¹ There are ample recent reviews of the literature. See, in particular, Ransom, Harry Howe, “International Relations,” in Irish, Marian D., ed., Political Science: Advance of the Discipline (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968), 55–81Google Scholar; Rosenau, James N., “Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Farrell, R. Barry, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Ill., 1966), 27–91Google Scholar; and the selective, but excellent, essay by McClelland, Charles, “On the Fourth Wave: Past and Future in the Study of International Systems,” mimeo., 1970.Google Scholar

² Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations (New York, 1948Google Scholar); Easton, , A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, 1965Google Scholar); Bruck, Snyder H. W., and Sapin, Burton, eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York, 1963Google Scholar); Kaplan, , System and Process in Inter-national Politics (New York, 1957Google Scholar); Burton, , International Relations: A General Theory (Cambridge, 1965Google Scholar); Aron, , Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (New York, 1966Google Scholar); Organski, , World Politics (New York, 1958Google Scholar).

³ The most important theoretical works of these authors include: McClelland, , Theory and the International System (New York, 1966Google Scholar); Deutsch, , The Nerves of Government (New York, 1963Google Scholar); Scott, , The Functioning of the International Political System (New York, 1967Google Scholar); Galtung, , “On the Future of the International System,” and “A Structural Theory of Aggression,” in Journal of Peace Research, no. 4 (1967), 307–27Google Scholar, and no. 2 (1964), 15–38, respectively; Spiro, , World Politics: The Global System (Homewood, Ill., 1966Google Scholar); Rose-crance, , Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, 1963Google Scholar); Rosenau, “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy.” Michael Haas’ essay on the field of international relations identifies seven major “metatheoretical” orientations currently in fashion. These would include the “grand theorists,” but a number of scholars working on limited problems as well. The seven orientations are: cognitive rationalism (for example, Allen Whiting), power theory (Morgenthau, Aron), decision-making (Snyder, Hermann), communication theory (Deutsch, Ernst Haas), field theory (Wright, Rummel), systems theory (Kaplan, McClelland). See Haas, Michael and Kariel, Henry, eds., New Approaches to Political Science (San Francisco, 1970Google Scholar).

⁴ Major differences between the approaches must be acknowledged as well. For example, the deductive theorizing of Kaplan contrasts with the inductive work of Rosecrance; the “value free” systems approach obviously differs from Morgenthau's concern with normative problems. These and other differences have been discussed and debated adequately in the literature of the field.

⁵ The quotation is from Morgenthau, , “The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations,” in Fox, William T. R., ed., Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Notre Dame, Ind., 1959), 20Google Scholar; see also his The Decline of Democratic Politics (Chicago, 1962), 72.

⁶ “The Study of International Politics: A Survey of Trends and Developments,” Review of Politics, XIV (Oct. 1952), 443, 461.

⁷ “International Relations,” 55.

⁸ Jacobson, Harold J. and Zimmerman, William, “Approaches to the Analysis of Foreign Policy Behavior,” in Jacobson, and Zimmerman, , eds., The Shaping of Foreign Policy (New York, 1969), 6–18.Google Scholar See also McClelland, Charles, “Some Effects on Theory from the International Event Analysis Movement,” mimeo., 1968.Google Scholar

⁹ On recurrence and generalization, see the critical essay by Kim, K. W., “The Limits of Behavioural Explanation in Politics,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXXI, no. 3 (Aug. 1965), 315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York, 1954Google Scholar); Sondermann, Fred A., “The Linkage between Foreign Policy and International Politics,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory (New York, 1961), 8–17Google Scholar; and Singer, J. David, “The Levels of Analysis Problem in International Relations,” in Knorr, Klaus and Verba, Sidney, eds., The International System (Princeton, 1961), 77–92.Google Scholar

¹¹ Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations (New York, 1955Google Scholar), chap. 32 and appendix.

¹² McClelland, Theory and the International System, 90; see also his “Some Effects on Theory from the International Event Analysis Movement.”

¹³ For example, Rummel, R. J., “The Relationship between National Attributes and Foreign Conflict Behavior,” in Singer, J. David, ed., Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York, 1968), 187–214.Google Scholar

¹⁴ J. David Singer and Melvin Small, “Alliance Aggregation and the Onset of War,” in ibid., 247–86.

¹⁵ “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” World Politics, XI (April 1959), 346–77.

¹⁶ Wright, , The Study of International Relations; Rosenau, , ed., Linkage Politics (New York, 1969Google Scholar), chaps. 1 and 3; Spiro, World Politics: The Global System; Galtung, “On the Future of the International System”; Burton, , Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge, 1968Google Scholar).

¹⁷ Herz, John H., “The Rise and Demise of the Territorial State,” World Politics, IX (1957), 473–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Herz reassesses his thesis in “The Territorial State Revisited: Reflections on the Future of the Nation-State,” in Rosenau, , ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory (rev. ed., New York, 1969), 76–89.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a forceful critique of the classical international relations model, see Modelski, George, “The Promise of Geocentric Politics,” World Politics, XXII (1970), 615–35.Google Scholar

¹⁹ McClelland, Charles A., “The Function of Theory in International Relations,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, IV (Sept. 1960), 305.Google Scholar Morgenthau's work might constitute an exception.

²⁰ These and other requirements are outlined in an essay by Wright, Quincy, “Development of a General Theory of International Relations,” in Harrison, Horace V., ed., The Role of Theory in International Relations (Princeton, 1964), 15–44.Google Scholar

²¹ Ransom lists the following requirements of theory as lacking presently in the field: “a distinct subject matter; agreed-on abstractions and models; concepts uniquely adapted to the analysis of international behavior; specialized vocabulary with precise definitions, standardized analytical methods allowing retesting or replication of initial analyses; or a central system of cataloging, evaluating, and communicating the state of research and its results.” It is debatable whether these weaknesses exist throughout the entire field. In terms of developing a general theory the criticism is apt. In areas such as game theory and integration studies the comments would seem inappropriate. Many of these criticisms could also be directed towards biologists.

²² Theory and the International System, 96.

²³ “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” 366. Alexander George's work on “operational codes” is important in this respect. While not precise, it shows convincingly that ideas and images are as important to policy as are communications nets, definitions of competence, role, and various societal characteristics. See George, , “The Operational Code: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making,” International Studies Quarterly, XIII (June 1969), 190–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Burgess, Philip M., Elite Images and Foreign Policy Outcomes: A Study of Norway (Columbus, Ohio, 1967Google Scholar).

²⁴ Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore, 1962Google Scholar), chap. 5; Yalem, Ronald, “The Theory of Ends of Arnold Wolfers,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, IV (Dec. 1960), 421–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin first pointed to the need for such a typology, but scholars have not followed up the suggestion. See Foreign Policy Decision-Making, 84.

²⁵ For example, Charles A. McClelland and Gary D. Hoggard, “Conflict Patterns in the Interactions Among Nations,” in Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy (rev. ed.), 711–24.

²⁶ “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy.”

²⁷ The problem of synthesizing foreign policy and systems studies is discussed in McClelland's papers, “On the Fourth Wave: Past and Future in the Study of International Systems” and “Some Effects on Theory from the International Event Analysis Movement,” and in Holsti, K. J., “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly, XIV (Sept. 1970), 233–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The latter work also discusses the problem of defining foreign policy as a dependent variable.

²⁸ “Necessary and Sufficient Elements of a General Theory of International Relations,” in Fox, Theoretical Aspects of International Relations, 13.

²⁹ Scheinman, Lawrence and Wilkinson, David, eds., International Law and Political Crisis: An Analytic Casebook (Boston, 1968Google Scholar); Henkin, Louis, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy (New York, 1968Google Scholar).

³⁰ International Relations, 243.

³¹ Ibid., 245–6.

³² Burton, , Conflict and Communication (New York, 1969Google Scholar).

³³ These points are raised in an unpublished paper, “Foreign Policy: The Neglected Dependent Variable,” by Miller, Fern, Yale University, July 1970.Google Scholar

³⁴ The assault on the pluralist conception of democracy in America in particular and recent attacks on the ethical neutrality of prominent behavioural scientists in general reveal the possibility of future debate in the field of international politics. See, for example, McCoy, Charles A. and Playford, John, eds., A political Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism (New York, 1967Google Scholar).

³⁵ One example is the criticism of game theory and systems analysis in Green's, PhilipDeadly Logic: The Theory of Nuclear Deterrence (Columbus, 1966Google Scholar).