¹ For overviews of Soviet foreign policy change under Gorbachev, see Evangelista, Mathew, ‘The New Soviet Approach to Security’, World Policy Journal, 3, 1 (1986), pp. 561–99,Google Scholar Legvold, Robert, ‘The Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs American and the World, 68 (1988/89),Google Scholar and Parrott, Brace, ‘Soviet National Security Under Gorbachev’, Problems of Communism, 37 (1988), pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

² Gourevitch, Peter, ‘The Second Image Reversed’, International Organization, 32 (1978), pp. 881–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ We only look at theories that try to explain recent Soviet events in terms of patterns operating generally. Thus, unique patterns of Soviet political culture and history are not considered. These varieties are not equal to any one person's view. They might best be thought of as ideal-types, labels for relatively coherent clusters of assumptions, propositions, and expectations. These varieties are meant to capture the range of alternative theoretical propositions, rather than to locate or classify individual theorists. For an alternative taxonomy, see McKinlay, R. D. and Little, R., Global Problems and World Order (London, 1986).Google Scholar

⁴ For other discussions of the varieties of realism, see Smith, Michael Joseph, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, 1987)Google Scholar; and Doyle, Michael W., ‘Thucydidean Realism’, Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Spykman, Nicholas John, America's Strategy in the World: The United States and the Balance of Power (New York; 1942)Google Scholar; Gray, Colin, Geopolitics in the Nuclear Age: Heartlands, Rimlands, and the Technological Revolution (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Gray, Colin, The Geopolitics of the Super Powers (Lexington, 1988)Google Scholar; Osgood, Robert E. and Tucker, Robert W., Force, Order and Justice (Baltimore, 1967)Google Scholar; and Luttwak, Edward, Strategy (Cambridge, MA, 1987).Google Scholar

⁶ Luttwak, Edward, The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union (New York, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ For a general discussion of the Soviet military and the Gorbachev revolution, see Parrott, Bruce, ‘Soviet National Security Under Gorbachev’, Problems of Communism, 37 (November/December 1988), pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

⁸ A perfectly consistent hard realist might lament the Gorbachev reforms, for freeing Soviet power of the millstone of communism.

⁹ Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politic (London 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ X, ‘ The Sourcs of Soviet Conduct’, Foreign Affairs. 27 (July 1947), pp. 566–82Google Scholar; Gaddis, John Lewis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Post-War American National Security Policy (New York, 1982)Google Scholar. For a useful discussion of theories of Soviet decline, see Beschel, Robert P. Jr., ‘The Long-term Moderation of Soviet Foreign Policy’, in Nye, J. S., Carnesale, and Allison (eds.), Fateful Visions (Cambridge, 1988).Google Scholar

¹¹ For an overview of Soviet foreign policy changes, see Holloway, David, ‘Gorbachev's New Thinking’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1988/89), pp. 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Soft realists are open to Havel's ‘paradoxical advice’ that the United States should, within limits, assist Soviet reforms. For a discussion of the potential threats to the West stemming from Russian weakness, see Kurt Campbell, ‘Prospects and Consequences of Soviet Decline’, in Nye et al., (eds.), Fateful Visions.

¹³ Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and United States Foreign Policy (Princeton, 1978)Google Scholar; Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda (eds.), Bringing the State Back In (New York, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ikenberry, G. John, Reasons of State; Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (Ithaca, 1988).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Charles Tilly, ‘War Making and State Making as Organized Crime’, in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol (eds.), Bringing the State Back In.

¹⁵ Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (New York, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{16 16} Seweryn Bialer has recently noted the possibility of widespread instability in Soviet society: ‘By 1989, Gorbachev had lost control over events in all spheres of Soviet life … Moreover, the most dangerous challenge that he faces is not for a coup at the top that may force his resignation, but from spontaneous forces-political, economic and social-generated outside of the power establishment which may sweep away both him and his reforms’. The Passing of the Soviet Order?’ Survival, 32 (March/April 1990), p. 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Others have noted the weakness of conventional realist theory in dealing with problems of change. See Keohane, Robert O., ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond’, in Finifter, Ada W. (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, D.C., 1983), pp. 503–40Google Scholar; Vincent, R. J., ‘Change and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 9 (1983), pp. 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ The globalist perspective is captured by John Ruggie: ’the globe itself has become a region inthe international system, albeit a nonterritorial one. Thus, global does not mean universal. Instead the concept refers to a subset of social interactions that take place on the globe. This subset constitutes an inclusive level of social interaction that is distinct from the internationallevel, in that it comprises a multiplicity of integrated functional systems, operating in real time, which span the globe, and which affect in varying degrees what transpires elsewhere on the globe.

International Structure and International Transformation: Space, Time, and Method’, in Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (Lexington, MA, 1989), p. 31 Google Scholar. See also Featherstone, Mike (ed.), ’Global Culture’, Special Issue of Theory, Culture & Society, 7 (June 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Some hold that the international system has adjusted, others hold that its adjustment will require a process of major institutional change, ranging from arms control through deep disarmament through the establishment of intrusive international monitoring and peacekeeping capabilities.

²¹ Boulding, Kenneth, Conflict and Defense (New York, 1963)Google Scholar; and Herz, John H., International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

²² Morgenthau, Hans, ‘The Fallacy of Thinking Conventionally about Nuclear Weapons’, in Carlton, David and Schaerf, Carlo (eds.), Arms Control and Technological Innovation (New York, 1976)Google Scholar; Kennan, George, The Nuclear Delusion: Soviet-American Relations in the Atomic Age (New York, 1982).Google Scholar

²³ Although easily confused with the older normative critique of war, nuclear one-worldism has at its root a Hobbesian fear of physical fear of insecurity and assumes that the same imperatives leading to state formation in the pre-nuclear era will push towards global nuclear security in the contemporary period. Since the nuclear one-worldists assume that war as a process of institutional change has been blocked, it is expected that learning and anticipation(by both states and publics) eventually will cause institutional change.

²⁴ An early statement of this position in found in Knorr, Klaus, On the Uses of Military Power in the Nuclear Age (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar. See also Luard, Evan, The Blunted Sword: The Erosion of Military Power in Modern World Politics (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

²⁵ For an interpretation of detente driven by nuclear interdependence, see Weber, Steve, ‘Realism, Detente, and Nuclear Weapons’, International Organization, 44 (Winter 1990), pp. 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Shenfield, Stephen, The Nuclear Predicament: Exploration in Soviet Ideology, Chatham House Papers 37 (London, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁷ The nuclear one-worldist position is reflected in Gorbachev's speeches. See Michail Gorbachev, ‘Realities and Guarantees for a Secure World’ (Moscow, 1987). For further discussion see Gromyko, A., Hellrnan, M., et al. (eds.), Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking (New York, 1988)Google Scholar, particularly Alexander I. Nikitin, ‘The Concept of Universal Security: A Revolution of Thinking and Policy in the Nuclear Age’.

²⁸ Spector, Leonard, ‘The Nuclear Inheritors’ in Going Nuclear (Cambridge, MA, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁹ In his recent assessment of American strategy, Senator Sam Nunn pointed to this danger. ‘[T]he long-standing danger of unauthorized or accidental nuclear weapons use has been heightened by turmoil and tension in the Soviet Union.’ Aviation Week’ Space Technology, 16 April 1990, p. 7.

³⁰ Woolf, Leonard, International Government: Two Reports Preparedfor the Fabian Research Department (London, 1916)Google Scholar; Angell, Norman, The Great Illusion (London, 1911)Google Scholar; Wells, H. G., The Idea of a League of Nations (Boston, 1919)Google Scholar; Muir, Ramsey, The Interdependent World and its Problems (1933; Port Washington, NY, 1971).Google Scholar

³¹ Mitrany, David, The Functional Theory of Politics (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst, Beyond the Nation-state; Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, 1964)Google Scholar; Scott, Andrew, The Revolution is Statecraft: Informal Penetration (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Rosenau, James (ed.), Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York, 1969)Google Scholar: Falk, Richard, A Study of Future Worlds (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston, 1977).Google Scholar

³² Of course, internationalism is not just a recent import, from the West, but was an essential feature of Marxism at various stages of its intellectual and political development.

³³ For a discussion of the general phenomenon of unofficial diplomacy, see Berman, Maureen R. and Johnson, Joseph E., ‘The Growing Role of Unofficial Diplomacy’, in Berman and Johnson (eds.), Unofficial Diplomats (New York, 1977), pp. 1–33.Google Scholar

³⁴ The importance of simultaneous domestic and international ‘modernization’ of politics is stressed in Morse, Edward, Modernization of International Relations (New York, 1976).Google Scholar

³⁵ This point is made by Zbigniew Brzezinski: ‘Central Europe is ripe for, and badly needs, regional cooperative arrangements of the type tha t Western Europe takes for granted.’ ‘Beyond Chaos: Policy for the West’, The National Interest (Spring 1990), p. 11.

³⁶ Glacken, Clarence, Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century Berkeley, 1967).Google Scholar

³⁷ Brown, Harrison, The Challenge of man's Future (New York, 1954); Robert Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

³⁸ Mackinder, Sir Halford J., ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, Geographical Journal, 23 (April 1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Valuable synoptic analyses of Soviet resource prospects are found in Parker, W. H., The Superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union Compared (New York, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cressey, George, Soviet Potentials: A Geographic Appraisal (Syracuse, NY, 1962).Google Scholar

³⁹ Thane Gustafson, Crisis amid Plenty: The Politics of Soviet Energy under Brezlmew and Grobachev (Princeton, 1989), esp. pp. 22–62.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Millar, James R., ‘Post-Stalin Agriculture and Its Future’, in Cohen, Stephen F., et al. (eds.), The Soviet Union Since Stalin (Bloornington, 1980), pp. 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Whiting, Alan S., Siberian Development and East Asia: Threat or Promise? (Palo Alto, CA, 1981).Google Scholar

⁴² An early attempt to think about East-West interdependencies and their implications is found in Clemens, Walter C. Jr., The U.S.S.R. and Global Interdependence: Alternative Futures (Washington, DC, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴³ Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, 1985).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Doyle, Michael, ‘Liberalism and World Polities’, American Political Science Review, 80 (December 1986), pp. 1,151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Fukuyama, Francis, ‘The End of History?’ The National Interest (Summer 1989), pp. 3–17.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Diggins, John P., Up from Communism: Conservative Odysseys in American Intellectual History (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Blumenthal, Sidney, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, ‘The United States in Opposition’, Commentary (March 1975).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The widely discussed argument of ‘Z’ emphasizing the Leninist character of the Soviet Union and the undesirability of helping the Soviet Union has been surpassed by events, particularly Gorbachev's epochal move to repeal Article VI of the Soviet constitution. Z, ‘To the Stalin Mausoleum’, Daedalus (Winter 1989 90).

⁴⁹ See Cohen, Stephen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (1971: New York, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Tucker, Robert C., Essays in Historical Interpretation (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵¹ For an early study of these processes, see Davison, W. Phillips, International Political Communication (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; see also Tyson, James L., U.S. International Broadcasting and National Security (New York, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵² The capitalist case against socialism has recently been summarized in Hayek, F. A., The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Chicago, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ See O'Brien, D. P., The Classical Economists (Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The classic statement of this view is Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Times (Boston, 1944).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ As Lenin proclaimed: ‘In the final analysis the competition and struggle between capitalism and socialism will be resolved in favor of the system that attains a higher level of economic productivity’. Cited in Bialer, Seweryn, ‘Gorbachev's Program of Change: Sources, Significance, Prospects’, Political Science Quarterly, 103 (Autumn 1988), p. 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Contemporary theorists, on both the left and right, argue that strong states are crucial to the success of market-oriented reform. See O‘Donnell, Guillermo A., Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley, 1973)Google Scholar; and Bhagwati, Jagdish N., ‘Rethinking Trade Strategy’, in Lewis, John P. and Kallab, Valeriana (eds.), Development Strategies Reconsidered (Washington, DC, 1986), esp. p. 101 Google Scholar. For an overview, see Kohli, Atul, ‘Politics of Economic Liberalization in India’, World Development, 17 (1989), pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Snyder, Jack, ‘International Leverage on Soviet Domestic Change’, World Politics, (October 1989).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See the discussion of the ‘socialist’ model in McKinlay, R. D. and Little, R., Global Problems and World Order.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Avineri, Shlomo, Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization (Garden City, NY, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Wallerstein, Immanuel, ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (1974), pp. 387–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World-system: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1974)Google Scholar; The Modern World-system II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600’1750 (New York, 1980)Google Scholar; The Modern World System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy (San Diego, 1989).Google Scholar

⁶² See Skocpol, Theda, ‘Wallerstein's World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique’, American Journal of Sociology, 85 (1977), pp. 1,075–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zolberg, Aristide R., ‘Origins of the Modem World System: A Missing Link’, World Politics, 33 (1981), pp. 253–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Tony, The Pattern of Imperialism: The United States, Great Britain, and the Late-Industrializing World Since 1815 (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar

⁶³ As Theda SkoCpol describes the model, ‘once the system is established, everything reinforces everything else’. Skocpol, ‘Wallerstein's World Capitalist System’, p. 1,078.

⁶⁴ For another conceptualization of the Soviet Union's political economy in terms of Wallerstein's world-systems theory, see Luke, Timothy W., ‘Technology and Soviet Foreign Trade: On the Political Economy of an Underdeveloped Superpower’, International Studies Quarterly, 29 (1985), pp. 327–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ For discussion of the distinction between ‘capitalist society’ and ‘industrial society’, see Dahrendorf, Ralf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, 1959)Google Scholar. See also Giddens, Anthony, Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction (London, 1982), pp. 29–53.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Burnham, James, The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World (New York, 1941)Google Scholar. See also Burnham, James, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (Chicago, 1943).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ An early version of these ideas was set forth by Jean-Baptist Say, the famous French political economist whose work Marx polemicized against. Say argued that the progress of industry would produce not a polarization between capitalist and proletariat, but rather a much more complex cluster of largely cooperative classes which he labelled the ‘industrial’. Jean-Baptist Say, A Treatise on Political Economy (1803), trans, by , C. R. Prinsep. 2 vols. (Boston, 1821)Google Scholar. See also discussion of Say in Silberner, Edmund, The Problem of War in Nineteenth Century Economic Thought (Princeton, 1946), pp. 69–91.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Clark Kerr et al, Industrialism and Industrial Man (Cambridge, MA. 1960)Google Scholar. This view has been strongly criticized by others, such as Reinhard Bendix, for ignoring national variations in paths to development caused by the persistence of pre-modern social formations that prove to be partially adaptive. See Bendix, Reinhard, Nation-Building and Citizenship (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Touraine, Alain, The Post-Industrial Society (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Bell, Daniel, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York, 1973).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Hall, John A. and Ikenberry, G. John, The State (Minneapolis, 1989), pp. 80–3.Google Scholar

⁷¹ While the link between late-industrial society and democratic institutions appears to be strong in the contemporary era, the possibility cannot be foreclosed that a country with different historical traditions, class configurations and international pressures might arrive at a non-democratic formation that was at the same time industrially functional. Michael Mann argues that an authoritarian capitalist model was pioneered and widely admired in pre-1914 Germany, that this non-democratic variant of capitalism could well have proved viable, but that it was destroyed by the war. Mann, , ‘Citizenship and Ruling Class Strategies’, Sociology, 21 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Brzezinski and Huntington describe convergence expectations thus: ‘The Communists believe that the world will converge, but into an essentially communist form of government. In the West, on the other hand, the widespread theory of convergence assumes that the fundamentally important aspects of the democratic system will be retained after America and Russia “converge” at some future, indeterminate historical juncture. Although probably there will be more economic planning and social ownership in the West, the theory sees the Communist Party and its monopoly of power as the real victims of the historical process: both will fade away. Thus on closer examination it is striking to discover that most theories of the so-called convergence in reality posit not convergence but submergence of the opposite system. Hence the Western and the communist theories of convergence are basically revolutionary: both predict a revolutionary change in the character of the one of the present systems. The Communists openly state it. In the West, it is implicit in the prevalent convergence argument.’ Political Power: USA/USSR (New York, 1964), p. 419 Google Scholar. For a critique of convergence theory as it relates to the Soviet Union, see Wolfe, Bertram D., Revolution and Reality: Essays on the Origin and Fate of the Soviet System (Chapel Hill, 1981).Google Scholar

⁷³ Rostow, Walter W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 162–64.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ This argument has been made recently by several Soviet academics: [A]s the completion of the stage of industrialization in economic development approached and the transition to the next scientific-industrial, technical-technological stage of production began, the administrative economy, devoid of any market elements, became an obstacle to the development of those very economic spheres whose accelerated development had once constituted justification of the system. At the scientific-industrial stage of technological development, the deformed socialist relations of production, of the state monopoly type, clashed with the forces of production engendered by scientific-technological progress’. Gordon, L. and Nazimova, A., ‘Perestroika in Historical Perspective’, Government and Opposition, 25 (Winter 1990), p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ Coser, Lewis A., ‘The Intellectuals in Soviet Reform’, Dissent (Spring 1990), p. 183.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Soviet scientists were indispensable to the regime and, as a result, had more independence than any other group in Soviet society. The atomic designer, Pytor Kapitsa, was one of the few men to defy Stalin and live to tell about it. And, of course, Andrei Sakharov had similar independence and was therefore able to play a catalytic role in Soviet reform.

⁷⁷ As Brzezinski and Huntington argued in 1964, the theory of industrial modernism is, ‘in effect, anti-soviet Marxism: the forces of production will shape the social context of production, which in turn will determine the political superstructure’. Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Huntington, Samuel P., Political Power: USA/USSR (New York, 1964), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Comparing and testing these theories is not a straightforward proposition because these theories differ greatly in scope and are attempting to explain different aspects of these contemporary events. Often proponents of different theories dispute factual claim. For example, the hard realists and the nuclear one worlders do not agree upon what Soviet nuclear policy is. Perhaps more importantly, these theories are not just competing explanations of agreed-upon facts, but differ about what facts are important to explain.

⁷⁹ Noting the difficulties of a return to repression, Lewis Coser argues that ‘[t]he fact that the intelligentsia is no longer dispensable in the Soviet sphere is among the prime reasons why a return to a totalitarian regime or to military solutions is unlikely’, ‘The Intellectuals in Soviet Reform’, Dissent (Spring 1990), p. 183.

⁸⁰ Bialer, Seweryn, ‘The Passing of the Soviet Order?’ Survival, 32 (March/April 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Desai, Padma, Perestroika in Perspective: The Design and Dilemmas of Soviet Reform (Princeton, 1989), p. 138.Google Scholar

⁸¹ For a discussion of the range and logic of state adjustment choices, see Ikenberry, G. John, ‘The State and International Strategies of Adjustment’, World Politics, 39 (October 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mastanduno, Michael, Lake, David A., and Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Toward a Realist Theory of State Action’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (Winter 1989), pp. 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸² Woodly, Sylvia, Gorbachev and the Decline of Ideology in Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, 1989)Google Scholar. For an analysis of the evolution of Soviet theories underpinning ‘new thinking’ see Light, Margot, The Soviet Theory of International Relations (Brighton, 1988).Google Scholar

⁸³ This situation is noted by Seweryn Bialer: ‘Never in their history have the Russians been as secure from external danger as they are now and will remain in the foreseeable future … A Soviet Union that understands that it is extremely secure may be less hostile to the West’. Bialer, , ‘Gorbachev's Program of Change: Sources, Significance, Prospects’, Political Science Quarterly, 103 (Autumn 1988), p. 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁴ Of course, security demands may decline but they will not disappear. And the security organs, forged n i an earlier environment, may persist in making disproportionate claims, despitechanges in the environment.