Istersatiovat, Apvisony Boann Chair: Peter Katzenstein, Comell University Barry Buzan, University of Westminster Alexander L. George, Stanford University Helga Haftendom, Free University Berlin Fred Halliday, London School of Economies Paul K, Huth, University of Michigan Christer Jonsson, Lund University Robert O. Keohane, Duke University Stephen D. Krasner, Stanford University Lisa L, Martin, Harvard University James D. Morrow, University of Michigan Volker Rittberger, University of Tubingen of Tsukuba Janice Gross Stein, University of Toronto, J. Ann Tickner, University of Souther California Ole Waever, University of Copenhagen Alexander Wendt, University of Chicago Dina A. Zinnes, University of Illinois, "Hideo Soo died in Spring 2001 HANDBOOK of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Edited by WALTER CARLSNAES, THOMAS RISSE and BETH A. SIMMONS @©SAGE Publications London » Thousand Oaks © New DelhiOn the History and Historiography of International Relations BRIAN C. SCHMIDT Thus, today, afer 2 quanercestuy of activiy, the study of ntermational rear ‘ons i sill in eonion of considerable confusion. The seope of the field, the fncthods of soalsie and synthesis to be followed, the proper administrative arangements to be mate in college cu ‘eu, the organization of research ~ all these aze_malters of continuing contro vey (Rik, 194727) Ta bye 2 fed of inquiry, atematonal relations today resembles. 3 poosly ‘atked-out retain which a mulpity fof research programs and strates com pete, coexist overlap, or rain splendid Solation. Plating, 1969: 11) “The field of fnernational studies bas become a ltl like the Tower of Babel, filled with 2 cacophony of eifferent spices or, a8 some have implied asct of tribes that ate very tetra srping at those who come tao elose and peering to be with those like them. Av res the field of international vcations has become an administrative holding com- pany rather than an flea coher_ {nt -arcs of inquiry or a community of Scholars. (Hermann, 1998: 606), ‘These quotations indicate © preliminary reply to those who question the value of engaging in research on the dssplinay history ofthe eld of international telations (IR). While 3 eommon Aiagosis ofthe contemporary state ofthe felis that i licks a coleent identity, the statements above indicate thatthe idenity of the Geld has ever ben as scutes many might imagine. cut sory review of recet books and articles found in the evevespanding numberof specialized journals, and the programs of the annual meetings of the Interationl Studies Association (ISA) and British Inereaional Studies Association (BISA), reveals a complex field of extaordmary scope, yet an ele- ‘ment of suspicion continues tobe cast on the task of ‘examining is history. One posible explanation fer ‘he reluctance to grat legitiacy to this research tsskisthe common ation hat we already know te history. Another possiblity is at those in the rmainsiteam are sated withthe dominant story thats tld about the development ofthe field. In sy even, thee is po borage of Bit synoptic accounts of this history in introductory textbooks, Sate-of-the-field articles and ISA. Prosidemial ‘Address, “Thee renditions fequetly retell a conventional story of how the field has progressed trough ‘aries of phases sali, realist, behavioral, pos ‘echavioralis, pluralist, neoralis, rationalist, pos postive and eonstuctiist The image ofthe fist thuce phases has been so deeply ingrained in the minds of studens and scholars hat there almost ‘ssems tobe no llemative way of understanding the ‘aly history ofthe Feld. Hedley Ball for example, ‘haimed that itis “possible to recognize thee suc. cessive waves of theoreti activity’ the “idealist fr ‘progressvist doctrines that were dominant in the 1920s and early 1930s, the “realist or conser: ‘ave theories that develeped in the Ite 1930s and4 HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. 10405, and ts the “social see theories that sein te late 1950s and 1960s “whose origin ay in dissatisfaction with the methodologies on which both eater Kinds of theory were based” (Bull 1972 3). This story ofthe field's evolution i, in turn oftes butressd by the closely relstd acount ofthe field evolving though a series of “great Ashates, beginning with the dsipinry defining “get debate’ between ideals” and reals ad extending pethaps to the latest bate tay between “ronal” and ‘refectviss (Banks, 1986; Kavenstein et al, 1999; Keohane, 1988; Liphart, 19a; Maghrooi, 198; Mitchel, 1980), “This poriular constuction ofthe field's histo tends'to have the effect of making the present debate a matter that al serious students of must focus on while relegating previous debates to obscurity. Finals. the Bel’s history is commonly eroni- clea by rofeence tothe extemal evens that have {akon pce inthe realm that has been conventinly designated a ntrationsl polities, Theresa ston ‘onvition tt significant developments in nts ional polis such as wars or sbrupt chases in American foreign polly have, more fundamentally than any other set of factor, shaped the develope meat of IR. Th birth ofthe Sc, forexanpl, often associated with the founding of the word's fist Cac for the study of ixerationsl pois, 1919 a the Department of Inerational Pais atthe Universi Collegeof Wales, Aberstyth, i char acteisicaly viewed as 9 reaction tothe honor of the Fist World War (Porter, 1972). "My main ication in this chap is to problemo- lize these prevalent interpretations of how the ld has developed and wo indicate that the history ofthe field is both more complicated and ess well known than ypically portrayed in the msinveam Tera {ure While itis quite evident that we do not possess an adequcid understanding of how the field hes developed, there are a number of esas why itis rcialy important for contemporary practitioners tnd students oF TR wo possess am adequate lm iy wid ths history. First, numerous theoretical insights, of largely forgoten scholars, have been simply eased from memory. Yet once recalled, these insights can have stitcal purchase in the present. Second, the field tas crete its own powerfl nyt repuing the evolution ofthe field that have cbseured the tal history (Booth, 1996; Kabler, 199% Osiander, 1998; Schmidt 19983, 19986; Waever, 1998; Wilson, 1998). Thi, an adequate understng of the istry ofthe fields essental fr explaining the character of many’of our present assumptions and ides about the stody of interaaing] polis, ‘While eutent inlet practies snd theoretical poston are offen evoked as novel answers to the latest dilemmas confronting international poles, 9 ‘more discriminating historical sense reminds us that contemporary aproaces ae fen rincrmsons at past dscouser, Withoats suit undead dng of tow the fld has evolved tae ge on se ate econ ange we ei i fet, ch vent supp the rropsiton that mach of wha stake one's Stall deeply embedded nthe discursive pt of the eld aly pepicacious istry of he eld fers 8 fut as Yor eres econo he preset Koslelgs of he sets as opposed ne mt, story may fle sf esos same of a dominrt rages ofthe ld andes mapece {ng up some muh aed space m wich ak about itemation pois he new milensiom, ‘My purpose a this chapter isnt Wo provide a conpeteasive istry of he bcalydeied fed or dsipline of 18. Not only would such an cadeavor be inpossibiein hs content buat wil inde teow tere scent anbipiy cot = ditional paradigm’ which, according to Arend TLiphar, revolves around the nations of at sovere ignty and ts logical corollary, international anat~ iy" (1974 43). Quite eguenty references to the realist paradigm are used inerchangsably with fefernces to the “realist trotion’ of the “elit school of tought’. Receally, a aumber of scholars ‘hve problomatized the notion Gat realism rope- seals 8 singular, coherent theoretieal positon, and insead have argued that there are acually a varety of reams (Ashley, 1981; Doyle, 1997; Duan, 1997, Frankel, 1996; Goldmaan, 1988; ‘Guzzin 1998). Nevertelss, almost everyone inte elds able identify the Genta tenets that are associated ‘vith reslism, which typialyinlude the following tas: that the sovereign tat is the most important ‘scorn intestinal plies; ht state behavior ean ‘explained aioaly that states are unary ators, that there isa sharp distinction berveen domestic apd itematioal poe: that ses pursue power in Sn aparhical sel help setting and thatthe sues of ‘war and peace aze paramount. The dominance of realised Jack Dolly to suggest that ‘tocing the fate of realism provides a partial ye sil useful survey of the development of the field of inter- tinal ations’ (1995: 178). ‘Yet while realism is considered by many to be ‘heading paradigm in the il it bas certainly not boon the only candidate for paradigmatic slats. Seholas have made reference to host of alterna tive paradigms, wich are alms always defined in ‘opposition to te propositions of elism and whose fons are typically linked to. development in {ternational polities. classical example of this, even though ic allgedly predates the realist pars Siem, i the so-called east pardon of the interwar period. John Vasquer claims "hat the fist sage of international reatons inquiry was0 HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ominated by the idealist paradigm’, which sas “important in terms of iastatinalizing the field anderen the empbasis on peace and wat’ (1995 35-4). The central features ofthe so-called idealist paradigm, which largely have been defined reo Spoeively by postSecand World War realist et ‘es, asthe exact anthesis ofthe tenets atibuted to reals (Bul, 1972; Care, [1939] 1964; Guzzi, 1998; Hollis ‘nd Smith, 1991; Kegley and ‘Witkopf, 1989; MJ. Smith, 1986; Vasque, 1998), ‘Some of he ther rival paradigms to realism have included the “behaviorist. paradigm” (Lijphar, 1974, "weed polis paradigm (Keohane and Nye, 1972, global Society"and neo-Marxst parading (Pols. 1985), a “new paradigm for global politics" (Mansbach and Vasquez, 1981), and pluralism (Citle, 1996; Vion sad Kup, 1999) The Great Debates Kubn’s concept ofa paradig aswell as other on cops borrowed from the philosophy and history of fetonce, suchas Lakatos's (1970) conception of a slectie research programme’, have not oly been used to provide grounds for defining. distinct “sohool of though, but also evalune the overall, volition ofthe field as well as speciic approaches in the field (Ferguson and Mansbach, 1993; Guzzini, 1998; Keohane, 1983: Kugler, 1993; Lijphar, 19740, Smith, 1987; Tells, 1996; Vasgues, 1998; Walt, 197). Arcod Lijphat for example, has argued thatthe development of iter- rational relation since the Second World Wa fs Kuhn's description of scientific revolutions (974s: 12) The underlying purpose of uilizing natal frameworks borowed fom te philoso: phy snd history of science argely has been 10 ‘lemons tat seentifie advances are being made fd thatthe field as a whole is progressing In the ‘quest for cognitive authority over the subject mater, Of intrational polities, IR has. been dawn to Philosophers of science inthe belie that they ean provide the grounds for empirical judgmeat and ‘valuation, Ferguson and Mansbach, for example, ‘ote thatthe stration ofthe Kuban famowork for dssribing the history of IR is that i allowed “inerational relations scholars to see progres in their eld while surounded by theoretical ncober ‘ence’ (Ferguson and Mansbach, 1993: 22). Yet his issimply a misuse of Kuhn, singe he argued that his account of the development of science was not Applicable wo the history ofthe soil scence, since they were pre-paradignatic'. Moreover, analytical constructs such 35 idealism and cealism donot meet the criteria ofa paradigm as Kuhn desribed it And while Kubn's framework has been employed to demonstrat progres, his basic argument was that it ‘was not possible 10 speak of progress fiom & second-order pecspective Within the orthodox historiography of IR, it has ‘ben through the organizing device of the image of 4 series of “great debates! tat the story af the Field's development far been famed This has served to demonstate ether coherence or inher. nce but, most eommonly, scientific progress. The Widespread belle that th field's history has been Characterized by tre succesive goat debates evasive and. dominant that, as Wacver notes, nee is no oir eblished means ofteling the history ofthe disspine” (1998: 715). The star of the flel's three great debates is a Steve Sith (1995) and Kjell Goldmann (1996) bave argu, fone ofthe most domizant selPimages of the Hel. While all cademic disciplines experience thei share of disciplinary controversy, R maybe unique in that mos practitioners believe thatthe isto of the field has been singulaly marked by ese etning debates. This view bas ben reifored by explaining the debates in tems ofexogenoes inf fences such asthe eutreak ofthe Second World ‘We, ters of OPEC, the Viet debacle andthe ‘nd of the Cold War. For many inthe fed it seems selbevidet that changes inthe practice of inter ‘ational paliies necessarily and dcetly bring bout a transformation in bow the subjects studied ‘nd aught Thiss, fr example, he standand exp- rion ofthe alleged paradigm shit fom ideale? to ‘alism’ that oecumed ater the Second World ‘War. Perhaps more tan ay other elim about the general hislory ofthe fed, that which pesates three great debates must be erly examined (Kahler, 1997; Schmid, 19984, 19986; Smith, 1995; Waever, 1998; Wilson, 1998). It is aot enicly clear tat ll ofthe debates actualy ave {aken ploce, and an examination of the discursive facts ofthe Feld leds one to ask i he field's history hs been seriously distoned by Viewing it ‘within his amework I do not deny thatthe Held Ins experienced numerous controversies, bat T question the appropriateness of understanding ther in terms of the conventional story of the felis three great debates. ‘According to the conventional wisdom, the fist rea dsbae, which Miles Kale (1997) hs termed the foundational myth ofthe Feld, wae between ‘the inerwar idealists" and the post-war “reals? ‘Almost every hstoial aocount concedes thatthe ‘alse Won the fist debate and, ava rel r= feted the ld in a more practical snd sientiic Airetion (Dann, 1948; Fox, 1949; Guzin, 1998; Kink, 1947; MA Smith, 1986; Thompson, 1960) ‘The allegd superiority ofthe realist vow has made it appear unnecessary to consider carcfuly the nature of the claims made by those weriting in the Feld prior to the Second World War or even ‘he wetting of many of those wo are cosidred as carly realists. The itervar “ideals, who are realy disparaged, ace piel depicted a group Df wtopinn pits and legate who focwed thet (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF IR u aneaton on refomning international plies rather than on analyzing the relies of polities moos, rations, The ‘debate’, which allegedly ook place at ‘the League of Nations system broke dow, fofen ‘ese in Kuban ers, Wii the eli sp poselycovisionad everlasting peace, the Second ‘World Wari depicted as lang anomaly repre sewing a severe criss im the ideals pardon, ‘which evenly resled in its replacement by the ‘als paradigm, which was superior in ts abliyy {e rationally explain the persistent and ubiquitous strugle for powsr among nations (Guzzini, 1998; Hollis and Smith, 1991; Vasquez, 198). Sometimes the idealists are represented as alchemists who were concerned with "what ought to be" whl the reals se porrayed as scientists focusing on "what i ‘which was a prerequisite for creating a sience of poles (Caz, (1939) 1960. This story of the "bu baewsen “isis” and ‘realise continues to exer a strong influence on how the iid unde Stands i on history, and this account ia part fF ‘the pepetal need 1 ftell the fale of how IR was ‘nce rooted in isis but was fran, afer he ‘Second World War, o hve embraced realism “The second great dcbuc, as chaacterstically eseibed it the hieratwe took place within he feontext of the behavioral revolution that was leady deeply impacting the social sciences, espe ally poitel scence and which pited dion lists" against “behaviorist” or "scents. The Ashe is symbolized by the intelectual exchange between Hedley Bull (1966, who sought to defend what he termed the “classical approsch’, and Morton Ksplan (1966), who was one ofthe early advocates of what came to be known 6 the “sents approach’. A growing semiment among ‘American scholars was tht the field as losing ‘rourd in its quest wo acquire the mantle of sence. While realism, it was argued, served a number of paradigmatic functions, some schol elsimed that Its tenes, soch as the a prio: foundational aim thatthe suas for power stemoned fom basic bie- logical drives ooted in numa nature 2s well its methodology, which rliod heavily op istarical examples, were preventing the Fld fom achieving sSsenite ate AAS in the case of pola science, de debe ‘became polarized ttven those who belived tht ‘the methods ofthe matral sence, oat east those described by logical-postivistpilesophers of Science asthe hypotheltondcdoctive model, coukd be emulsted and adopted in the study of ines rina poles, versus those who azpued tht the Stuly of the social word was not amenable to the Strict empirical methods of natural scence (Keort ‘and Rosena, 1969; Morgenthau, 1946; Nicolson, 1996; Reynolds, 1973; Rogowst, 1968; Vil 1967) Geng Lis desebsd! the period in which the debate between taditonsliss and betavioniss took place a the heroic decade’ and suggeted that the key division war betwen hose wh a pe ‘tary itcested inners elation nd tse Wh ae pray commited othe elsboration oF Soci scence" (1966.7). The dhe over he tenis and adsqacy of 3 poitisic speach fly has ot diminted, be the sy vere Iss, 4 common view thatthe debate elped fo fester the scent ety of the ld dough the widespread acepane ad tization of scenic Ireeds which sided in the tsk of developing 4 Suimlative theory of intratoal polis, Merton Kaplan's (1937) systems theory, Kal Dee's (953, 1961 communications and cybemetes theory, Thomas, Seeling's (1960) ely gone tteory, Richard Snyder, HLW. Bruck and Buon Scpin's (1958, 1962) development of ceision. smaking thoy, and J. Davi Singer and Melvin Sal's (197) data collection nthe colts of war projet at the Univer of Michigan, are Eesrly viewed as combing to the eens Heniy ofthe Bel Historical seounts ofthe ied deat tend 0 be re ambiguous than hat of the oer wo dette, bar tis commonly described a an nerparadign date tat tok place i the exly 1980s mong relists, praise and strait Bens, 1985, Maghrosri, 1982; Olson and. Groom,” 1991; Waever, 1996). The tps explanation of he ot sins ofthe thr debate ols that dring the 1970s, Felis fllon sme dificult mes when eset in the realm of intel polis, ptesrly in the economic sphere but lo reating mates of pre and secu, appeared condi some of {hokey teal astrpions aout the mateo er ste polis (S. Smith, 1987), Aue eu of this parent iecongray is generally believed tht Sherative "approaches such ss Rober Keohane and foseph Nye’ (1977 1989) hoary of complex independence’ Immnsel Walerasin's (1975, 1980) “world systems theory’, Jahn Burton's “ob! vweb theory” (1972), and ependeney th {Cardoso snd Fae, 1979: Evans, 1319) ate Seveloped and dsl challenged many of ental tenets of els, Mos findamently, et tes of realm atacked the core claims of Ste- ents, the notion tat indcpendence her an interdependence characterized the condition of tional polis, and tht ler i Could be made betwee high police (ey miitsry tnd secur iss) and low police (le, eo tos, environmental and barn gs sus), has bein suggested hat ites within his context of 8 rowing fms on interdependence (Cooper, 1968; Rosecrance and Stein, 1973) hatte ii subs felt of femal Pliical Economy emerecd (Kateentein eta, 199) ‘Wile i was argued tat the publication of Wale's Theory of Iternatonal Poles 1979)n HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. ve @ new lease om life 1 eaism inthe form of corals, which rapidly became the new orho- tony, mos ecounte ofthe thie debate do not con luge that realism as he viclor Unlike: the Previous two vgreat debates, the “third debate” i, scoring to Wasver, ‘seen 2s a debate not to be ‘von, buts plan to live with" CWaever, 1996 TSS). nother words, claims shout the ascendancy of corals did not mean tht sdheronts of liberal (Glas) or Maris (globalist) approach stopped contig to the discourse of IR, and some have ‘ren questioned whether the three ‘paradigms’ were ‘ve in competition with one another. Adding tothe ‘onfsion of undestanding this period of disepli fury history in tems of ‘thi debate’ was the emergence, daring the 1980s, of a number of pos- postive approaches that were sharply ential fal ‘he mainsveam approaches inthe eld (Der Devan and Shapira, 1989; George and Campbell, 1990; Peterson, 1992), According to Yoset Lap, the sek by feminists, Frankfurt School eral thes- fit, andpowstratralistson what they perceived to be the positivist epistemological foundations of the field signaled the daun of a “hid debate’, hich he claimed consisted ofa “isciplinary eff to reassess theoretical options ina “post-postvist cera” (1989: 287) That the Htrature ean simulane- ‘ously make reference to 0W0 fundamentally dir ent controversies under the same abel ofthe "tind ‘bate’ should be enough to indicate thet there is someting seriously wrong with this understanding of te history ofthe field. What's Wrong With the Image of the Great Debates? ‘The newest cohort of disciplinary historians have both noted the peculiarity ofthe field's slF-mage being derived from the idea of a Ect of tecurent debates and pointed to some ofthe problems that aye involved in viowing the history ofthe Ted in et (Goldmann, 1996, Kabler, 1997, 199%a, 1998b; Smith, 1995; Waever, 1998; Wilton, 1998), There ae $o many problems and difficuldes involved in understanding the history of the eld within the framework of the three great debates that we might be beter of sin= ply toejct discussing this account of how the field fas developed. In the first place, when attention is dirested tothe details ofthe Fils history, ts not tvident that all ofthe three debates etl took pice. This is especialy the case with respect to the first great debate’ (Wilson, 1998). Second, the sl- iaed versions ofthe debates do not do justice to the rutre ofthe controversies that were i ft taking place. Third, by focusing only on the three great ‘ebates, 2 number of additional and, extremely imponant, distiplinary controversies continue boloverlooked. Finally, the use of the analytical framework of sre of pret debates to accoant forte fei’ history 8 conservative move hat shes th eld a protersnse of eerece than the cul history of he ld warns (acs, 1998. (One ofthe srping dings to Smee um the recent scholarship on the history ofthe ld Dat onary to poplar ble the Feld was mover dom ‘edb poup of upian seholas who aed to Something aint what hes bean desea she ialtparadim (alow, 1995; Kabler, 1997, it, 1996 Long, 1991; Long and Wikon, 1995; ‘sind, 1958, Schmid, 1998 1998, Wo, 1998) In most cases ti ficult fnd a shor who was slfconciounly and inettatiosly 2 smember ofthe field of IR who adhered tthe tenets that ae freguealy associated with s conarat termed ideals er utopias Wale isthe ose that the iter shoes had pasta mise Sion to reirm he practice a internaoral ples, this objetv, whith s endemic othe very are of secon-rder meupactce, Has coninod fo Srimate th history ofthe field. Ts object, suc, dos notin and of tel quality he etree apa, Many of tose wh have been ited deals" tum ot, pon closer nepecton, i tb scribe wa poston tats que diferent om the tmanter itch they ave Bee character! in the secondary Irate. The conventional abel of ‘deals that has teen tached the inst eviod of seholsahip seriously mieprsent the {Stal carr ofthe convertion that was Bing Aiected toward understanding nterationa poles (sinner, 1998; Schmid, 138s, Wika, 199) ‘Apart fom sry dstoing the formate yeas ofthe fets history, heen fg has inhibed derstanding some othe deep dcusve cnt ties that exis beswcen he present andthe pat ethops the mot imporan conti he on tof anarchy tat has given he ld of TR dis tinct discursive cen Altough it might peas {0 thse who arent ear wth th insta History oF Rat anvchy is aome newly dacovered ‘eset puzi at ends el tho atest eo Secial stent tguiy, anarchy andthe eosely ‘sued concept of sovereignty ~ has sve a the Gore constituent principle throughout the evolution the fel (Schmid, 19980), The interwar shale swere hecalyaare of he fact hat thee subject mate which includ am ani of the ates of Sar and pase, ety dealt wih uss ansing From the existence of sovereign sates ina coniton af sary Dieinson, 1916, 1926). nyo xe ng ding the interwar period undertod that Sovereigny and anarchy were inexnsaly soe ate with and mutual coiave of eth ote, and ths apa why mich ofthe near Gouse Focused onthe concept of ste sores. In the sudy of te ae, poli! scent eb shed a thee! Fink Hetncen the nel entra aupects of ste sovereignty as well os (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF IR b ‘etwcen domestic and intemationa pois. The jw theory ofthe stats, which, during the early 1900s, as the most nflacntl paradigm for the suuly of poitial science, depiced the international rilon af one where states led an independent and ‘solated existence (Willoughby, 1918). Proponents fanatic theory evoked the pre-sonvactal image of ndivduals ving in a state of mature to describe ‘he extemal condition of states and érew many of the same pessimists conclusions hat reali have rade about polities eondocted inthe absence of 2 tenia author. ‘Beginning inthe 1920s, urs theory was hale lenged by anew group ofhinkers who collectively put forth the theory of pluralism dst fundamentally transformed the discourse ofboth polities sience and IR (Gunell, 1993; Linle, 1996; Schmidt 19986). Plast such as Harold Laskt (1921, 1927) and Mary Packer alle ((1918} 1938) argued ‘Hat jure theory was entey inconsistent with the modem condition of interdependence, and this cleatly indisted tht the state was no longer ‘mipotet sod mune from al other sources of futhority. The interdependent quality of ante rational polities, which pluraists took be Axiomatic along with the existence of many iter ‘ational public unions (Reinsch, 1911) ised ser ‘us doubts abot the validity of the claim that each ‘ation sate was etrely sovereign in relation al ther actors. There are many sires between the pluralist evtique of jurstic theory andthe ‘bate oer interdependence at tok place ding the 1970s, and yehere is almost no recognition of thier scour (ds Wide, 1991), Richard Litle argues that one ofthe msn reasons why the inlee- Tua heiage of pluralism has becn obscured stems trom te “willingness ofthe discipline to acept the smachment of the idealist tg to this seminal ters ture" (1996: 69). The ‘ideaist tag” has. also ‘obscured the manne in which the interwar scholars Sspptoached the study of imerational security (Galdwin, 1998) and international organization. ‘While the icterwae seholasip is most offen 2200 ted with the fortunes of te League of Nation, ‘ot eveyone writing during ths period assumed that the imoducton ofthis new iterational organiza tion woul by tslf alter fandamently the lege of international pois (Duggan, 1919; Hicks, 1920)- The most pressing theoretical issue for those invotsd inthe stad of inematona organization encemed the mamer by which vious concep Hons of sate sovereignty coud be reconciled with the operation of the League of Nation. This was ‘certainly the ease fr Pitman Benjamin Per, who ‘as the person responsible fr ging specific form to the study of ntemations! organization ta the 8 Uisinguished by iealsm doesnot, however, rest fn denying thatthe fed experienced a change of ‘emphasis fer the Socond Word War. By the eat [De ews apparent thal the eld was undergoing 8 tanstion, which was best exemplified BY the agement that the study of intemational polities should replace ntemaonal organization as the eal focus ofthe field Dunn, 1948; Fos, 1949; Kirk, 1949; Schuman, 1933, Schwarzenberg, 1941). Those sho began to enter te profession under the selpoclimed “realist identy were ‘sponse fr changing deemphasis inthe et bat its imponant motto exaggerate the dsconiutis ‘berween the pre-and postwar discourse oF TR Like those writing before the Second Word War, he am ofrmany ofthe ‘realists was to speak uh to power, “This was esposaly tho ease with the émigré sho as who deeply impacted the discourse of bo polit fealscience and IRA careful reading ofthe texts by EH, Carr (1939), 1968), Hans J. Morgenthau (1988) and Frederick L, Schuman (1933) reves & ‘umber of conus with the caller discourse ‘which ave been entirely overlooked as a eanse- {quence of viewing ther woek in tems ofthe dbi- ‘us dichotomy between idealism and reals. While itis thecase hat Morgenthau and be oho “els Ielped to make intereations poles" the nucleus of ‘the eld ia noth xe hat hose weting Before the oubreak ofthe Sscond World War were an milar with many of te eo elims ofthe ‘aew" power plies model Bryce, 1922; Resch, 100), The discursive artifact ofthe fl’ histry do not Jend mach support the ela hata debut, the sense ofan intelectual exchange between opposing ‘heoztcal postions or pangs, ever took place Totween the inerwer andthe post Second Work War scholars ‘Compared with the recent esearch on the inter- ‘war pero of the field's history, the details gencr- ally associated withthe ‘second ret dcbate" or the “wdiionalim versus sietnm debate’ have not iy and spstematicaly investigated is Inler pesod is not very well understood, aad addinonal research is require, ‘Winia the existing iteratre onthe send debts, which typically construe i as a debate abut he Selene status ofthe old, wo diferent secouns ofthe nature ofthe controversy hve been put forth “Many of th ea accounts of the controversy her- alded tas ‘great debate that conibuted to amajor ‘easformatin in the field (Bull, 1972; Kapton, 1966; Liphart, 1974, 19754). iphart, for exam le, elaimed hat the tadionalismsience debate (ofthe 19605 Was mote subaantve and fndaen. {al than the ealer debate beoveen idealism and realism (1974a: 11. He argued that the behavioral ‘evolution in TR resus ina new paradigm = the ‘behavioral paradigm tht was at reat dds wi the sabstatve chim ofthe wana reais paradigm According to Wis view, the aiinalss tosei HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS who appreached the study of iterations polities Tom a egal, philosophical, historical, or induetve point of view" lost out 0 what was perceived to he scenic spproach that sought to emulate the ‘method of the natural sciences. The result was that TR became more sclontii, realism lost its dominant poston, andthe old was brought mre ie with the othe socialsciences, Beginning with John Vasquer's influential book The Power of Power Polis (1983), an allerative ‘ew ofthe “second debate" began to emerge that argued thatthe contoversy was realy only a pseudo Abate which was largely confined to methodeogs- fal sues and did aot involve substntive apes ff the subject matter of international polities {Guzzi 1995; Hols and Smith, 1991; Holst, 1985, 1998; Vasquez, 1998). Vasque? (1983) sought 10 emonsrate that the Behavioral largely worked ‘within the realist paradigm and merely sought © sdvance the methodologies! credentials of the fl In this manner, the debate has Been eonstued as 8 “motodologialdsbat" which wok place "within & single (els) theoretical orientation’ ad that it ‘was ‘about how to conduct inguiy” within that approach’ (Helis and Smith, 199T: 31). Holst adores this view and argues that the “behavioural ‘evolution dd not inauguate anew way of looking athe wort, a now paradigm, ors new set of ao ‘ative problems” (1998: 33) One ofthe more sige ‘icant implications ofthis revisionist interpretation isthe view thatthe field has heen far more coher ent systematic, ad even cumlatve anal the talk about contending approaches abd teas implies” (Wasquer, 1998-42), ‘While concede that sere is some meri in each ofthese accounts, niher sufficiently captures the ‘ante of the disputes hat occured during the 19505 nd 1960s. One way of coming to grips with this pio ist view the evens in tems of Gunel's Framework of the orders of discourse. A racial ‘sau that informed the botavirst debate was the problem of IR's cognitive authority asa Second- ‘Srderalsourse. it Increasingly. became the ca, ‘specially within he American context, that scence [provided the model for achieving the autonty of Tenowledgs, an the quest during the 1950s and 1960s, as well as befor and afer this period, was to multe what wore belived to be the canons of inguiry in natural. science. The commitment to achieving a body of knowledge about interatonal polities that was sciemifclly credible and that ould command practical authority bas aways besa 2 defining goat’ of the field. What hae changed foyer th couse of time isthe conten ofthe es afscience ‘One of the consequences of neglecting a eaefil study of te history ofthe Fed has been fare fo ‘ognize adequately the work of te members of the Chieago School of political seience. In the 19205 and_ 1930s, Harold. Lassel, Chats Meriam and Quincy! Wright bere tat thy Sere at he orton of developing univent Science of plies (Fox, 1975, Rates. 1999) As Wiliam 7-R- Foe tas soled, whe Nord Potter ‘began pbicatn in 1948, hte were to Yr ie feet Schools f though shaping the adem sty of TR he rest schoo and he shoo I Meriam, which "had te rots tn homesonn ‘Ameria ollie! sence in lala pagan, tnd nan siting th he power of te men inellect gradually to crente a bet worl (STS 590, The Chicago School cao» scene of imerational pois was one tat vicwed ies Aatnal elstons 3 mors single ubsion 2 more inclasvespproach hat fosised on he oe ‘tpower sss a boa range of esses rom th ca ete goa eve “Tha te a mumbe of explanations of why the ida of scence athe baba orliss boughto te fd uriog the 1950s and 1960s argey centres nthe conse ofa ration] sytem (Rape, 1987, Rose, 1988) The Hen of pla wes ental othe behavioral movement but pia ton TR ook ona aunber of sete an peo tematic proper, Within poll sleec the sysems appoch (Eason, 1953) was meal to flac he std ofthe sat, wich te beavirl 1S decmed tbe atcha ed combing Backwaress of te dscigine. Yer witin TR, sho tenes of he beh! prs five Inte and whe the henry of res as dominant, the adoption of he concept of 25st Sid nt supersede the focus onthe Ineracion af Sats, snce woud ave fhed the very en af the eld (Lid, 1978, 1983). The proper ‘scored wo te “ination! syste ete gly derived fom a details, and increasingly une tive ana ofthe unis aut (Bazan ond Lite, 2400). The ystems approach gave nso wha hs been emed the evel of naj prblen. which ile he gion ote ave ei ht should be abated fhe unis as opposed fo he System as a whole Buran, 995; Hols and Sil, 1991 Singer, 1969). Wal’ (1979) ler tem ts onstet a stems teary was bce on te del ot mcroszonomin, which sought overcome he troblen of rduconisn tat Heated to the Gatier generation of systems thinker It would ‘pps tat Buran and Lite (200) sr cot ‘gue thatthe concept of an ineratfnal per iy contest and T would suggest hat coal ftamining the pero thst hes been conse terms ofthe stand dcbate might sla seme of Slay tthe present conversation ‘Whether or not me accept the iden that 9 re debate 0 pos, porn ht eo not Se-emphasze the conquers tat the ices stachnet emt fad for he develope of (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 1 is the fed Fis, i has resulted in IR surendeing its intellectual autonomy to & number of cognate field that appeared for whatever asa, tobe more scientific. Ths is plainly, and T would age unfor- tunately, the ease foday withthe field's faseination ‘with, and incessant borrowing fom, microeconomic ‘mods of analysis. Second, the commiest 10 ‘cease contrbuted Yo @ growing sit between the ‘American scholarly communis which sought (0 “emulate the positivist approach to knowledge, and ‘much ofthe rest of the word that remained Spy suspicious of studying international poiies in is manver. The members of the English Schoo, Holey Bull, Herbert Buneeld, John Vincent Marta Wight and others, were, for example, “hep. tical of the possibilty of a sieaifie stay of Intemational Relations” (Dunne, 1998: 7). They ‘hose fo fosus on what they termed an ‘interatons Society” that involved the su of histery, cur, religion and philosophy (Duane, 1998; Ep, 198: Grader, 1988; Lite, 2000), Yet their work as wel a most of the scholarship fom Briain, ws, il recsnly, almost completly ignored by American Scholats. A third consequence was a diverce betwen politcal theory and international relations theory (Boueter, 1998), Justa the history of polite cal thought became a focal poin of atack by behav= forliss in political seience, te idea thatthe study of iseratonal poles thory could advance the Scientific credentials of the field. was rejected Fourth, the bifuretion of politcal theory aod inter rational theory ad the effect of margnalizing fomative consems and contributed to what Steve Smith hastened the fory-yeare detour whereby i became ‘simply old-fashioned, and very uneade- tie, fo intodace nonnative eoncems sto amlyss unless they wore themselves to be th objet of analysis" (1992: 489). The field has only recently begun to recover from this detour and has resco ‘red nonnative inematonal pla theory "The limitations of ulirng the “gest debates’ ramework for undertnding the ity ofthe Held is plainly apparent when we comet ic 1980s and ‘he soled “hin great debate’. As the field has ‘become increasingly pluralistic, perhaps owing, in ‘art its instttonal growth, there seems to be & plethora of debates, In adstion tothe two versions ff the “third debuts" mentioned earlier, the iter paradigm and post positivism debates, there isthe Abate between. neorealim. and eoliberlimy (Baldwin, 1993; Kepley, 1998); betwen rational ists and reflectiviss (Keohane, 1988; Walker, 1989); between rationalists and. constructivist: (Katzenscin et al, 1999; Rupwic, 1998, Wendt, 1999, sce also Fearon and Wendt, Cpr 3 in this volume); between “oensive” and ‘defensive eal iss (Mearsheimer, 1994/1995; Schweller, 1996), and between communitarians and cosmopolitan: (Brown, 1987, 1992; Hoffnan, 1988). Yet this listing ony begins to serach the sures, since there are also numerous debates within specific approaches such as constructivism, femost, rlism and post-ewcturalis, ‘Although ts diffiult to provide an adequate his- tonal perpectve on Giese more recent develop- ‘eas, is simply impossible to lump all of these ‘ontoversies under one grand master debate. No mater what general charactonstcs we asiga othe the ently 1980s, Wendtspor- ticular conception of constructivism, which accep ‘many ofthe asurmpion of reais, isthe approach being taken most seriously by the matastream today. To the dismay of some ofthe eicalsthol- asin the fel, Wend: (1999) claims tht his ver. Sin of constructivism sable to extrain the role of ideas, norms and the process of identiy-formation ‘while atthe same time subscrbing to a realist "world-view and a positivist epistemology. Ia this ‘manner, some ofthe most recent Iiteatute oa the Sue ofthe field is healing constrastiviam asthe fields newest approach or paradigm othe stay of international polities (Katzenstcin et al, 1999; Walt 1998), Coxcivsios: Although there isa general sense that we already ‘ow the field's history have tempted to demon state that there are many problems withthe con ‘ventional story about how the Fel has developed Some ofthe more recent work om the history of IR Suggests that may’ of ou dominant understandings ofthe ficld are nothing more than myths (Booth, 1996; Kahler, 1997; Wikon, 1998), 20d one ofthe robiems with such myths is tht they often not ‘aly misrepresent the pas But continue to min rm the preset. Resotch onthe istry ofthe fil Js not simpy an exerts in atguarisnsts at an sttempt to inctease our eapaciy to examine er Cally the contenpaary mature ofthe eld by. an Understanding of the intellectual roots rom which it has evolved. There isan intimate link between di ciplinary identity and the menner im which we Understand the Mistry af the il. ora il thot appears to be perpetvlly consumed by’ identity ies, careful atestion 9 Some of the previous iMenttis by which we were possesed would represent fitful esearch agenda. There is ample ‘opportunity for the diverse approaches i the eld toexplere their own intelectual roots and, thereby, to rtogniz some of the comnts between the pst and the preset. Such an exerise might even felp to prevet the tendency forthe field to pro lim somaing guile od ae ne In oder forte investigation ofthe history ofthe Seld.oresve the sane intellect respect ote ates of research, mors attention should be placed ‘on the theoretical and methodologies! a¢sumpiions involied. The absence of such attention in mush of the existing erature a the hstry of the eld hes ‘served o reinforce the vow that the history of Ris self-evident or wv One examples the explicit ss ‘wel as implicit contexts at bas informed so ‘many ofthe orthodox aeounts ofthe fei’: deve- ‘opment, Altough itis often sopgested that the ‘extemal costent provide by “teal word” polial ‘vents can be conceived as an independent variable that explios the character ofthe feld at a specific historia juncture, che ata link between the tv is seldom ss straighforvard and seevident ait Inight appear. The relationship between extemal ‘vents ad the internal dsipinary response mani fesed in conceptual er theoreeal change must be Sppraly dense Sd ot merely ase. “Although IR is conecived as an academic enterprise devote tothe study of international polit, this docs not automatiealy imply thatthe exogenous ‘vents that comprise the subjet marr a any ven ‘point in time can explain what happens inside the Fick. From the poim of view of eiseplinary history, the ent ofthe issue should be how te el has, oF fas not, responded intellectually to extern actors father than how these fetors ean account fr the dynamics inside the field. And more atestion should be placed on the internal context ofthe field such a5 ts sein in the university system, sources of funding and profesional nos. An intra 3 ‘compared an extemal focus may ell bsp to Sccount forthe distinct national differences a how the fed has developed. ‘While Phave sugested that it might, for various seasons, be Beneficial forthe various approaches of Schools of thought in the fea te chronicle ther ov Aiscursive development this dos not mcan tat ie ‘iplnary history should merely serve asa vehicle for legiimation and ertique. As Gunnell has state, truths very olen more convincing than fiction and ‘aie as much eitical fre (1991), Although there tight be a tendency for histories ofthe el to Bo presents, it has bocome obvious that this often reais in serious distortions. Rather han seeking to ‘ay something authoraive about the fies present racer, itnight be more uf oaterp os Sennthingdeintive about the fl’ past I is quie evident tht a number of diferent approaches ani methodologies can be wed to. ~ (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF IR ” recover the disciplinary history of TR. While Ihave flscuhere advocated 4 histriographical approach thot ean be desenbed asa ential nteral dncursive history (Schmit, 1998, 19986), Guzzin (1998) advorates ahisoial soeilogial approach, Waever (1998 embraces a sociology of siene view, and Smith (1995) advocates 2) genealogical method Informed by the work of Foucaul Ther som for all these approaches and moce, but the importat points that disciplinary history canbe a vehicle in Fostering extial insights and opening additonal space in which to think about the cet lemmas {hat continue to confront the study of intermationl politics. These insights, however, depend on dis- paling the misconceptions tht have plagued pas ‘work onthe history of. Notes {tho thane G, Gn, Steve Shand the tors forte ell comments ad ugsestons ob eae ‘vos of tis hater 1 The atbevnion I refers t the insitaionaied scare eof iterations lions, 2 The eight ot dsspines included irterational nw, plone istry, tay sinc, teat pois, goverment sod the condi of frig elton The de ‘Spica with a worl pit of view nc wold geo ny, eo ison: pel. vi, lmese 3 Waerer, 1998 provides a very wel dius of he evan fa ME in Germany, France, the United ‘Kingdom andthe United Sate. - “F Althugh ew in mde, his growing boy of” urate tat examines he developmen of IR fom ‘within specie county stg, Fr example, the etd Salaneby ugh C. Dye and Leon Margusarias (1989) Incides eoptes on te study of Lin the former Soviet Union, Chin, Beal, the Fedeal Republic of Germany. South fs, Fase, Japan. tly and he ned Kigtom among ees. Otter examples of 5 nderaking clade Chan, 199; Groom, 19%; aed orgs, 2000. ' The int generation of self ascribed seatemic rea fae and hee most neti work eadeds EH. Crt 139; George F. Kenan, 1851; Hast J. Mrgeuthon, 988, Reinhold Nie, 1940; Frederik L. Schuman, 1953; Gog Scbvarzabege, 1941, and Nichols J. Spykman, 1922 Bibliography kr, Hayat R. nd Biter, Tons J. (1984) THe Dhalectcs of Wold Onder Notes for «Fate Archeologist of Iaterationl Soir Fire ner rational Suser Quarter 26 (2) 121-2, Aron Gail A. (1966) Tein TRaoy 04 Foil Sie, dmertcon Political Since Review 0 (0 x7 Ashley Rica K (1981 “ola Resin and Hans Inca Inertial Sues Quarry, 25 QF Bley Sale (1982) The Framewrk of rman ‘Sica New Vest: Lng Gren, snd CO ‘tdi, Dad (4) (983) Neorrlom ond are {sm The Contemporary Debt New York: Cousin Unies Press ‘Baldwin, Dard (1995) ‘Seu Sas an the Ea of the Cold Woe’ Mord Police $81) 11-3 ‘Banks, Mice (198) "Te Inter arco Dest’ in ‘Marge Ligh and AJR. Gro (e, nena! Relations & Hordbook of Crest Theory. Loosen rae Pe Publisher p. 726, Banks, Micmac! (1986) “The ftematiost Rees Disciple Asst or Litt for Cone Reson” in E Acar al J. Barwa (es), Inernetonel Cover eso Thoory and Practice. Boulet: Lye iene. $27 Bere, Thoms aod Schoske, Cat E (1998) Amero “cade CuloinTrosormarion Fy Wars, Fear ‘Dsciptns. Picton: Princeton Univesiy Pres. Boot, Kes (1996) Yeus On: Rew he Sue's Past ~ Resnvening i Fue nS, Sith, K. Bath gd M. Zalewski (es), ferntionel Theory Position aad Broad "Conbree: Cambridge Universi ess. p- 828-9, Boucher David (1998) Plical Theorie of oration "Reltions: From Thucaes tthe Present. Osi Oxfrd Univesity Pree, Brecher, Micha (199) “Itmacion Suis in the “Twente Ceatuy asd Beyond: Fed Dicntoas, Shue Carlton nteratina Sabie Quer, ayaa ‘Bow, Chis (1957) Not My Deparane? Normative “Tay and InemsinalReltions, Paradis os, Brow, Cee (199) Intrmaionl Relation Than: Now Namatie Approariee New Yen sama University Pee Bryce, James (1922) Inernationl Relation. Pet Wathingon: Kean Pre Bul Hele (1866) Tevon! They: The Case fra Csi Apes’ até Pic, 183): 361-7 Bal Heiley (1972) “The Tey of Iteration Pos, 1919-1960, ip Bian Poe (el), The Abenanoih Papers: International Plies. 1919-1969. Londo (ford Univesiy Pes. pp. 30-85 Baron, John W. (1972) Mord Soiey. Lenton ‘Cambridge Univesity res Bunt, Herbert (958) Tac hie nerpretaion of “itor Landon: G. Bl nd Sons ‘Bann, Bary (199) "The Level of Anhsis Polen in Tntmtotl Relains Recaidred’ in Ken Boo ‘snd Steve Sith (eration elation Thor Ty. University Pak Pensyania Ste Uses Pres pp 98-2168 [HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ‘Buran, ary and Lil, Richard (2000) Iteratina “Sonos in Wild wary Remaling the Sy of Tmerntonal Relations, Oxon Onferd. Usveriy Clo, Femindo Henrique spd Fle, Eo (1979) ‘Depoadeny and Development in Latin Ancrica. Bersey Univenity of Califor Pes Core, EH. (1939) 1968) The Twenty Years” Cr, "919-1938: dn Inrducton tothe Say of Intratoal lations New York: Harper & Row, Cohn, Stephen (1994) “Beyond the Norh-West ice ‘the Rett ip AR. Gro nd Margot Lip (, Contemporary Inernational Relat A Gide ts Pacory: Londo: Pater Publishes pp. 237-58 (tak, fa (1985) The Serrchy of States: efrm an TRossone in he International Onder. Cae: Cand University re. Colin, Stan, Winch, Dog nd Bro, ob (1985) Tho Noble Scene of Polis: A Study of Nnetenh Contry Ila! Hon: Canbrige: Cambie sient Press. Cooper, Richard N. (1968) The Beanomies of Tnrlpenience: Economie Poy iw the Monk Conary New Yorke MeGrae H Cnet, Med. and Janis, Dany SL. (001) der. ‘ona Relations: St a9 American Social Scene? Toward Diversey in Itersoonal Thought. Aan. (NY. Sue Univer of New York Pres. er Dera Janes etd Shop, Mie 3. () (198) Tinerntonserecl Relations: Postmodern Raslng of Wr Polis, Lexingn Lega Boss. Devtch, Kael W. (1953) Alatonle and. Soil ‘Communication Cantrige, MA: MIT res. Deutch, Kat W. (1958) The Nemes of Goverment ‘New Yok: The Free Pres Dickiuoa, G. Lowes (1916) The European Ame: ‘New York: Moris Dickinson, G. Lowes (1926) Intemational drach, 10-914 New Vor: Centr Denclas, Michiel (1990) Elements of Intrationel Police! Theory. Oxf: Claredon Pres. Donal Jk (198) ‘Realm atdkeAcsdeie Sly ‘ists Reston in James Far, John. Dryzck and Shep T Let el), Pt! Sees in Hic, esearch Progront and. Pola! Tradition Cambridge: Canige Unies Pres els, Dorie Michal W. (1997) Wins of Mar and Peoe: iRelom, Liberation, ond Socitam. New York Dbpzek Jom Sand Lessa, Stephn . (196) sry {ed Dailine Polis) Sec’, meson Polite Scene Reve 2 (1 1245-0. Duggan, Siephen Perce (ed) (1919) The League of aun The Prine and the Proce. Bose: The ‘Aalamic Mealy Pres. Dano, Frederick S. (198) “The Scope of Inematins eaons’ Mor Pots, 1 142-6 anne, im C1997 ‘Resinn’ in Jo Bal aad Steve Sith et), The Globalisation of Wald Paice: dn Ieeducion oberon Relations, Oxford: Ofek Unierty Pew py 19-24, Deans, Tim (988) Inventing deernatonal Soke? A “story of he Eis Sloe Loon asl, Dyer, Hah Cand Manga, Leon (i (1985) The ‘Sy af roa Relations The Sse of the Ar. London Maras, Exton, Davi (1959) The Pata Stem’ Inui ina he Stat of Pua Skene, New Yok: Als A. Kavot pp, Rape (1998) “The English Schoo on he Fons of Intemational Reto’, Review of Itratenal Salles, 24 pei iso) 7-83, vans, Pete (197) Dependent Development The “Alcs af Maltationa. Site and Local Catal i ‘Bro Canbridg MA: Harvard Usiversty Pree a, aes (990 “Facis Lieber and he Inepeaton ‘of American Poi Science’, Joumal of Poli, S2¢. 1027, Far, James, Sieln, Raymond, Gunnell, Jon G Leonid, Sapien Tan Dryek, oh 5 (19%) "Can Polit Sceace History Be Newt”, American Poll eene Rei 84 (2): 587-607 Fugues, Yale and Manibach, Riba (1993) The ‘Elnie Quest Theory and Iecmational Poi Colusa: Unies af South Catia Pree ole May Parker (918 193) The New Ste: Grup Organon the Soltion of Popular Sovecom Londo: Largan, Green a C, Fox, Witlam TR. (198) “ler lteratiog! Relins Resch: Tae Arian Experinc' ord Palin? 80, Fox, Willam TR. (197) “Prt, the Seknce of Pls, bd the Wort Stem Mord Ponies, 27) sor Fake Benjamin ed) (1886) Roar of Realm, Londen Fank Cs, (org, Jim (904) Dicauner of Global Polite: A ‘Crt! (Reiraduton to oterational Relais oul: Lyne Rint. Occ, lin sd Capel David (1950) "Pacem of Distr andthe Clin of ica Cia Soi Theory and ineratomn lahore’, Inernitons! States Quarry, 383) 208-94 ‘Galan, Kel (988) "The Concept of "Res at Sourse of Confsion’, Cooperation and Cont, in Goldmann, Kiet! (1996) “ateatonal Relations: ‘An Overview, in Robert E. Goodin and Hane Disier Kligemane (es), New Handbook of Pltcal Scene. Oxted: Oxford Unisernty Tee. pp a01-27, Grater, Shes (988) “The English Setoot of Towra Relations: Evidence snd Evalation, Review of Ieratonl Set 14 (1 35-3. ric, Josep M99) Relist letra Theory ‘dhe Stay of Woe aie’ a Michael W. Dose find G. Joba tepberry (eds, New Thinking in Insrational Relations Ther. Boule. Westie mp 163-21, (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF IR » Grom, ALR (199) tation The Pass Pra’, "a AJR Ground Marg Light (os, Conmporry Tueraona Relations Guide t Theor Land ater Publis pp. 1-6 Gane Joba G. (1991) Display History: The Cas of Pola Scene’. Satees: 4 Journal of Theos Cul a Pott, 45: 182-227 ‘Guna Joba G- (1993) The Descent of Pita Theor 14 Gevealogs of an American Toston Chica User of Chisago Pes ‘Sumel, Joa G. (1998) The Oners of Dcouse: Php, Soi Sconce and Pole, Landa Rowan an Lite sian, Wale (1986) "On the Sty of eterna Rebs The Rvew of Polis, 8) 278-8. Gzzin Seti (1995) Relocation Relations (ad Intratonal Poltel Esonony. The Cota Siryofa Death Forel London: Reuledge. emaan, Margaret. (1998) "One Field, Many Perspectives: Bing the Foundations for Dislons" Inirational Sais Qurteriy.42 (9: 605-25 Wicks, Fdenck Chres (1920) The New Borld Ose: “ernational Organisation, International La Inurnatonel Cooperation. New York: Doubles. age Hil, Crisopher (1987) ‘The Stly of trations Rebs inthe United Kingdom, Milo Jour formation Sis, 16 (3). 301-6 Hotta, Mar (989) “Sites, Commppolisasm, nd Nomative Intemational Theory, Paradigms, 2 (0) cos Hota, Sale (1977) "An American Socal sence: Inertial Relais’ Deda, 106: 41-9. Holl Marin snd Smith Steve (1991) Explaining ond ndostanding International Relations. Oxford Clarendon Pes. Holt Kl. (1985) The Ding Disc: Hegemony ‘nd Diversity in ncaa Tear. Bao: Allen avin, ol, Kal J. (1998) “Scholarship ina Era of asi ‘The Siy of biemationl Retains Dusig the Cold Wer, Review of International Sar, 24 Goel owe 6 Jeri, Rober (1998) “Realism inthe Sway of World Poi Intrnatinal Oansarion, 2 (971-1 Joczesen. Kn Erie (200) Contnenial R Theory: The Best Kot Sete, Eurpeot ourel of Iteration ettons, 6 (0) 9-22. Kohl, Miss (993) “nunational Relations Sill an ‘Ameren Seva Scene”, m Linda. Miler and ‘Mie! Hose Sith (es), ces and et: Estey for Plies ie Honor af Stonley Hafnann. Bose Wessies: pp 398-815 Kehler, Miles (197) Investing latersional Ras: Tema Reatons Theory Aer 1985 o Mikal Doyle and G. Jon Kener (5), New Thinking Inerational Relations Theor Beale: Westie pp toss Kaplan, Mocon (1987) Some and Process in Thana Polis, New Wer. Wie. Kaplan, Moron (1961) “Is tetertonal Rebsions = Disp?” Jounal of Pate, 3: 462-76 Kaplan, Movion (1966) "The New Great Dest: “radials vs, Seles neato Rela or Poies 19 (I) 1-20 Kavestea, Peter 1, Keckae, Robe 0, sat Kran, ‘Stephen (el) (1999) Eplraon and Cation iS Worl Pole. Camb, MA MIT Pres. Kapp, Mork V- a Vie, PR (1999) neato ‘Relations Theor Reali, Pain, Catalin and Bojon, Ses Boson Alyn ad Bacon Kegley, Charles W. (2) (1995) Conronenier Terman Reletont Theory: Realm and the Noolitert Chalenge New Yor: St Narn’ res egley. Cas W. atl Witt, Ene (988) Bord Polis: Tread and Tronsormation. New York StMarin’s Pres. Kennan, George F. (1981) American Diplomacy 1900-1950. Chicago: Univer of Chicago Press eohane, Robert 0. (1985) Theory of World Polis: ‘Sictral Reali and Beyond in Ada W. Fier (ei), Potict Science: The Sit of the Daiptine Washington, DC: American Foie Seence Assoiton. pp, 503-40. Keohane, Rober 0. (1988) “niematosl Iasi: “Two Approaches’, yeretonal Suier Ona 32 (4) 31996, eotans, Rober O, ad Nye, Joseph 8. (es) 1572) Transnational Relations and" World’ Pais, Candee, MA: Hanard University Pres. Keolane, Rober ©. ani Nye, Jose S. (1977) 1989) ‘Power and ntdipordenc, 2nd sn. Baron: Sea, ‘ink Gaon (197) Te Stay offtormationl Rtas In American Cologes and Unrits, New Yak Cosi on Foreign Rion. oor, Kis ahd’ Rote, Tames N. (tk) (1960) CConending Approcher to International Polis Princeton’ Printtun Univeiy ress oun, Tejon (197) Har of Iterations elton Theory, 2h. Manchester Manchester Usiveraty Pree Kripperdor, Ekkeha (1987) “The Dominance of “Amcien’ Approaches in ntertinalRelains Mile: Jooral of Inertia Sues, 16 Q) amt ‘ole, Juce (1933) "Pltel Conf, War and Peace’ inde W. Fie el), Poll Sem: The Ste of ‘te Disiline I. Wahington DC: Arercan Pits! Seience Association. pp 8) 59, ute, Thora (1070) Tee Satie of Scie Re Tuts, 2, Chico: Unive of Chea Pres. Loko, Inve (190) Faison ad the Mathodsogy ‘of Sekai Reteweh Progam a Inve Lakatos fad Alan Musee (es), Cicim and he Groh of Krowlege. Csnbeige:Camtige Univesity Pres. ‘Lepi, Yoset (198) “Te Tie Debate: On the spss ‘Of lneratonal Theory im a PosPoutve Ea! Titerntonl Sues Quran, 33 35-3,0 HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Linki 1, (192) The Foundations of Sect ond “ier Esys New Yak Hacou, ce and Ce ask, HL (1927) “Interotnal Goversoest and "Raion Sovering’, a The Pblems of Pace Lester Deltored at the Geneva Insite of Inrationl Relions, London Oxford Unies Lupin, rend (1974) “nteratoal Relations Thea ‘Great Detatos and Lewser Debate, Znrnatonl ‘Seva Scene Journal, 26 1) 11-2 Lupnn, Arend (1578) The Sta of the Tevet Revetion i Inematonl Ree aeration Shas nares 18 (0) 4-78 sea, Gears (1968) The Hare Decale and Aer: Tetrationl Reltons se Events, Dacilin, tad Profession, Sal Review, 10: 5-11 inl, Ricard (199) °A $yiens Appoa ia Tver “Teil (el), pprmacker ond Theory tx Intonation Belions New Yr: Longman, pp. 182-208, Ui, Richard (1985) "The Syn Apps in Steve Smith (ed), Intemational Relatone Britsh and America Ferepctes NewYork Bike 5p 7-3, Lie, Richard (1996) “The Growing Relevance of Pai, i Seve Sith, Ken Bo, and Mania aes (688), Intron Theory: Postion end Beyond. Combidge: Cambridge Usiversiy Prev pp ce-36 itl, Richard (200) “The English Schoos Cntsbuton to the Soy of Inemstos! Reason, Eerpean earl of eenaionl Relations, 63) 398-12 Long, David (1991) "L.A, Hobson and Idealism fn Tatematonal Relations”, Review of dneaatinal Shas 17): 285-304, Long, Davi and Wil, Peer (€8) (1998) Tine of Whe Presty Yeo” Crist Inter ar Mea Reseed Oxf: Chaendon Pest. Maghoor Ray (982) Ttodition Major Det in Tetra! Reon’ a Ray Maghoo snd Bent Ramberg (ets), Gloalon Tersus Real: Inter ‘ator! Relation Third Debate oul Wervion, rom Mirch, Richnd, Wand Vasque, Joba, A. (1961) J "Sar of Toy New Paatts or iol Pe New Yorks Coluria University Pres. Mearheimer, John (1955195) “The Fake Promise ‘of laesonal Isiutions', Iteration! Seer, 19:59 Michell, CR (1980) “Amalsing the “Gt Debts “Teaching Medoology ia'a Deca of Chnge RC. Kew and GP. Niston (ei), The Sil ond Teaching of eration! Relation, London: Pier Plates pp 28-46, Morena, es, (196) Sine Mon vera Power Polite. Chics Univesity of Ching Pes. Morgen, Hows, J (I98) Plies non Mons: The ‘Stuer Power and Peace, Now Yok: Aled. Koop Neal Fred and Hone, Brace, (1969) The Nevers ‘Nest Land of ntasionl Relation serait Shae artery 13 2) 281-308 Neufeld, Mask A. (1998) The Rexmrng of Tiernan Rls Thy. Cambor Cambie University Pre [elon Micnl (1956) Canes end Consequences International Beas: A Conceptual Su. Lone Niebuhr, Reiahld (190) Christianity and Power Pols, New Yor Chas Sener Sos ‘on, Wiis (1972) “The Growth of » isin’ a Ban Port (ed), The lberernth Poprs Inernoional Plier 1919-1969. London: Oxerd Univer Press pp. 3-29. ‘isn, Willan and room, AR. (191) Iteration Relations Then and Now Origin and. Ted te muerprttion. London: Harpers. ‘ton Willis C. and Oni Nichols (1985) “The ‘Gromhofa Discipline Review Seve Smith (4, Inernaional Relations Brlsh and American Perspectives New York: Blchuell pp 1-28 ‘isd, Andes (1988) “Reeaing Ealy Twente ‘Ceniry IR Theory Tein Reve’ teratona Shuies Outer 2 9): 409-32. Palmer, Norman D. (1880) "Te Say of lena Relions i he Used Sutera! Ses Quarer 28 3): 385-64, Peienon V. Spike (1992) “Tansrnsing Boundaries “Teores of Knowledge, Gender and lateral Ration’ stom Journal of Iterations Ses, 21 Gy 185-206. Plaing. Raymond (196) “eteratina Relations a 3 Fleid of Inqu’, in James. Rosson (ede Imerationl Pox and Farin Poly: 4 Renker In Rerearh and Thor, New Yass The Fs rss 6, Port. Bran (€8) (1972) The Aberstgth Paper Tnurnational Pltcr 1919-1969. London: Oxerd University Pee Pour, Pitman B. (1923) “olitcal Science in the Tmetmaloesl Fel Amerion Polen! Science Rosen, 27) 3-81 Pot, Pina B (1925) raacon tthe Say of Imeratoal Organation. New Yor: Ceney ‘isch, Pa 8 (1900) Ho Polo he Ed f the ‘Nnetenth Cty Infened bythe Ores! Simatn New York: Macon Reinch, Puls. (911) Publ Internationa ioe Thr ork and Organon. Bont: Gin and Co. Reywois, Cis (1973) Theory and Esplnaon Tnternatonal lations. Oxf sin Roberson, ogo Ronald (198) Temas Peles The Ps 1 Science latrationa! Sees Quarter, 12 (8) Seas, Rosccance, Richa aad Sin, Anthar A, (1973) erependence: Myth ot Resi, Mold Palin, 25(): Lar Rosen James N() (1949) lteretonal Pllc and Porign Ply: 4 Reser in Resch ond Theory New Vek The Fre Pree Rosen, Pani (190) "Once Agsin Ino the Fray: Tintern! Relaions Conte the Humanities, (ON THE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF IR a Mien: ural of nrmational Sais, 19 10, Rosy, Dorthy (191) The Origins of American Sota "Sek Canis Cambrge Univer Pres, agai John G. (898) Contracting he Mord olin: Ese on Interatonal Orgncaton, bandos Rowe sehen Thomas C. (196) The Srey of Cole. ‘New Yak One Unser ress, Sehmi, Bran C. (1998) "The Histororraphy of ‘ademie Intemational Relations. Review of eration Sea, 20 2 49-67 Schmit Brian C. (19983) “Lesions fom he Pas Ressessing the Intrwar Diepinry Mistry of Ioterationl Relation", Inermaionl Shier, ures $2 3): 35-58, Seimidt Bisa C. (1980) The otic! Dissose of “nancy Discptinary History of Inmaonal Relaons, Atay: St iver of New Yor Pres. Semis Brian C200) “Resuetng Inematonal oll Theory’ Mees: Jurel of meratonal Stes, 29 (1) 15-65 Sshoman Freer (1955) ternational Polis: An Tniaucton to the Bstrn Ste Stem. New York MeGraw Sstwarzaberget, Georg (IB) Power Plies: An Tracon oh Saf fnermatoral Relations ard Poreor Ping, Lon oatan Cope Schwel, Randall L (199) “Neoealsn’s Sams-Qu0 Bias Whar Seury Dir Sew Subs, 5 Simpson, Christopher (84) (1998) Univeritier and ‘Empire: Money end Pais the Social Sciences Daring the Colt War New York: New Pes Sine Davi (196) "The Lee of Anis Problem ‘erat! Reston ia fame N- Rosen (e), Ievratina Pits and Fore Poli Reader Research and Theory. New Yor The Free Pes pp 209. ‘Sine, J. Davi nd Sel, Mel (1972) The Wages of Tr, 1816-1965: A Sata Hanatook New Yor: sha Wil. Sith Mics Joegh (1988) Real Though fom Weber to Risinger. son Rongs: Louisiana Ste Uaivesiy Pres. Sait Stove (1985) Inrnational Relation: British end rion erpcties,Oserd: Blzckvel Smile (987) “aratgm Doms in intemaieal elton: The Delp of lemon! Reson 3. 4 Sil Sine" Milo: oma of hota Sas, 1. 109-206, si, Seve (1982) “The Fenty Yeas" Decur The Returgeae ‘of Nori Theory i Inematons Relations’, Menton: urna of Interatonel Shuts. 21 6) 489-306 Si, Stove (985) "The Self mages ofa Disilne: A ‘Gecrlogy of neatinsl Reston Thon in Ken Booth a Steve Sith (es), ernaiona elton Theory Todor. Usiverssy Puke Pease Site Univer Press. pp 137 Smith, Steve (2000) “The Disepine of Iterations elon Stil AR Amsrisn Sci Sens Arita Tour of Plc ad International Reais, 2 (3) soo Soy, Richard C., Brock, H.W, and Sania, Buen ‘G95! Deition Alaina an Approach oth Std of International Poi, Pete: Prieto Univesity Prem ‘Suyder, RicbrdC, rac, H.W. and Sapo, Buco fd) (1982) Forge Potey Deion Making. Now Vos: The Foe Pros Spykan, Niches J (1982) America Srategy i Wold Police: The United Stier andthe Balance of Powe. Now Yack Hacour, Brace aod Co Stoking. George W. (1968) “On the Limits of Presa” and “Hisoricen” in the Hisorogrephy ofthe Bebra Sciences, Journal ofthe Histo of the Behnirt Science, 217 Tels, Asbey 1. (1986) "Reconscting Pola! Reilsm: The Long March wo Scene Thea’ ia Bexnin Frankel (ed), Roots of Realism. Loon Frank Cass. pp 3-100, ‘Thompon. Kemet (1852) “The Sty of Iteration Pols: A Survey of Teens and Development Rosen of Polite, 14 (2433-67 ‘Tompo, Keath (1960) Poli! Resto and the (Crate of rl Poids. Praceton:Praeton University Pres ‘aly James (€4) (1988) Meaning ad Context: Quentin ‘liner and His Crier, Preeton: Pinel Usivesiy Pas. aga Soho A (1983) Tae Power of Pover Palle: Coie. New Brnswick:Ruges University res. Vague, Jobs A. (1998) “The Pos-Posist Debt: Recoesruting Sceiic Enquiry an Interior Retsions Theory After Ellie's Fall’ a Kea ‘Booth and Sieve Smith (65), ternational Reltions Theory Toy. University Parks Pensyvain Si sive rest. pp 217-10 Vasque Joka A C1998) The Pome of Power Police "ron Casal Rat 1 Nearadirao Cai: Comrie Unser Press Vio Pal Ret Koop, Mack V. (199) Iterravonl Reltione Theory Relim, Plata, Global, amd ood, tte, Bos Allyn and Bacon, ‘Viel, David (1967) “On Approaches 1 the Stuy of Tntrmationl Relations Oy, Buck to Machel ork Poles 19 (3) $512 ‘weve Oe (1996) The Rise and Fall ofthe ter Paaigm Debate’ in Steve Sih, Ken Boh and Morysin Zalewski (es), Internetionel Theory Pstviem_ and. Beyond Combis: Cambridge University ess. p.19-88. Wacver, Ole (1998) “The Sociology of a Not So Intemational Discipline: Americas end Euopeon Developments Inertial Relations lernatonel Onensaton, 53 (0): 687-727. Water, RB. (989) “Misery and Stostue io the ‘Theory of ltemationsl Relations", Milewiam earl of Ieterational Sir, 18 (2) 165-85