DIPLOMATIC HISTORY AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

PAPER 753 IRD –TU

PRESENTED BY
GOVINDA GHIMIRE
Area of Presentation
About The Author
Objective
Questions by author at the outset
An Outline –Historical Interpretation
Key concepts/ ideas drawn
The Relationship between History & Theory (I)
History and Theorists(II)
Assumptions & Claims made by International Relations Theorists
Examples , Cases & Issues to support the Claims
Observations & Conclusions
Q & A – Discussions
 About the Author

Marc Trachtenberg ( born 1946) is a professor of political science at the University of California,
Los Angeles
-He received his PhD in History from the University of California , Berkeley in 1974
-He is an author of following Books:
i.Reparation in world politics :France & European Economic Diplomacy ( Columbia University Pre
,1980)
ii. A constructed peace : The making of the European Settlement ( Princeton University Press,1999)
iii. History & Strategy ( Princeton University Press , 1991)
iv. The Craft of International History : A Guide to Method ( Princeton University Press, 2006
Association & Prizes : Trachtenberg was - a Woodrow-Wilson fellow in 1966-1967;
- a Guggenheim fellow in 1983-1984;
- a German Marshall Fund Fellow in 1994-1995;
- an adjunct research fellow at the John F Kennedy
School of Govts center for Science & International A
in 1986-1987
In 2000,he received the American Historical Associations George Louis Beer Prize
Objective
This piece of writing guides to the historical study of
International Politics. The focus is on the nuts and bolts
of historical research ie on how to use original sources,
analyze and interpret historical works , and actually
write a work of history
 The aim of this writing is to open the doors of the
workshop so that young scholars , both historians and
political scientists , can see the sort of thought process
the historians goes through before he or she puts
anything on paper
Questions raised by a Writer at the Outset

What role does theory play in actual historical work ?

How does a particular conceptual framework take shape in
the mind of the historian in the first place ?
How should historians go about developing the sort of
theoretical framework they need to make the past
intelligible ?
Should historians grapple with basic conceptual issues in a
relatively direct way ?
Or less direct , less formal methods good enough for their
purposes
What theorists do get by studying history and its
literature ?
How can historical analysis be brought to bear on the
study of theoretical issues ?
If historical interpretation has a conceptual core , doesn’t
that imply that literature should not be viewed just as a
great storehouse of factual material that can be drawn on
for the purpose of theory testing?
In what way theorists might be able to get a lot more if
they do approach the right way ?
Key ideas drawn
Historical work has to have a strong conceptual core
At the heart of every great work of history lies a certain
political theory , a certain conception of how politics
works
The core of major works of history lay a certain
conception of ‘What makes history run’
Art of doing historical work & may be even studying
international politics in general need the conceptual &
the empirical sides of the scholarly effort to connect each
other
It is hard to see to understand international politics if
they do not know how to do historical analysis in a
fairly serious way
This writing is about the method & techniques
historians use to understand international politics
This piece of writing is about Historical Research
Tentative outline
The relationship between History & Theory
How International Politics Works ? Theory , Empirical
Research & Observations
Theory is an engine of Analysis
Conceptual Framework
To understand the logic which underlines the course of
events
Specialties of History : Interpretation –development of
a theory from the study of pattern & behavior
History leaves clues ‘
Historical arguments with a certain theoretical
resonance
 Gap Analysis , Falsifications & Natural Science
Interpretations
Arguments with Implications
Filled with valuable examples
The relationship between History &
Theory
How does historian actually use theory ?
Theory is above all an instrument of analysis and,
depending on what that analysis reveals, can also serve
as the basis for interpretation
French Historian Elie Halevy’ Article- he has summed up
the origins of the First World War I in a single but quite
remarkable paragraph- An Explanation …
How, by 1914 war had become virtually inevitable
Not only that a European war was imminent , but
what the general shape of the war would be- a theory
can be constructed -with exorable logic
World War I
Scenario
Theory is an engine of analysis
Theory is not a substitute for empirical analysis –it is an
engine of analysis
Many questions , assumptions and suspicions about the
environment of the war in European regions raised by the
writer are solely based on the International politics
Based on Causal Theory writer explains power factors has to
be more important than Halevy thought. It defines how
International Politics works
Theory helps to see which specific causes ( is it emotion or
power politics ) led to the origins of first world war
It plays a crucial role in the development of an effective
research strategy
Research Questions & Conceptual
Framework
Never interpret the history from the bunch of events strung together
over time. Research effort should be questions driven – sensible
questions referring international politics
Our logic is to understand the logic that underlies the course of events
History guides us to ask good questions even in the case of no
intellectual depth
Understand the context of the events in which theoretical notions lie
Theory , methods and outcome are the essential ingredients of the
conceptual framework . One can not do in a mindless way –
plunging into the source with slightest idea and start interpreting to
take the shape of research
Contextual Interpretation of history (Conceptual Framework) can
not be a mechanical as in Science
History is not only the bunch of events

History is not only a bunch of events strung together

over time and for the information
The goal is to understand the logic that underlies the
course of events
Example : to understand the origins of the first world
war –we should know Russian Policy in the Balkans
Assumptions & Theoretical Nature
To know the causes and reasons behind the First World
War -Power realities has to be taken into account
For Example : How to understand Russian Policy-
generating hypothesis to understand French Policy ,
German Policy ,British Policy to look forward to study
the sources
Theory can not fully provide the answers but it does give
us some sense for what the questions are
And which questions should lie at the heart of
analysis
Grapple the idea from interpretation
If hypothesis does match with evidences one can make the sensible
interpretation and analysis
For example : we can understand the events leading to the deterioration of
relations between Germany & the western powers , and increased Russian
assertiveness in the Balkans
From this interpretation one can draw certain principles of a theoretical
nature
The basic principle is : when relations between powers , or blocs of
power deteriorate , the position of the third powers necessarily
improves and in each case those shifting power relations have an
important effect on policy
We can use this basic theoretical principle in historical work in all kinds
of different contexts
Historical arguments with a certain
theoretical resonance

Basic understanding may not concrete and fixed for all time
It takes shape – it evolves as you grapple with fundamental
conceptual issues in specific historical contexts
When one reacts for the surety of solid understanding there
should be historical arguments with theoretical resonance
Example : Hiltler to blame for the conflict..AJP Taylor
questioned the conventional wisdom –and said the essential
problem’ in interwar Europe had to be power realities not
assertive intent ( political not moral )
Logic & Clues
We are convinced by certain ideas- by certain lines of
argument but we also develop our thinking by reaching certain
conclusions of a purely factual nature
In Thomas Kuhn time- philosophers of science of his
generation showed interest in the history of Science to
understand the behavioral clues leaving prevailing tradition to
reform the understanding
Kuhn also realized historical conclusions are shaped with
clues
These clues and logics are important to understanding the
basic of International Politics
Historians & Theoretical Writings

International relations theory seriously can benefit

diplomatic historians . Theoretical writings can
provide important guidance
Example : Studying International Politics in Nuclear
Age -One should know something about nuclear
weapons and about the impact they have on
International political life –Are they source of peace or
a source of instability
Dramatic Findings
When you have grappled directly with the fundamental
conceptual issues , you will really see why a certain finding is
surprising & therefore important
If surprise is important , then theory has to be important
Without a theory you can’t be surprised by anything. Events
are surprising because they do not fit our expectations
Theorists do not look at the world the same way the historians
do. If you are historian and sometimes do conclude that
political scientists are wrong on some issues, it could be
rewarding for you. And if you find yourself wrong sometimes
the payoff’ can be quite extraordinary **
Historians & Political Scientists
History & The Theorists
History can provide the theorist with examples that serve to illustrate
particular theoretical points
Examples clarify theorist’s meaning & empirical support for the
particular point
Kenneth Waltz in his “Theory of International Politics “ made an
important argument : basic structural approach to international politics
about the role of competitive pressure in shaping political behavior –
example : France Military Might & Prussia could not survive by
following old Order
Hardenberg new revolutionary principles says those not acknowledging
it will be condemned to submit or to perish
In IR theory- ‘emphasize the dangers that arise when the offense is
strong relative to the defense ‘
Historical examples can illustrate theoretical points , &
the study of historical cases can serve as a spur
( encourage ) to theoretical analysis
Historical analysis has to give theorists something
fundamental , something that relates to their core
intellectual aspirations
Assumption is that history can serve up the facts that
are needed to test theories
Political scientists who study international relations
by & large are to move beyond the essay tradition ‘
Positivists

Political scientists want their field to be a kind of

science
They need to be positivist ( they do believe in
objective method , analysis and interpretations and
believe in quantitative answers)
Model-Gap Analysis-Falsification & Natural
Science Interpretation
Theory testing is far more problematic than we think
Theories are not supposed to give as accurate a picture
of reality as possible
Theories have to provide a kind of model , a somewhat
stylized view of reality
Model means to achieve the precision of an awareness
of structure absent from the original confrontation with
a complex of Phenomena
Model is the one that reflects reality most accurately
Gaps between the theories and observations are not
generally hard to deal with
Ad-hock ( for more than a 100 yrs ) explanations
can easily be developed to save theories from the
falsification ( Looking the gaps )
Example : Actual Path of New Planet
A sharp distinction can be drawn between the
theoretician and ‘the experimenter in the name of
nature disposes –man proposes a system of hypothesis
Testing & Observations
Testing play a greater role in natural science
Sometimes testing and observation may not go hand in
hand. Observation & test empirically may not match
Confirmation by observation test’ may break the theory
Example : Einstein's Relativity & Darwin Survival of the
fittest
Falsification : Geocentric & Heliocentric concepts
In IR theory , hard and fast predictions are rarely made-
such theories thus can not be confirmed or falsified – in a
relatively simple straightforward way
Judgments
Judgments simply can not be made in a mechanical way . Even in a
field like physics – such judgments are governed not by logical rules
but by the mature sensibility of the trained scientists
Theory has to connect up with reality
Key thing is to do the sort of work that can draw theory & history
together
Theoretical framework appropriate for the analysis of the questions
you are concerned with
In IR , serious judgments have to draw on the ‘mature sensibility’ of
the trained scholar. That is why history is important for the theorists
Abstract argument has a certain cloudlike quality. In-depth study of
history can make the good judgments
Theoretical Claims into historical
interpretation

Theoretical claims are hard to deal with on a very general level

If we study a particular historical episode , the problems are now
more concrete , the questions being narrower, more specific and are
more answerable
Theorists often give historical examples as way of backing up their
arguments
Example : Bipolar International systems are more stable than multi
-polar ones- multi -polarity ,the weaker or the more adventurous
party ’ to an alliance can drag its partner into a war _ Waltz
In order to handle a major theoretical issue, we often need to go
into key historical questions in some depth
 Arguments with implications -July Crisis ‘-
began with Ferdinand killing

If you accept historical arguments uncritically –you’d be

building on an unnecessarily weak base
Undocumented stories & claim with weak evidence may
lead to failure in the part of theorists
-Issue was -WAR THAT NO ONE REALLY WANTED
Who overruled the key issue either Kaiser or Moltke
regarding July Crisis 1914
This example shows the failure of theorists to do the
sort of historical work
Thomas Bernard Barbara Kaiser Vs
Schelling Brodie Tuchman Moltke –Germans
-Writer of Book -A strategist -Barbara Tuchman
Arms & -He made comments and is the writer of The Kaiser , having
Influence reviews on Schelling Book Book –The Guns been led to believe
1965 -He suggested Schelling to of August that Britain might
-Key use the famous story about, - Brodie stay out of the war if
Argument : how on the eve of first world recommended it were fought only in
Role of the war-the Kaiser ‘thinking that Schelling to use the east , decided to
military it might be possible to fight the story on the call off the attack in
System could the war , only in the east , base of Truchman the west.
play in bringing tried to get General von Book Moltke pleaded with
war Moltke , to change the plan -But the evidence him to change his
-Story of calling for an initial attack in shows (even the mind , but despite all
Kaiser,s role as the west , but was told that it Tuchman had his pleading ( As
suggested by was impossible presented in her Truchman claims ),
Brodie that -Brodie missed the real point discussion) that, it the Kaiser refused to
Kaiser overruled of the story ,Truchman had was Moltke & not budge
on the key issue framed the issue in way that the Kaiser who
-He was too busy probably led Brodie to think was overruled on
to trace down any that her analysis supported his the key issue
documented view of the incident whether the attack
version himself -Brodie had never studied on France had to
the July Crisis’ , the way it proceed as planned
should have been studied
Confrontation between Moltke & Kaiser plays in supporting
the view that military factors could play a key role in
bringing on a war that no body wanted ,Doesn't it matter
whether the story is correct or not ?
Shouldn’t the absence of evidence , in this case , play a
certain role in shaping your thinking about what makes for
war?
Brodie & Schelling could have done better as theorists even,
if they had gone into the bottom of the historical issues
They should have looked for the clue ‘even in the absence
of solid evidence ( or from the base of fictional accounts )
Observations
Evidence needs to be approached with specific questions in
mind
To draw meaning from the sources we examine & we need to
pose questions
Questions arise in your mind because we come to the subject
at hand armed with a kind of theory ie with a general sense for
how things are supposed to work and to present conclusions
How to make sense of the sources to bring out the meaning of
what was going on – we also have to draw on certain sense for
how things work
 Conclusions

Sometimes Theorists need to become historians

A historical interpretation has to have a conceptual core
We need to pose questions to draw the meaning from the
sources and evidences
Sometimes Tests and Observations may not match
Understand the logic behind the course of events
History & Theory resonate with each other
A theorist does not have to become a historian rather he or
she has to use the right method to draw conclusions
Q

Q& A
Discussions
THANK YOU