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.

The biggest and most complicated international conference of all time began in Caracas in mid 1974 and after a ten weeks session was adjourned to meet again in Geneva for a similar period in 1975. The purpose of the conference is to recodify the Law of the Sea, with the aim of reconciling the competing maritime interests of nations and restraining growing international tension over the uses of the sea and the seabed. It is indicative of the pace of the world we live in that this vast diplomatic undertaking has been found necessary only fifteen years after the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. That Conference thought it was codifying and stabilizing the rules of law for a long period, if not in perpetuity, in respect of the freedom of the high seas, the rights of coastal States in the territorial sea and to the continental shelf, and conservation of fisheries.

In discussing the scholarly work of Henry Kissinger, the obvious temptation is to examine the work of the scholar in the light of the politician's activities; and I intend to yield to it. There are, equally, reasons for doing so, which I shall suggest later. It should also be clear that one can not hope, in an article of this length, to do justice to the full seriousness of his works, their manifold complications and changes of well-argued position, the scope of the considerations which he has brought to bear. The aim will be the more modest one of trying to assess the nature of the contribution he has made to thinking about the major international problems of contemporary world order.

Man was not born to solve the problems of the universe, but to put his finger on the problem and then to keep within the limits of the comprehensible. Goethe

NEW fields of academic study often appear to develop along the lines of Rostow's stages of economic growth. The preconditions for take-off are established by isolated pioneers who see the emergence of trends and opportunities before they have captured public attention. With public recognition of the need for greater understanding and a more informed basis for action, the new field is given a powerful shove into the take-off stage. Academic investment in it rises, constituent firms publish their prospectuses and set about attracting customers. If the investment effort is widespread and substantial, a minor boom may occur and leave in its wake some excess capacity.

Bernard Bosanquet spent the First World War at his cottage in Oxshott, in Surrey, and from here he measured the implications of the conflict for his philosophy of the state. The result of this reflection is available to us in the letters which he wrote during the war, and a variety of lectures and papers. His ideas, therefore, have a general interest to students of international theory.

Since the appearance of Fritz Fischer's Griff nach der Weltmacht in 19611the study of German history has not been the same. His strong views and the evidence he presents on the question of German responsibility for World War I naturally provoked controversy. But the impact of his book has another equally important, and, at first glance, less apparent aspect. Fischer gave great prominence to economic affairs and the role of various pressure groups. Whether his views on German war guilt are accepted or not, Fischer's approach to history, his attempt to break out of the bonds of diplomatic, purely political and intellectual history and emphasize its economic and social strains, has encouraged a multitude of young German historians to take a fresh look at their past. They have concentrated on the last 100 years, but this method can of course be more widely applied. Since the days of Ranke the writing of German history has been directed towards the analysis of political events and increasingly since the turn of the century towards the study of the history of ideas. After an early and promising start in Germany, social and economic history was either neglected, or studied merely in isolation without reference to politics.

The works on the topic of ‘appeasement’ to be discussed in this article have been widely reviewed elsewhere as works of historical analysis. The emphasis has been placed on the quality of their historical scholarship or the contribution made to the historiography of ‘appeasement’. The aim of this discussion will be to examine the relevance, if any, of such writings to a theoretical understanding of international relations.