Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T22:23:38.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International studies: retrospect and prospect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

P. A. Reynolds
P. A. Reynolds
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1919 the world's first chair in international politics was founded at Aberystwyth. Now fifty-six years later a British Journal of International Studies achieves publication. The journal is timely – even overdue. It has predecessors of high quality in the United States, in Canada, in India, in Norway and in many other countries. The subject is taught widely in Europe, in Japan and many countries of Asia, in Africa and Latin America, more recently in Eastern Europe, and throughout the United States; but in the United Kingdom, though it is represented in some twenty-four universities and in several polytechnics, it is taught extensively only in eight of these institutions. It seemed appropriate, in the first number of the new journal, to review the somewhat hesitant cultivation of the field in this country, and to consider how the subject generally appears to be moving. The paper accordingly begins with a quick survey of evolution n i a changing historical context, examines recent explorations of methodology and expansion of range, and makes some comments about directions of advance which in the opinion of the writer seem promising or likely to be fruitful.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1975

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

page 1 note 1. Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystivyth Papers, 1972, p. 87Google Scholar.

page 3 note 1. I avoid the increasingly common usage, nation-state (which is almost universal in American writing) because of course it is states which are the politico-legal entities, and they are properly called nation-states only if their populations form a single nation, which is true in a minority of cases.

page 4 note 1. Modelski, G., A Theory of Foreign Policy, 1962.Google Scholar

page 4 note 2. Rosenau, J. N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, 1971, pp. 95Google Scholar ff.

page 4 note 3. Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W. and Sapin, B., Foreign Policy Decision-Making, 1962Google Scholar.

page 4 note 4. Hanrieder, W. F., Foreign Policies and the International System, 1971Google Scholar.

page 4 note 5. Lasswell, H. D., Politics: who gets what, when, how, 1936Google Scholar.

page 4 note 6. Easton, D., A Framework for Political Analysis, 1965, p. 50Google Scholar.

page 5 note 1. de Callières, F., De la Manière de Négocier avec les Souverains, 1716Google Scholar.

page 5 note 2. For a discussion of the second of these see Nicholson, M. B. and Reynolds, P. A.‘General Systems, the International System, and the Eastonian Analysis’, Political Studies, xv (1967), pp. 12–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Reynolds, P. A., An Introduction to International delations 1971, pp. 228–32Google Scholar. For an argument favouring the former method see Singer, J. David, ‘Man and World Politics: The Psycho-Cultural Interface’, The Journal of Social Issues, xxiv (1968), pp. 127–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Global System and its Sub-systems’, in Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), Linkage Politics, 1969, pp. 21–43Google Scholar.

page 6 note 1. Reynolds, op. cit. p. 10.

page 7 note 1. Q. Wright, The Study of International Relations, 1955.

page 7 note 2. Henry Teune puts the point more rigorously, and methodologically more demandingly, by judging the value of a system in terms of its capacity relative to any other system t o explain variance of unit behaviour. For an example of the method see Teune, H. and Ostravski, K., ‘Political Systems as Residual Variables’, Comparative Political Studies, vi (1973)Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1. For a fuller discussion of behavioural systems see Reynolds, op. cit. pp. 228 ff.

page 8 note 2. See, for instance, Jenkins, G. M., ‘Systems and their Optimisation’ in University ofLancaster Inaugural Lectures (1967), pp. 163–4Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1. See Brown, Christopher, ‘International Political Economy’, International Affairs, xlix (1973)Google Scholar.

page 10 note 2. Cf. the work of E . Azar, referred to in p, 16, n. 3 below.

page 11 note 1. Singer, J. David, ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, in Knorr, K. and Verba, S. (eds.), The International System, 1961Google Scholar.

page 11 note 2. Herz, J. H., International Politics in the Atomic Age, 1959Google Scholar.

page 11 note 3. Scott, A. M., The Revolution in Statecraft, 1965Google Scholar.

page 12 note 1. Rosenau, op. cit. p. 319.

page 12 note 2. Modelski, G., ‘Foreign Ministers as a World Elite’, Peace Research Society (International) Papers, xiv (1970)Google Scholar.

page 12 note 3. See p. 4, n. 2 and p. 4, n. 4 supra.

page 12 note 4. Burton, J. W., Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules, 1968Google Scholar.

page 13 note 1. Kubalkova, V., Marxism-Leninism and International delations Theory unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster Library, 1974Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2. Galtung, J., ‘A Structural Theory of Aggression’, Journal of Peace Research, 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research, 1971Google Scholar.

page 13 note 3. Mitrany, D., A. Working Peace System, 1943Google Scholar.

page 14 note 1. For a critical review of the literature see Taylor, P., ‘The Functionalist Approach to the Problem of International Order’, Political Studies, xvi (1968)Google Scholar.

page 14 note 2. Etzioni, A., Political Unification, 1965Google Scholar.

page 14 note 3. Deutsch, K. W., Nationalism and Social Communication, 1953Google Scholar and Deutsch, K. W.et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, 1957Google Scholar.

page 14 note 4. A fuller discussion is to be found in Taylor, P., International Co-operation To-day, 1971Google Scholar.

page 14 note 5. Deutsch, K. W., ‘Shifts in the Balance of International Communication flows’, Public Opinion Quarterly, xx (1956)Google Scholar.

page 14 note 6. Deutsch, K. W., ‘Toward a n Inventory of Basic Trends and Patterns in Comparative and International Polities’, American Political Science Review, liv (1960)Google Scholar,

page 15 note 1. Brams, S. J., ‘Transaction Flows in the International System’, American PoliticalScience Review, lx, 1966Google Scholar; and ‘Trade in the North Atlantic Area’, Peace Research Society (International) Papers, vi (1966)Google Scholar.

page 15 note 2. East, M. A., ‘Status Discrepancy and Violence in the International System: An Empirical Analysis’ in Rosenau, J. N., Davis, V. and East, M. A. (eds.), The Analysis of International Politics, 1972.Google Scholar

page 15 note 3. J. David Singer and Michael Wallace, ‘Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System 1815–1964’ and ‘Intergovernmental Organization and the Preservation of Peace 1816–1964’; International Organisation, xxiv (1970)Google Scholar; Singer, J. David and Small, Melvin, The Wages of War, 1816–1967, 1972Google Scholar.

page 16 note 1. North, R. C., Holsti, O. R., Zaninovitch, G., Zinnes, D. A., Content Analysis, 1963Google Scholar; Zinnes, D. A., ‘The Expression and Perception of Hostility in Pre-war Crisis: 1914’ in Singer, J. D. (ed.), Quantitative International Politics; 1968Google Scholar.

page 16 note 2. Hilton, G. T., A Study of Threat Systems: the 1914 Case, 1964Google Scholar.

page 16 note 3. McClelland, C., Some Effects on Theory from the International Event Analysis Movement, 1970Google Scholar (mimeo), referred to in Azar, E., ‘Analysis of International Events’, Peace Research Reviews, iv (1970), p. 3Google Scholar.

page 16 note 4. Azar, op. cit. p. 3.

page 17 note 1. Banks, A. S. and Textor, R. B., A Cross-Polity Survey, 1963Google Scholar; Russett, B. M., Alker, H. R., Deutsch, K. W., Lasswell, H. D., World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, 1964Google Scholar; Rummel, R. J., Dimensions of Nations, 1972Google Scholar.

page 17 note 2. Rummel, R. J., ‘Dimensions of Conflict Behaviour Within and Between Nations’, General Systems Yearbook, viii (1963)Google Scholar; Tanter, R., ‘Dimensions of Conflict Behaviour Within and Between Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, x (1966)Google Scholar; Wilkenfeld, J., ‘Domestic and Foreign Conflict Behaviour of Nations’ in Journal of Peace Research, v (1968)Google Scholar; Banks, A. S. and Gregg, P. M., ‘Grouping Political Systems: Q-Factor Analysis of A. Cross-Polity Survey’ in The American Behavioural Scientist, ix (1965)Google Scholar.

page 18 note 1. Knorr, K. and Rosenau, J. N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics, 1969Google Scholar.

page 18 note 2. Winch, P., The Idea of a Social Science, 1958Google Scholar.

page 18 note 3. See for instance Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics, 1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar.