Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T12:19:26.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Gene M. Lyons
Gene M. Lyons
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Get access

Abstract

Aside from language, students of international relations in the United States and Great Britain have several things in common: parallel developments in the emergence of international relations as a field of study after World War I, and more recent efforts to broaden the field by drawing security issues and changes in the international political economy under the broad umbrella of “international studies.” But a review of four recent books edited by British scholars demonstrates that there is also a “distance” between British and American scholarship. Compared with dominant trends in the United States, the former, though hardly monolithic and producing a rich and varied literature, is still very much attached to historical analysis and the concept of an “international society” that derives from the period in modern history in which Britain played a more prominent role in international politics. Because trends in scholarship do, in fact, reflect national political experience, the need continues for transnational cooperation among scholars in the quest for strong theories in international relations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , July 1986 , pp. 626 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1986

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 Lewis F. Richardson, a British mathematician who turned his hand to questions of military strategy, has been cited fairly frequently by American behaviorists, and less often by British scholars. For the attention paid to Richardson by Americans, see Finnegan, Richard B. and Giles, John J., “A Citation Analysis of Patterns of Influence in International Relations Research,” International Studies Notes 1 (Winter 1975), 11–21Google Scholar. For a similar observation on the work of Richardson, see Michael Nicholson, “The Methodology of International Relations: British and American Approaches,” presented to the International Studies Association, March, 1985 (mimeo.), 4.

2 Reynolds, review of The Dynamics of Interdependence by Scott, Andrew M., International Affairs 59 (No. 3, 1983), 475Google Scholar.

3 See Manning, C.A.W., University Teaching of Social Sciences: International Relations (Paris: UNESCO, 1954)Google Scholar.

4 See Reynolds, P. A., “International Studies: Retrospect and Prospect,” British journal of International Studies, 1 (No. 1, 1975), 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For background on the study of international relations in Britain, another useful source is Porter, Brian, ed., The Aberystwyth Papers (London: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

5 See the Preface by Alan James in the collection of essays written in honor of Manning: James, Alan, ed., The Bases of International Order (London: Oxford University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Manning's own views are best examined in his principal work, The Nature of International Society (London: Bell, 1962)Google Scholar.

6 For an assessment of Mitrany's influence, see Paul Taylor's Introduction to Mitrany, David, The Functional Theory of Politics (London: Martin Robertson, 1975), ix–xxvGoogle Scholar.

7 For the original articles by Bull and Kaplan, and other responses to the debate, see Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N., eds. Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

8 Wolfers, Arnold and Martin, Laurence W., eds., The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956)Google Scholar.

9 Smith, “International Relations: British and American Approaches,” paper presented to the International Studies Association, March 7, 1985 (mimeo). This paper now serves as the introduction to Smith's edited book, International Relations, British and American Perspectives (London: Blackwell, 1985)Google Scholar. The book, which develops some of the same themes as this article, was not available at the time of writing.

10 Suganami, Hidemi, “The Structure of Institutionalism: An Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations,” International Relations 7 (May 1983), 2363–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a view that is very critical of this school of thought, see Jones, Roy E., “The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure,” Review of International Studies 7 (January 1981), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Howard, Michael, The Causes of Wars, 2d ed., enlarged (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 49Google Scholar. This essay by Howard is from his Martin Wight Lecture, in a series sponsored by the L.S.E. For another important contribution in that same series, see Bull, Hedley, “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations,” British Journal of International Studies (No. 2, 1976), 101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Wight's revision of his major work, Power Politics, was unfinished at his death. It was subsequently edited and published with a helpful introduction by Bull, Hedley and Holbroad, Carsten (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1978)Google Scholar.

13 Howard (fn. 11), 50.

14 For another view of this point, see Brown, Chris, “International Theory: New Directions?” Review of International Studies (July 1981), 180Google Scholar.

15 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 18Google Scholar.

16 Wight, , “Why Is There No International Theory?” International Relations 2 (April 1960), 35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.