Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T02:44:07.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - International Law and International Relations

Introducing an Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2013

By
Jeffrey L. Dunoff  and
Mark A. Pollack
Edited by
Jeffrey L. Dunoff  and
Mark A. Pollack
Jeffrey L. Dunoff
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia
Mark A. Pollack
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

A casual observer might expect that international lawyers and international relations scholars would share overlapping research interests and scholarly agendas. In fact, for several decades prior to the Second World War, practitioners in both fields pursued common interests in the making, interpretation, and enforcement of international law. As a matter of disciplinary history, however, World War II served as a watershed event, largely discrediting international law among political scientists as “realist” theorists rejected the notion that international law could serve as a meaningful constraint on states’ pursuit of the national interest. Over the next four decades, international relations (IR) and international law (IL) scholarship developed along separate and rarely intersecting tracks. Legal scholars sought to emphasize law's autonomy from politics, and focused on identifying, criticizing, or justifying specific legal rules and decision-making processes. For their part, political scientists seldom referenced international law as such, even when their topics of interest, such as international cooperation and international regimes, overlapped in clear ways with international law.

The mutual neglect among international law and politics began to ebb only with the end of the Cold War and the increased salience of international rules and institutions. In 1989, legal scholar Kenneth Abbott published a manifesto calling for interdisciplinary scholarship on international law and encouraging legal scholars to draw upon recent political science scholarship. Over the next decade, a growing number of legal scholars began to ask new questions about the design and workings of international law, drawing on both theories of international relations and on qualitative and quantitative methods imported from political science. By the early 2000s, political scientists in turn “rediscovered” international law, a development marked most clearly by the publication of a special issue of International Organization, the leading journal in the field, devoted to understanding the causes and consequences of the “legalization” of international politics.

Type
Chapter
Information
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations
The State of the Art
 , pp. 3 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, Kenneth W. (1989). “Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 335–411.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W. (2004–05). “Toward a Richer Institutionalism for International Law and Policy,” Journal of International Law and International Relations, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Abbott, , , Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan (2000). “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, , , Kenneth W (2013). “Law, Legalization and Politics: An Agenda for the Next Generation of IL/IR Scholars,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 33–56.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan (2000). “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, Karen J. (2013). “The Multiple Roles of International Courts and Tribunals: Enforcement, Dispute Settlement, Constitutional and Administrative Review,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 345–70.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David, Farrell, Theo, and Lambert, Hélène (2007). International Law and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. (1984). “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkin, J. M. (1996). “Interdisciplinarity as Colonization,” Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 949–70.Google Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas J., Spiro, Peter J., Sriram, Chandra Lekha, and Raffo, Veronica I. (eds.) (2006). International Law and International Relations: Bridging Theory and Practice (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar
Bodansky, Daniel (2013). “Legitimacy: Concepts and Conceptions/Normative and Descriptive,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 321–41.Google Scholar
Brewster, Rachel (2013). “Reputation in International Relations and International Law Theory,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 524–43.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David (eds.) (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).Google Scholar
Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen J. (2000). “International Law and Constructivism: Elements of an Interactional Theory of International Law,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 19–74.Google Scholar
Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen J. (2010). Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Stephen J. (2013). “Constructivism and International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 119–45.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley (1969). “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” in Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 20–38.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burley, Anne-Marie, and Mattli, Walter (1993). “Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration,” International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, Michael (1997). “Taking the Law out of International Law: A Critique of the ‘Iterative Perspective,’” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, 201–05.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. (2001). The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram (1974). The Cuban Missile Crisis: International Crises and the Role of Law (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram, Ehrlich, Thomas, and Lowenfeld, Andreas F. (1968). International Legal Process: Materials for an Introductory Course (Boston: Little, Brown and Co.).Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2003). “‘Going Native’ in Europe? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36, Nos. 1–2, pp. 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, Lisa. (2013). “Whose Agents? The Interpretation of International Law in National Courts,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 394–420.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 126–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey L. (2010). “International Law in Perplexing Times,” Maryland Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Pollack, Mark A. (2012). “What Can International Relations Learn from International Law?” (April 9, 2012). Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-14. Available at SSRN: or .
Falk, Richard A. (1970). The Status of Law in International Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Fearon, James, and Wendt, Alexander (2002). “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View,” in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), pp. 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha (2000). “Are Legal Norms Distinctive?,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 699–705.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Toope, Stephen J.. (2001). “Alternatives to ‘Legalization’: Richer Views of Law and Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and Shaffer, Gregory C. (2012). “The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Posner, Eric A. (2005). The Limits of International Law (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack, and Vermeule, Adrian (2002). “Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Ryan, and Jinks, Derek (2004). “How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 621–703.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Victor, David, and Lupu, Yonatan (2012). “Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 47–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A., and Lavinbuk, Ariel N. (2006). “Book Review: Rationalism and Revisionism in International Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, No. 5, pp. 1404–43.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. (2013). “Flexibility in International Agreements,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 175–96.Google Scholar
Henkin, Louis (1979). How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley H. (1961). “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” in Rosenau, James N. (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe), pp. 421–37.Google Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve (1990). Explaining and Understanding International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Johnstone, Ian (2013). “Lawmaking by International Organizations: Perspectives from IL/IR Theory,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 266–92.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Okawara, Nobuo (2001). “Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter, and Sil, Rudra (2008). “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations,” in Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 109–30.Google Scholar
Kennan, George F. (1951). American Diplomacy: 1900–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1997). “International Relations and International Law: Two Optics,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 487–502.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. (1998). “When Does International Law Come Home?,” Houston Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 699–713.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2000). “Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 457–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Klabbers, Jan (2004–2005). “The Relative Autonomy of International Law or the Forgotten Politics of Interdisciplinarity,” Journal of International Law & International Relations, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
Klabbers, Jan (2009). “The Bridge Crack'd: A Critical Look at Interdisciplinary Relations,” International Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara (2013). “Institutionalism and International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, and Betz, Timm (2013). “The Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Agreements,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 371–93.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan (2001). “The Rational Design of International Institutions,” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2000). “Carl Schmitt, Hans Morgenthau, and the Image of Law in International Relations,” in Byers, Michael (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law (New York: Oxford University Press), pp.17–34.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2009a). “The Politics of International Law – 20 Years Later,” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti (2009b). “Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. (1982). “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich, and Ruggie, John Gerard (1986). “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 753–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. (2011). “Why ‘isms’ are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapid, Yosef (1989). “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. (2013). “Against Compliance,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 591–610.Google Scholar
Mattli, Walter, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie (1995). “Law and Politics in the European Union: A Reply to Garrett,” International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 513–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew (2013). “Liberal Theories of International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 83–118.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf).Google Scholar
Nau, Henry R. (2011). “No Alternative to ‘Isms,’” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 487–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Abraham, and Zaring, David (2013). “Regulatory Networks: Power, Legitimacy, and Compliance,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 244–65.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria, and Shaffer, Gregory (2009). “Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Order Prompt a New Legal Theory?,” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 61–138.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Lassa (1908). “The Science of International Law: Its Task and Method,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 313–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost, and Elsig, Manfred (2013). “The Politics of Treaty Interpretation: Variations and Explanations Across International Tribunals,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 445–73.Google Scholar
Ratner, Steven R. (2013). “Persuading to Comply: On the Deployment and Avoidance of Legal Argumentation,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 568–90.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal (2013). “Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 293–320.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian (2004) (ed.). The Politics of International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas (2004). “Social Constructivism and European Integration,” in Wiener, Antje and Diez, Thomas (eds.), European Integration Theory (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 159–76.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard (1998). “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 855–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, Geoffrey (2009). “Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law Be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?” Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 431–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Oscar (1977). “The Invisible College of International Lawyers,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 217–26.Google Scholar
Schlegel, John Henry (1995). American Legal Realism & Empirical Social Science (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).Google Scholar
Schmidt, Brian C. (2002). “On the History and Historiography of International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications), pp. 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory C., and Pollack, Mark A. (2013). “Hard Law and Soft Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 197–222.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Scott J. (2006). “What Is the Internal Point of View?,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 1157–70.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter J. (2011). “De-Centering, Not Discarding, the ‘Isms’: Some Friendly Amendments,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 481–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Breidenbach, Andrew B. (2011). “The Empirical Turn in International Economic Law,” Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 198–222.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2000). “International Law and International Relations,” Recueil des Cours 285 (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2013). “International Law and International Relations Theory: Twenty Years Later,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 613–25.Google Scholar
SlaughterBurley, Anne-Marie (1993). “International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 205–39.Google Scholar
Spiro, Peter J. (2013). “Nongovernmental Organizations in International Relations (Theory),” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 223–43.Google Scholar
Steinberg, , , Richard (2013). “Wanted – Dead or Alive: Realist Approaches to International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 146–72.Google Scholar
Thompson, Alexander (2013). “Coercive Enforcement in International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 502–23.Google Scholar
Trachtman, Joel P. (2013). “Open Economy Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 544–67.Google Scholar
Ulen, Thomas S. (2004). “The Unexpected Guest: Law and Economics, Law and Other Cognate Disciplines, and the Future of Legal Scholarship,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 403–29.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik (2013). “International Judicial Independence,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art(New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 421–44.Google Scholar
von Stein, Jana (2013). “The Engines of Compliance,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 477–501.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Colin (2002). “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Paks, CA: Sage Publications), pp. 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyn Jones, Richard (2001) (ed.). Critical Theory & World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×