conflict and conflict resolution.
Book•
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: Brown as discussed by the authors applies the analytical tools of the social and behavioral sciences to the study of international violence, and considers the phenomenon of war itself; its behavioral, political, institutional, and structural determinants; and the issues involved in the reduction of international conflict.
Abstract: In this unique book, Seyom Brown applies the analytical tools of the social and behavioral sciences to the study of international violence. Within this theoretical framework, he considers the phenomenon of war itself; its behavioral, political, institutional, and structural determinants; and the issues involved in the reduction of international conflict. This second edition, which focuses especially on the challenges and opportunities for maintaining peace in the post-Cold War world, incorporates three new chapters. New topics include the forms of collective violence, the culture of war, and the role of diplomacy. The concluding section has also been extensively revised to accommodate an integrated strategy for the prevention and control of war.