Hanns W. Maull and Knut Kirste, ‘Zivilmacht und Rollentheorie’, Zeitschrift f%ir Internationale Beziehungen, 3/2 (1996).
Google Scholar
Patricia Davis and Peter Dombrowski, ‘Appetite of the wolf’, German Politics, 6/1 (1997), p. 3. For the concept of the trading state see Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State (New York: Basic Books, 1986).
Google Scholar
Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die Zentralmacht Europas, Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbuhne (Berlin: Siedler, 1994), p. 177.
Google Scholar
Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
Google Scholar
Hanns W. Maull, ‘Civilian Power: the concept and its relevance for security issues’, in Lidija Babic and B. Huldt (eds), Mapping the Unknown: Towards a New World Order (Stockholm: Swedish Institute for International Affairs, (1993), p. 20.
Google Scholar
J. A. Hobson, Richard Cobden: The International Man (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1918), p. 391.
Google Scholar
See, for instance, Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (Westwood Village, LA: US Library Association, 1932), p. 48. Thomas Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine (London: G. P. Putnam, 1894), vol. 2, p. 456.
Google Scholar
Cobden, cited in William Harbutt Dawson, Richard Cobden and Foreign Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1926).
Google Scholar
Peter Wilson, ‘Leonard Woolf and international government’, in David Long and Peter Wilson (eds), Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
Google Scholar
J. A. Hobson, Towards International Government (London: Allen & Unwin, 1916).
Google Scholar
Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (London: Heinemann, 1933), p. 127.
Google Scholar
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977).
Google Scholar
Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience (London: Temple Smith, 1978), p. 57.
Google Scholar
J. A. Hobson, Problems of a New World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1921), p. 233.
Google Scholar
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organisation, 46/2 (1992); Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American Political Science Review, 88/2 (1994).
Google Scholar
Karl W. Deutsch (ed.), Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 5.
Google Scholar
Thomas Risse-Kappen, Co-operation Among Democracies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Google Scholar
For a critical evaluation see the different contributions to Michel E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (eds), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 1996).
Google Scholar
Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 41.
Google Scholar
Maull, ‘Civilian Power: the concept and its relevance for security issues’, p. 20.
Google Scholar
Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, now Palgrave, 1974), p. 21.
Google Scholar
Joseph S. Nye, ‘Soft power’, Foreign Policy, 80 (1990), pp. 166–7.
Google Scholar
The classical realist critique was made by E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 19I9–39 (London: Macmillan (now Palgrave), 1948). For the critique of constructivism see Hans-Martin Jager below.
Google Scholar
Hans-Martin Jager, ‘Konstruktionsfehler des Konstruktivismus in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift fü‘ r Internationale Beziehungen, 3/2 (1996), pp. 326–7.
Google Scholar
This refers to Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
Google Scholar
For an example of this view see John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15/1 (1990).
Google Scholar
Adrian Hyde-Price, European Security beyond the Cold War (London: Royal Institute for International Affairs, 1991), p. 97.
Google Scholar
See Hoffmann’s contribution to Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Keohane and John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Correspondence’, International Security, 15/2 (1990), p. 192.
Google Scholar
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, brief edn (New York: McGrawHill, 1993). More recently, realist scholars have turned against neorealism precisely because it has been unable conceptually to account for the significance of institutions. For an attempt to do so see Randall L. Schweller and David Priess, ‘A tale of two realisms: expanding the institutions debate’, Mershon International Studies Review, 41/1 (1997).
Google Scholar
Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence; see also the neoliberal authors in David A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
Google Scholar
Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983); Volker Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
Google Scholar
For Keohane, for instance, nation state sovereignty is a persistent feature of interstate cooperation; see Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony, Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 62.
Google Scholar
(1994), and Andrew Hurrell and Anand Menon, ‘Politics like any other? Comparative politics, international relations and the study of the EU’, West European Politics, 19/2 (1996).
Google Scholar
Graham Allison, The Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971).
Google Scholar
William Wallace, ‘Old states and new circumstances: the international predicament for Britain, France and West Germany’, in William Wallace and William E. Paterson (eds), Foreign Policy Making in Western Europe (Farnborough: Saxon House, 1978), p. 48.
Google Scholar
See the literature survey by Margot Light and Christopher Hill, ‘Foreign policy analysis’, in Margot Light and A. J. R. Groom (eds), International Relations (London: Pinter, 1985); see also the contributions to Michael Clarke and Brian White (eds), Understanding Foreign Policy (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989), none of which include cultural variables. The same is true even for many authors in the so-called ‘second-generation’: see for instance most contributions to Laura Neack, Jeanne Hey and Patrick J. Haney (eds), Foreign Policy Analysis — Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).
Google Scholar
The concept of a foreign policy culture is derived from the political culture studies that emerged in postwar American political science. See Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba (eds), Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965); Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963); Lucian W. Pye, ‘Political culture’, in David L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1st edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, now Palgrave, 1968), Vol. 12.
Google Scholar
The first part of this definition takes important cues from Peter Katzenstein and Thomas Berger. See Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Introduction: alternative perspectives on national security’, and Thomas U. Berger, ‘Norms, identity and national security in Germany and Japan’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
Google Scholar
For the definition of ‘academic metaphor for self-in-context’ see Thomas F. Fitzgerald, Metaphors of Identity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 3.
Google Scholar
Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Introduction’, in Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security, p. 6.
Google Scholar
Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Is the ship of culture at sea or returning?’, in Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil (eds), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996), p. 206.
Google Scholar
K. J. Holsti, ‘Toward a theory of foreign policy: making the case for role analysis’, in Stephen G. Walker (ed.), Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis, 1st edn (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987), p. 7.
Google Scholar
Theodore R. Sarbin and Vernon L. Allen, ‘Role theory’, in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968), p. 489.
Google Scholar
See Rainer Zitelman, Karlheinz Weißmann and Peter GroBheim (eds), Westbindung. Risiken und Chancen für Deutschland (Berlin: Propylaen, 1993); more related to German identity and less on foreign policy is Heimo Schwilk and Ulrich Schacht (eds), Die selbstbewußte Nation (Berlin: Ullstein, 1994). For a
Google Scholar
Discussion of these see Peter Puizer, ‘Nation-state and national sovereignty’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London, November 1995.
Google Scholar
For a view of this before unification, see Hans-Peter Schwarz (ed.), Die gezahmten Deutschen. Von der Machtbessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1985).
Google Scholar
On the same argument after 1990, see for instance Gregor Schollgen, Angst vor der Macht. Die Deutschen und ihre Außenpolitik (Berlin: Ullstein, 1993); also most authors in Arnulf Baring’s volume: Germany’s New Position in Europe (Oxford: Berg, 1994).
Google Scholar
William E. Paterson, ‘Helmut Kohl, “The Vision Thing” and escaping the semi-sovereignty trap’, in Clay Clemens and William E. Paterson (eds), The Kohl Chancellorship (London: Frank Cass, 1998), pp. 31–2
Google Scholar