Advertisement

Along the Road of International Theory in the Next Millennium: Four Travelogues

  • Kalevi HolstiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice book series (BRIEFSPIONEER, volume 41)

Abstract

If the study of international relations in the 1970s was characterized by a breakdown of its three centuries of concern with the problems of peace, war, and order, scholarship in the 1990s and into the twenty-first century has confronted an explosion of theoretical ferment and philosophical disagreement. It is often punctuated by hyperbole and by the loss of a unified scholarly craft. This essay looks at the scene, notes incompatibilities, and laments some of its excesses.

Keywords

International Relation Global Governance Dependency Theory International Politics International Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ashley, Richard, and R. B. J. Walker. (1990). “Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 34(3), 367–416.Google Scholar
  2. Badie, B. (1992). L’État importé: Essai sur l’occidentalisation de l’ordre politique. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, R. J. (1996). “A Study of War and An Agenda for Peace: Reflections on the Contemporary Relevance of Quincy Wright’s plan for a ‘New International Order.’” Review of International Studies 22(2), 119–147.Google Scholar
  4. Bleiker, R. (1995). “Forget ‘IR’ Theory.” Paper presented at the Second Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Paris, September 13–16.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, Chris. (1994). “Turtles all the Way Down: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations.” Millennium 23(2), 213–235.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, Hedley. (1969). “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach.” World Politics 18(3), 363–377.Google Scholar
  7. Choucri, E. (1994). “La genèse de l’État périphérique.” Globe: Revue de recherche et d’études universitaires en science politique 3(4) (Spring/Autumn), 5–25.Google Scholar
  8. Commission on Global Governance (1965). Our Common Neighbourhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, Robert M. A. (1996). Regime Theory in the Post-Cold War World: Rethinking Neoliberal Approaches to International Relations. Aldershot, U.K.: Dartmouth Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deibert, R. (1996). Exorcismus Theoriae: Constructivisim, Metaphors, and Global Change.” Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (mimeo).Google Scholar
  11. Deibert, R. (1997). Altered Worlds: Communication Technologies in the Transformation of Political Authority. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deutsch, Karl. (1954). Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  13. Elkins, David. (1995). Beyond Sovereignty: Territory and Political Economy in the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elkins, P. (1991). A New World Order: Grassroots Movements for Global Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, Yale, and Richard Mansbach (1988).The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fukuyama, F. (1991). “Liberal Democracy as a Global Phenomenon PS. Political Science and Politics 24(4), 659–663. Google Scholar
  17. Gabriel, J. M. (1994). Worldviews and Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. George, Jim. (1994). Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  19. Goldgeier, J. M., and M. McFaul (1992). “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era.” International Organization 46(2),467–92.Google Scholar
  20. Holsti, K. J. (1971). “Retreat from Utopia: International Relations Theory, 1945–1970.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4, 165–177.Google Scholar
  21. Holsti K. J. (1980). “Change in the International System: Integration and Fragmentation.” In Ole R. Holsti, R. Siverson, and A. George (eds.), Change in the International System. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press: 23–53.Google Scholar
  22. Holsti, K. J. (1985). The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. Holsti, K. J. (1992). “International Theory and War in the Third World. In B. Job, (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States. Boulder Colo.: Lynn Rienner: 37–62.Google Scholar
  24. Holsti, K. J. (1996a). The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Holsti, K. J. (1996b). “Hindrances to Understanding in International Politics. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings, International Studies Association, San Diego, April 19.Google Scholar
  26. Huntington, Samuel. (1993). “The Clash of Civilizations ?” Foreign Affairs 72,Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, R. (1994). “The Coming Anarchy.” The Atlantic Monthly 273, 44–65.Google Scholar
  28. Lapid, Y. (1989). “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33(3), 235–254.Google Scholar
  29. Linklater, A. (1996). “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State.” European Journal of International Relations 2(1), 77–103.Google Scholar
  30. Mueller, J. (1988). Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Nicholson, M. (1996). Causes and Consequences in International Relations. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  32. O’Callaghan, Terry. (1996). “The Real World of Normative Theory in International Relations.” Department of Politics, University of Adelaide(mimeo).Google Scholar
  33. Onuf, N. (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbus: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rengger, Nicholas J. (1996). “Clio’s Cave: Historical Materialism and the Claims of ‘Substantive Social Theory’ in World Politics.” Review of International Studies 22(2), 13–31.Google Scholar
  35. Rittberger, Volker. (1993). Regime Theory and International Relations. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenau, James. (1996). “The Dynamics of Globalization: Toward an Operational Formulation.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, April 18.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenau, James. (1992). “Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics” In James Rosenau and E. Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–29.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenau, James. (1990). Turbulence in International Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ruggie, John. (1993). “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations.” International Organization 47(2), 139–174.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, B. C. (1994). “The Historiography of Academic International Relations.” Review of International Studies 20(4), 349–367.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, Andrew M. (1982). The Dynamics of Interdependence. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, M„ and A. Wildavsky (1993).The Real World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones of Turmoil. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, H. (1996). “The Silence of the Academics: International Social Theory, Historical Materialism and Political Values.” Review of International Studies 22(2), 191–212.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, Steve. (1995). “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory.” In Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press: 1–37.Google Scholar
  45. Spegele, Roger. (1995). “Political Realism and the Remembrance of Relativism.” Review of International Studies 21(2), 211–236.Google Scholar
  46. Spruyt, H. (1994). The State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sylvester, C. (1996). “The Contributions of Feminist Theory to International Relations.” In Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and M. Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.254–278.Google Scholar
  48. Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodem Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Waever, O. (1996). “Emancipation and Governance: Who’s on First, What’s on Second?” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings, International Studies Association, San Diego, April 19.Google Scholar
  50. Watson, A. (1992). The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Zacher, M. W. (1991). “The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for International Order and Governance.” In James Rosenau and E. Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 58–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Liu Institute for Global IssuesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations