Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:27:12.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Relations Theory, Biotechnology, and War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Alan M. Russell
Alan M. Russell*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations and Politics, Staffordshire Polytechnic, College Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DE, UNITED KINGDOM
Get access

Abstract

As a field of study international relations has always been concerned with the problem of war. Since the second world war much attention has been given to the impact of weapons of mass destruction, most commonly in the form of nuclear weapons. More recently, a wider variety of issues have been addressed by the field, notably widening its coverage of economic, welfare and social issues. Three broad approaches to international relations have emerged: political realism, pluralism, and globalism.

Biotechnology represents a major technological revolution which will have enormous impact on the world at many levels. One impact which cannot be ignored is its potential for weaponry. This paper assesses the three international relations approaches with respect to their elucidation of biotechnology and its potential for violent and aggressive applications.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Biotechnology and International Conflict , August 1990 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

Adams, J. (1989). “Russia Develops a New Breed of Genetic Weapons.” The Sunday Times (1 October).Google Scholar
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. (1988). “Biological Weapons Research Opposed.” Nature 334: 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, M. (1984). “The Evolution of International Relations Theory,” In Banks, M. (ed.), Conflict in World Society. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Bell, J. B. (1972). “Contemporary Revolutionary Organizations,” In Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (eds), Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 153–168.Google Scholar
Booth, K. (1979). Strategy and Ethnocentricism. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Brodie, B., and Brodie, F. (1962). Crossbow to A-Bomb. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
Broll, C. (1986). “Genetic Technology Aids Germ Warfare Research in Spite of Treaty.” The German Tribune (23 November): 4–6.Google Scholar
Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. New York, Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J. (1972). World Society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burton, J. (1979). Deviance, Terrorism and War. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. (1939). The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clark, I. (1980). Reform and Resistance in the International Order. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. N. (1968). The Economics of Interdependence. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, D. (1972). “Transnational Networks in Basic Science,” In Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Rosnay, J.(1984). “New Research Strategies in Biotechnology.” In The World Biotech Report, Vol. 1: Europe. Pinner, Middx.: Online Publications, pp.201–215.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K. W. (1968). The Analysis of International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dougherty, J. E., and Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (1981). Contending Theories of International Relations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Frank, A.G. (1966). “The Development of Underdevelopment.” Monthly Review (September): 17–30.Google Scholar
Freedman, L. (1989). The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 2nd edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1969). “Violence, Peace and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6:23–29. Reprinted inGaltung, J., Essays in Peace Research, Vol. 1., (1975). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers. (Page references are for the latter.)Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1971). “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 13: 81–94.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, R. (1984). “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism.” International Organization 38:287–304.Google Scholar
Groom, A. J. R. (1988). “Paradigms in Conflict: the Strategist, the Conflict Researcher and the Peace Researcher.” Review of International Studies 14: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the Nation State. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggard, S., and Simmons, B. A. (1987). “Theories of International Regimes.” International Organization 41: 491–517.Google Scholar
Holsti, K. J. (1985). The Dividing Discipline. Winchester, Mass.: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Howard, M. (1983). The Causes of Wars. London: Unwin Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Kegley, C. W., and Wittkopf, E. R. (1989). World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 3rd edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Nye, J. S., eds. (1972) Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Nye, J. S., eds (1977). Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Nye, J. S., eds (1987). “Power and Interdependence Revisited.” International Organization 41: 723–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, K., and Rosenau, J. N., eds. (1970). Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. (1982). “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.” International Organization 36: 185–205.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, F., and Ruggie, J. G. (1986). “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State.” International Organization 40: 753–775.Google Scholar
Levinson, M. (1986). “Custom-Made Biological Weapons.” International Defense Review 11: 1611–1615.Google Scholar
Maghroori, R., and Ramberg, B., eds. (1982). Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations' Third Debate. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, M. (1981). The Nuclear Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitrany, D. (1966). A Working Peace System. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, H. J. (1973). Politics among Nations (5th ed). New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Morse, E. L. (1976). Modernization and the Transformation of International Relations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, S., Hay, A., and Rose, S. (1984). No Fire, No Thunder. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, N. D. (1980). “The Study of International Relations in the United States.” International Studies Quarterly 24: 343–363.Google Scholar
Parkinson, F. (1977). The Philosophy of International Relations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Purkitt, H. (1984). “Dealing With Terrorism: Deterrence and the Search for an Alternative Model,” In Banks, M. (ed.), Conflict in World Society. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, pp. 161–173.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. R. (1979). “DNA Research as ‘High-intensity Science.’” Trends in Biochemical Sciences (May): N97–N98.Google Scholar
Russell, A. M. (1988) The Biotechnology Revolution: An International Perspective. Sussex, N. Y.: Wheatsheaf, St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Sasson, A. (1988). Biotechnologies and Development. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1963). The Strategy of Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M., Little, R., and Shackleton, M., eds. (1981). Perspectives on World Politics. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Sprout, H., and Sprout, M. (1971). Towards a Politics of the Planet Earth. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Strange, S. (1982). “Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis.” International Organization 36:479–496.Google Scholar
Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R., ed. (1983). Contending Approaches to World System Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Tooze, R. (1984). “Perspectives and Theory: a Consumers' Guide,” In Strange, S. (ed.), Paths to International Political Economy. London:George Allen and Unwin, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
United Nations (1988). Transnational Corporations in Biotechnology. New York: United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations.Google Scholar
Viotti, P. R. and Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International Relations Theory. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, I. (1979). The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Westing, A. H. (1984). “Herbicides in War: Past and Present,” In Westing, A. H. (ed.). Herbicides in War. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Wheale, P., and McNally, R. (1988). Genetic Engineering: Catastrophe or Utopia. New York: Harvester, St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1989). “The Emerging Significance of Biotechnology in International Conflict.” Paper presented to the convention of the International Society of Political Psychology, Tel Aviv, June.Google Scholar