Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:31:32.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Obsolescence of almost all theories concerning International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Maarten Brands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The implosion of the Soviet empire undermined most theories concerning International Relations. Only a few political scientists have conceded afterwards the weakness of their theories, which were mostly ahistorical, based on the deformation of politics with history omitted. The question asked in this article is what kind of International Relations as a discipline may be more reliable and helpful in the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , August 1998 , pp. 349 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Holsti, K. (1993) International relations at the end of the millenium. Review of International Studies 19, (1993), 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Kissinger, H. (1994) Diplomacy (New York) pp. 804–835.Google Scholar
3.Kratochwil, F. (1993) The embarassment of changes; neorealism as the science of Realpolitik without politics. Review of International Studies, 19 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hoffmann, S. (1977) An American social science: international relations Daedelus, 20, 59.Google Scholar
5.Rosenau, J. (1996) Probing puzzles persistently: a desirable but improbable function for I.R. theory. In Smith, S., Booth, K., and Zalewski, M. (eds.), International Theory, Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge) pp. 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Wight, M. (1996) Why is there no international theory?, In Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations. Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London) pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
7.Knudsen, T. L. (1992) A History of International Relations (Manchester) p. 3.Google Scholar
8.Bremer, S. A. (1992) Dangerous dyads: conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36, 309–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Siccama, J. G. (1993) Realistische en idealistische perspectevieven op Europese veiligheid. Een kwantitatief-historische toetsing. Transaktie, 22, 210–224. See also Paul Schroeder's criticism of George Blainey's The Causes of War (Melbourne 1977) discussed in T. C. W. Banning (1994) P. W. Schroeder's concert of Europe, The International History Review 16, 713.Google Scholar
10.Gaddis, J. L. (1992) International relations theory and the end of the Cold War. International Security, 17, 5–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Fisher, D. H. (1970) Historians' Fallacies (New York), p. 90.Google Scholar
12.Mearshheimer, J. (1990) Back to the future. Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, 15, 5–56. (Correspondence on this provocative article in the fall 1990 issue of the same journal).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge) p. 6.Google Scholar
14.Gaddis, J. L. (1993) The tragedy of Cold War history. Diplomatic History, 17, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Nietzsche, F. (1956) Werke, vol. 2 (Munich) p. 820.Google Scholar
16.Ruggie, J. G. (1993) Territoriality and beyond; problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47, 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Schmitter, P. C. (1986) An introduction to Southern European transitions from authoritarian rule: Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. In O'Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. C. and Whitehead, L. (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Prospects for Democracy (Baltimore) pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
18.Lebow, R. N. and Risse-Kappen, T. (eds) (1995) International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. (New York) p. 247.Google Scholar
19.Halliday, F. (1995) International relations and discontents. International Affairs, 71, 746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Joffe, J. (1995) Bismark or Britain? Towards an American grand strategy after bipolarity International Security, 19, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Rosecrance, R. (1973) International Relations: Peace or War? (New York) 25.Google Scholar