scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "International relations published in 1997"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors reformulates liberal international relations (IR) theory in a nonideological and nonutopian form appropriate to empirical social science and demonstrates that the existence of a coherent liberal theory has significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications.
Abstract: This article reformulates liberal international relations (IR) theory in a nonideological and nonutopian form appropriate to empirical social science. Liberal IR theory elaborates the insight that state-society relations—the relationship of states to the domestic and transnational social context in which they are embedded—have a fundamental impact on state behavior in world politics. Societal ideas, interests, and institutions influence state behavior by shaping state preferences, that is, the fundamental social purposes underlying the strategic calculations of governments. For liberals, the configuration of state preferences matters most in world politics—not, as realists argue, the configuration of capabilities and not, as institutionalists (that is, functional regime theorists) maintain, the configuration of information and institutions. This article codifies this basic liberal insight in the form of three core theoretical assumptions, derives from them three variants of liberal theory, and demonstrates that the existence of a coherent liberal theory has significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical implications. Restated in this way, liberal theory deserves to be treated as a paradigmatic alternative empirically coequal with and analytically more fundamental than the two dominant theories in contemporary IR scholarship: realism and institutionalism.

2,124 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In recent years, a great deal has been written about a ''constructivist'' approach in International Relations, which argues that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures as mentioned in this paper, which is called Constructive International Relations (CIR).
Abstract: In recent years, a great deal has been written about a `constructivist' approach in International Relations, which argues that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures ...

1,302 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the concept of security has been disentangled from normative and empirical concerns, however legitimate they may be, and the authors seek to disentangle the notion of security from normative arguments about which values of which groups of people should be protected and empirical arguments as to the nature and magnitude of threats to those values.
Abstract: Redefining ‘security’ has recently become something of a cottage industry.E.g. Lester Brown, Redefining National Security, Worldwatch Paper No. 14 (Washington, DC, 1977); Jessica Tuchman Matthews, ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1989), pp. 162-77; Richard H. Ullman, ‘Redefining Security’, International Security, 8 (1983), pp. 129-53; Joseph J. Romm, Defining National Security (New York, 1993); J. Ann Tickner, ‘Re-visioning Security’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Oxford, 1995), pp. 175-97; Ken Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 313-26; Martin Shaw, ‘There Is No Such Thing as Society: Beyond Individualism and Statism in International Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), pp. 159-75; John Peterson and Hugh Ward, ‘Coalitional Instability and the New Multidimensional Politics of Security: A Rational Choice Argument for US-EU Cooperation’, European Journal of International Relations, 1 (1995), pp. 131-56; ten articles on security and security studies in Arms Control, 13, (1992), pp. 463-544; and Graham Allison and Gregory F. Treverton (eds.), Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order (New York, 1992). Most such efforts, however, are more concerned with redefining the policy agendas of nation-states than with the concept of security itself. Often, this takes the form of proposals for giving high priority to such issues as human rights, economics, the environment, drug traffic, epidemics, crime, or social injustice, in addition to the traditional concern with security from external military threats. Such proposals are usually buttressed with a mixture of normative arguments about which values of which people or groups of people should be protected, and empirical arguments as to the nature and magnitude of threats to those values. Relatively little attention is devoted to conceptual issues as such. This article seeks to disentangle the concept of security from these normative and empirical concerns, however legitimate they may be.

804 citations


Book
28 Oct 1997
TL;DR: The authors examine the differences between realist, neoliberal and cognitivist arguments about regimes and argue that there is substantial scope for progress toward an interparadigmatic synthesis of these three schools of thought.
Abstract: International regimes have been a major focus of research in international relations for over a decade. Three schools of thought have shaped the discussion: realism, which treats power relations as its key variable; neoliberalism, which bases its analysis on constellations of interests; and cognitivism, which emphasizes knowledge dynamics, communication, and identities. Each school articulates distinct views on the origins, robustness, and consequences of international regimes. This book examines each of these contributions to the debate, taking stock of, and seeking to advance, one of the most dynamic research agendas in contemporary international relations. While the differences between realist, neoliberal and cognitivist arguments about regimes are acknowledged and explored, the authors argue that there is substantial scope for progress toward an inter-paradigmatic synthesis.

700 citations


Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: Rosenau as mentioned in this paper argues that the dynamics of economic globalization, new technologies, and evolving global norms are clashing with equally powerful localizing dynamics, rendering the boundaries between domestic and foreign affairs ever more porous and creating a political space, designated as the 'Frontier', wherein the quest for control in world politics is joined.
Abstract: In this book James Rosenau explores the enormous changes which are currently transforming world affairs. He argues that the dynamics of economic globalization, new technologies, and evolving global norms are clashing with equally powerful localizing dynamics. The resulting encounters between diverse interests and actors are rendering the boundaries between domestic and foreign affairs ever more porous and creating a political space, designated as the 'Frontier,' wherein the quest for control in world politics is joined. The author contends that it is along the Frontier, and not in the international arena, that issues are contested and the course of events configured. The book examines a number of contexts and agents through which local, national, and international affairs are woven together. Rosenau's recurring theme is the challenge of achieving governance along the turbulent domestic-foreign Frontier.

689 citations


Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a theory of domestic politics, showing how it affects international outcomes, where decision-making power is shared between two or more actors (such as legislature and executive).
Abstract: Presents a theory of domestic politics, showing how it affects international outcomes. In developing this rational choice theory, the text argues that any explanation that treats states as unitary actors is misleading. It describes all states as polyarchic, where decision-making power is shared between two or more actors (such as legislature and executive). A model is constructed based on two-level game theory, reflecting the political activity at both the domestic and international levels. The model is illustrated by the question of co-operation between nations.

678 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the post-cold war era, international relations theorists have shown an interest in international norms and rules not equaled since the interwar period, arguing that norms encouraging free trade, protecting the environment, enhancing human rights, and controlling the spread and use of heinous weapons may have a substantial impact on the conduct and structure of international relations.
Abstract: International relations theorists have in recent years shown an interest in international norms and rules not equaled since the interwar period. This contemporary literature is, of course, quite different—i.e., better—than that of the 1920s and 1930s: it has greater intellectual depth, empirical backing, and explanatory power. The promise of this research, bolstered by the opportunities of the post–cold war era, is that norms encouraging free trade, protecting the environment, enhancing human rights, and controlling the spread and use of heinous weapons may have a substantial impact on the conduct and structure of international relations. But pessimists also exist. Some have taken up the stick E. H. Carr skillfully shook at idealists in an earlier period, arguing that the anarchic power-shaped international arena is not so malleable and that international norms and institutions have relatively little influence. On the one hand, we are pointed to the centrality of international norms; on the other, we are cautioned that norms are inconsequential. How do we make sense of these divergent claims? Which is right?

505 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Jack S. Levy1
TL;DR: The authors assess theoretical and methodological debates over the potential utility of prospect theory as a theoretical framework for international decision making and conclude that challenges to the external validity of prospect theories-based hypotheses for international behavior are much more serious than challenges to their internal validity.
Abstract: A half-decade after the first systematic applications of prospect theory to international relations, scholars continue to debate its potential utility as a theoretical framework. Key questions include the validity of the experimental findings themselves, their relevance for real-world international behavior that involves high-stakes decisions by collective actors in interactive settings, and the conceptual status of prospect theory with respect to rational choice. In this essay I assess theoretical and methodological debates over these issues. I review work in social psychology and experimental economics and conclude that challenges to the external validity of prospect theory-based hypotheses for international behavior are much more serious than challenges to their internal validity. I emphasize the similarities between prospect theory and expected-utility theory, argue that hypotheses regarding loss aversion and the reflection effect are easily subsumed within the latter, and that evidence of framing effects and nonlinear responses to probabilities are more problematic for the theory. I conclude that priorities for future research include the construction of hypotheses on the framing of foreign policy decisions and research designs for testing them; the incorporation of framing, loss aversion, and the reflection effect into theories of collective and interactive decision making; and experimental research that is sensitive to the political and strategic context of foreign policy decision making.

468 citations


Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: Brecher and Wilkenfeld as discussed by the authors analyzed the causes and consequences of military-security crises since the end of World War I, in every region, across diverse economic and political regimes, and cultures.
Abstract: As the twentieth century draws to a close, it is time to look back on an epoch of widespread turmoil, including two world wars, the end of the colonial era in world history, and a large number of international crises and conflicts This book is designed to shed light on the causes and consequences of military-security crises since the end of World War I, in every region, across diverse economic and political regimes, and cultures The primary aim of this volume is to uncover patterns of crises, conflicts and wars and thereby to contribute to the advancement of international peace and world orderThe culmination of more than twenty years of research by Michael Brecher and Jonathan Wilkenfeld, the book analyzes crucial themes about crisis, conflict, and war and presents systematic knowledge about more than 400 crises, thirty-one protracted conflicts and almost 900 state participants The authors explore many aspects of conflict, including the ethnic dimension, the effect of different kinds of political regimes--notably the question whether democracies are more peaceful than authoritarian regimes, and the role of violence in crisis management They employ both case studies and aggregate data analysis in a Unified Model of Crisis to focus on two levels of analysis--hostile interactions among states, and the behavior of decision-makers who must cope with the challenge posed by a threat to values, time pressure, and the increased likelihood that military hostilities will engulf themThis book will appeal to scholars in history, political science, sociology, and economics as well as policy makers interested in the causes and effects of crises in international relations The rich data sets will serve researchers for years to come as they probe additional aspects of crisis, conflict and war in international relationsMichael Brecher is R B Angus Professor of Political Science, McGill University Jonathan Wilkenfeld is Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland They are the coauthors of "Crises in the Twentieth Century: A Handbook of International Crisis," among other books and articles

459 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The fundamental institutions of international law and multilateralism are generic structural elements of modern international societies as discussed by the authors and their practice transcends changes in the balance of power and the configuration of interests, even if their density and efficacy vary.
Abstract: Modern states have constructed a multiplicity of issue-specific regimes to facilitate collective action. The majority of these institutions are specific instances of the deeper institutional practices that structure modern international society, notably the fundamental institutions of contractual international law and multilateralism. Two observations can be made about fundamental institutions. First, they are “generic” structural elements of international societies. That is, their practice transcends changes in the balance of power and the configuration of interests, even if their density and efficacy vary. The modern practices of contractual international law and multilateralism intensified after 1945, but postwar developments built on institutional principles that were first endorsed by states during the nineteenth century and structured international relations long before the advent of American hegemony. Second, fundamental institutions differ from one society of states to another. While the governance of modern international society rests on the institutions of contractual international law and multilateralism, no such institutions evolved in ancient Greece. Instead, the city-states developed a sophisticated and successful system of third-party arbitration to facilitate ordered interstate relations. This institution, which operated in the absence of a body of codified interstate law, is best characterized as “authoritative trilateralism.”

383 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, Jervis's article "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma" is among the most important works in international relations of the past few decades, which describes how the interaction between states that are seeking only security can fuel competition and strain political relations.
Abstract: Robert Jervis's article “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma” is among the most important works in international relations of the past few decades. In it, Jervis develops two essential arguments. First, he explains that the security dilemma is the key to understanding how in an anarchic international system states with fundamentally compatible goals still end up in competition and at war. The security dilemma exists when “many of the means by which a state tries1 to increase its security decrease the security of others.” It provides the rational foundation for what Jervis termed the “spiral model,” which describes how the interaction between states that are seeking only security can fuel competition and strain political relations.2 Second, Jervis explains that the magnitude and nature of the security dilemma depend on two variables: the offense-defense balance and offense-defense differentiation.3 As a result, the security dilemma can vary across space and time. Although states exist in a condition of international anarchy that does not vary, there can be significant variation in the attractiveness of cooperative or competitive means, the prospects for achieving a high level of security, and the probability of war.

Journal Article
TL;DR: We Now Know as discussed by the authors is a comprehensive comparative history of the United States and the Cold War from its origins through to its most dangerous moment, the Cuban missile crisis, with new information drawn from previously unavailable sources; it also reflects the findings of a new generation of Cold War historians.
Abstract: The end of the Cold War makes it possible, for the first time, to begin writing its history from a truly international perspective, one reflecting Soviet, East European, and Chinese as well as American and West European viewpoints. In a major departure from his earlier scholarship, John Lewis Gaddis, the pre-eminent American authority on the United States and the Cold War, has written a comprehensive comparative history of that conflict from its origins through to its most dangerous moment, the Cuban missile crisis. We Now Know is packed with new information drawn from previously unavailable sources; it also reflects the findings of a new generation of Cold War historians. It contains striking new insights into the role of ideology, democracy, economics, alliances, and nuclear weapons, as well as major reinterpretations of Stalin, Truman, Khrushchev, Mao, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. It suggests solutions to long-standing puzzles: Did the Soviet Union want world revolution? Why was Germany divided? Who started the Korean War? What did the Americans mean by `massive retaliation'? When did the Sino-Soviet split begin? Why did the U.S.S.R. This book is intended for scholars and students of International Relations, postwar US-Soviet relations and political history.

Book
01 Sep 1997
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present theories of regional order that both generalize about regions and predict different patterns of conflict and cooperation from their individual traits, and conclude that, in the new world of regional orders, the quest for universal principles of foreign policy by great powers like the United States is chimerical and dangerous.
Abstract: Conflict among nations for forty-five years after World War II was dominated by the major bipolar struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War; states in differing legions of the world are taking their affairs more into their own hands and working out new arrangements for security that best suit their needs. This trend toward new "regional orders" is the subject of this book, which seeks both to document the emergence and strengthening of these new regional arrangements and to show how international relations theory needs to be modified to take adequate account of their salience in the world today. Rather than treat international politics as everywhere the same, or each region as unique, this hook adopts a comparative approach. It recognizes that, while regions vary widely in their characteristics, comparative analysis requires a common typology and set of causal variables. It presents theories of regional order that both generalize about regions and predict different patterns of conflict and cooperation from their individual traits. The editors conclude that, in the new world of regional orders, the quest for universal principles of foreign policy by great powers like the United States is chimerical and dangerous. Regional orders differ, and policy artist accommodate these differences if it is to succeed. Contributors are Brian L. Job, Edmund J. Keller, Yuen Foong Khong, David A. Lake, Steven E. Lobell, David R. Mares, Patrick M. Nlotgan. Paul A. Papayoanou, David J. Pervin, Philip G. Roeder, Richard Rosecrance and Peter Schott, Susan Shirk, Etel Solingen, and Arthur A. Stein.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that history has provided the theoretical tools to meet modern challenges, and that great political minds of the past can still guide modern politicians through the confusion of current events, and recommend that they be applied to today's fundamental international dilemmas.
Abstract: He explores their enduring theories, and recommends that they be applied to today's fundamental international dilemmas. Although no one school has all the answers, this analysis maintains that history has provided the theoretical tools to meet modern challenges, and that great political minds of the past can still guide modern politicians through the confusion of current events.

Book
15 Mar 1997
TL;DR: The authors argue that many of the most interesting theoretical issues in international relations can most usefully be studied through a prism labelled "security studies" and argue that security studies is a discipline of limited use in making sense of the post-Cold War world.
Abstract: This text takes issue with arguments that security studies is a discipline of limited use in making sense of the post-Cold War world. It argues that many of the most interesting theoretical issues in international relations can most usefully be studied through a prism labelled "security studies". The book combines chapters which provide a variety of critical perspectives on the discipline and address a diverse range of theoretical concerns, with chapters that examine such substantive issues as weapons proliferation and the changing meaning of "security" for actors in the erstwhile conflict between East and West.

Book
01 Jul 1997
TL;DR: The second edition has been revised and updated throughout with increased coverage of globalization and of the emerging 21st-century world order as mentioned in this paper, which is a concise introductory text for students approaching the subject of international relations for the first time.
Abstract: This concise introductory text for students approaching the subject of international relations for the first time takes as its starting point the main theoretical approaches which have been adopted historically and shows how these can be applied to understanding the central questions of war and peace, poverty and wealth, economic management and global governance confronting the world today. The second edition has been revised and updated throughout with increased coverage of globalization and of the emerging 21st-century world order.

BookDOI
31 Dec 1997
TL;DR: Cedarman as mentioned in this paper argues that the dominant focus on cohesive nation-states as the only actors of world politics obscures crucial differences between the state and the nation; traditional theory usually treats these units as fixed.
Abstract: The disappearance and formation of states and nations after the end of the Cold War have proved puzzling to both theorists and policy-makers. Cedarman argues that this lack of conceptual preparation stems from two tendencies in conventional theorizing: firstly, the dominant focus on cohesive nation-states as the only actors of world politics obscures crucial differences between the state and the nation; secondly, traditional theory usually treats these units as fixed. This book presents complex adaptive systems modelling as a way of analyzing world politics. It provides a series of models, computerized thought-experiments, that separate the state from the nation and incorporate these as emergent rather than preconceived actors.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine some significant problems found in current discussions of the ''agent-structure'' problem in international relations, suggesting that they result in serious gaps and silences, and also argue that important openings can be found that point to a more critical, if unsettling, way of conceptualizing agents and structures and the relations between them.
Abstract: In this article I examine some significant problems found in current discussions of the `agent-structure' problem in international relations, suggesting that they result in serious gaps and silences. However, I also argue that important openings can be found that point to a more critical, if unsettling, way of conceptualizing agents and structures and the relations between them. Specifically, I interrogate the issues of practices, discourse, and contexts of meanings that are implicit in existing approaches and argue that taking seriously the indeterminancy and undecidability of practice has important implications for the agent-structure problem both in terms of ontological assumptions as well as concrete empirical research.



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper argued that students of international politics have often argued that state leaders initiate the use of force internationally to divert attention away from domestic problems, and they argued that these argments are false.
Abstract: Students of international politics have often argued that state leaders initiate the use of force internationally to divert attention away from domestic problems. The author contends that these arg...


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a model is constructed that considers how the characteristics of states, their interactions and the structure of the international system facilitate understanding the ways in which power will be exercised, the type of global order that will be produced, and the level of global institutionalization that can be expected.
Abstract: Recent developments in the study of international institutions have created a need and opportunity for restating the traditional realist view of the role of institutions in international relations. Advancing what he claimed was realism’s perspective on this issue, John Mearsheimer (1994/95) forcefully staked out an extreme position that institutions are essentially epiphenomenal. Mearsheimer’s arguments, however, derived from Waltzian neorealism, are inconsistent with traditional realism’s concern for the origins and influence of international institutions. Moreover, they do not reflect the views of the newest wave of modified structural realists who adopt many of the insights of neoliberal institutionalism. In an attempt to show that pre-Waltzian realists had much to say about institutions, this essay reviews the neorealist/neoliberal debate over institutions, clarifies the basic differences between traditional realism and neorealism, and resurfaces traditional realist arguments concerning the effects of state power and interests on international institutions and global order. Combining insights from both traditional realism and neorealism, a model is constructed that considers how the characteristics of states, their interactions, and the structure of the international system facilitate understanding the ways in which power will be exercised, the type of global order that will be produced, and the level of global institutionalization that can be expected.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors find that there is no statistically significant relationship between democratic dyads and militarized conflict, and when controlling for changes in specific predominant rivalry structures, pre-1914 democratic duads are less likely to engage in war.
Abstract: Of approximately 100 empirical democratic peace articles published in journals and papers presented at conferences over the last 10 years, none identifies a positive and statistically significant relationship between democratic dyads and militarized conflict. Therefore, many international relations researchers have reached the conclusion that widespread democratization will lead to a more peaceful world. Nevertheless, two different attacks on these fundamental premises have been advanced recently. One argues that the pacificity of democratic dyads is restricted to the post-World War II era. The other argues that democratizing states, as opposed to states experiencing regime changes, have a greater propensity to engage in war. The present authors find that neither the arguments nor the evidence hold up well to closer scrutiny. First, when controlling for changes in specific predominant rivalry structures, pre-1914 democratic dyads are less likely to engage in militarized conflict. Second, democratic transi...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a portrait of the new international order offered by these reports, which is a liberal international order, and the UN is considered the site for the legitimation of a particular order.
Abstract: The end of the cold war and the attendant security vacuum unleashed aflurryof intellectual activity and international commissions that reflected on the world that was being left behind and the world that should be created in its place. The reports under review are among the best and most influential of the lot. This article focuses on three issues raised by these reports. First, the portrait of the new international order offered by these reports is a liberal international order. Second, the concept of legitimacy appears in various guises, and the UN is considered the site for the legitimation of a particular order. Few international orders are ever founded or sustained by force alone, something well understood by the policymakers who drafted these reports and wisely heeded by international relations theorists who attempt to understand their actions and the international orders that they construct and sustain. Third, these reports envision the UN as an agent of normative integration. As such, it contributes to the development and maintenance of a liberal international order by increasing the number of actors who identify with and uphold its values.

Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a broad overview of the history of the Cold War and its impact on international relations, focusing on the following: 1. Globalization and Fragmentation 2. The Paradoxes of the Pre-War World, 1900-1914 3. The Impact of War, 1914-1919 4. The Fragmentation of the Inter-War Era, 1919-1939 5. States of War and Globalization, 1939-1945 6. The Cold War, 1945-1969 7. Eras of Negotiation and Confrontation, 1970-1989
Abstract: INTRODUCTION 1. Globalization and Fragmentation 2. The Paradoxes of the Pre-War World, 1900-1914 3. The Impact of War, 1914-1919 4. The Fragmentation of the Inter-War Era, 1919-1939 5. States of War, 1939-1945 6. The Cold War and Globalization, 1945-1969 7. Eras of Negotiation and Confrontation, 1970-1989 8. Beyond the Cold War, 1990-2000 CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Checkel as discussed by the authors explores political change in the late Soviet period and in post-Soviet Russia and offers fascinating theoretical insights into the effect of ideas on state behavior, arguing that at the heart of the change was a struggle over new and old ideas.
Abstract: The peaceful end of the Cold War brought about an amazing transformation of international politics, and at the heart of the change was a struggle over new and old ideas, contends Jeffrey Checkel in this absorbing book. He explores political change in the late Soviet period and in post-Soviet Russia and offers fascinating theoretical insights into the effect of ideas on state behavior.

Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: Larsen as discussed by the authors presents discourse analysis as an alternative approach to foreign policy analysis, through an extensive empirical study of British and French policies towards Europe in the 1980s, he demonstrates the importance of political discourse in shaping foreign policy.
Abstract: Henrik Larsen presents discourse analysis as an alternative approach to foreign policy analysis. Through an extensive empirical study of British and French policies towards Europe in the 1980s, he demonstrates the importance of political discourse in shaping foreign policy. The author discusses key theoretical problems within traditional belief system approaches and proposes an alternative one: political discourse analysis. The theory is illustrated through detailed analyses of British and French discourses on Europe, nation/state security and the nature of international relations.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The question is not whether states balance or bandwagon as discussed by the authors, but rather under what conditions states choose one strategy or the other, and it is worth noting that history clearly shows that they do both.
Abstract: Realism is both a scientific research program and, more traditionally, a political philosophy. All realists share a pessimistic worldview that posits perpetual struggle among groups for security, prestige, and power and that denies the capacity of human reason to create a world of peace and harmony. Recent research by so-called neotraditional realists does not disconfirm Waltz's balancing proposition. Instead, these works have tended to add unit-level variables in order to transform Waltz's theory of international politics into one of foreign policy. The question is not whether states balance or bandwagon—history clearly shows that they do both—but rather under what conditions states choose one strategy or the other.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors study previous secessionist conflicts to determine if they share certain dynamics, and apply these dynamics to understand the international relations of Yugoslavia's demise, and find that Europe failed to cooperate regardless of whether greater international cooperation could have managed this conflict.
Abstract: With the end of the Cold War, many observers expected that international conflict would be less likely to occur and easier to manage. Given the successful resolution of the Gulf War and the European Community's (EC) efforts to develop a common foreign policy, observers expected international cooperation to manage the few conflicts that might break out. Instead, the disintegration of Yugoslavia contradicted these expectations. Rather than developing a common foreign policy, European states were divided over how to deal with Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia. Germany pushed for relatively quick recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, whereas other members of the EC wanted to go slower. Some observers expected Russia to fall in line with the West because of its need for investment and trade, but instead it supported Serbia. It is puzzling that Europe failed to cooperate regardless of whether greater international cooperation could have managed this conflict. How can we make sense of the international relations of Yugoslavia's demise? Since secession is not a new phenomenon, we should study previous secessionist conflicts to determine if they share certain dynamics, and we should consider applying to Yugoslavia the arguments developed to understand such conflicts.