This complex, ambitious, and large book seeks to question, reformulate, and enhance the scope (and methods) of inter- national relations theories, particularly those formulated within a realist framework. The authors question that frame- work, the Westphalian model of putatively unitary nation- states, quantitative methods of empirical investigation, and the levels-of-analysis paradigm. The breadth of their critique is extensive and, consequently, highly ambitious. Rather than approach international relations as a system of unitary nation-states inspired by realist principles, which is arguably a partial and simplified portrayal of contemporary research, the authors favor a complex system of "overlapping, layered, and linked polities" that have both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The latter dimension is particularly important, as it concerns patterns of authority, identity (including ethnic- ity), and institutions that compete for the loyalty of individ- uals.

Hein Goemans develops and tests a rationalist model of war termination that incorporates domestic politics, focusing on leader tenure and survival in expected postwar political environments. The book is one of a growing number of works that look beyond the initiation of conflict to its conclusion, examine the dynamics of conflict over time, and incorporate domestic political factors through a multimethod analysis.

The salience of supranational structures of governance in- creased dramatically during the last decade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, not only establish de- tailed norms, rules, and decision-making procedures but also endow supranational governing boards with sweeping powers of enforcement. The European Monetary Union (EMU) greatly constrains national sovereignty by eliminating na- tional currencies and allowing the European Central Bank to play a key role in national economic policymaking. In his study of NAFTA and the European Monetary System (EMS), Lloyd Gruber contends that international relations scholars have had difficulty coming to grips with the trend toward global governance because the dominant theoretical approaches-neoliberalism and neorealism-tend to assume incorrectly that international cooperation produces mutual benefits for all contracting parties.

Andrew Geddes provides a European analysis of European migration policy. He asks two questions: To what degree has the European Union (EU) garnered control over migration policies of member states? What is the policy outcome? In answering these questions, the author makes two contribu- tions to the literature.

The central theme of this book is that U.S. strategy in the Middle East is fundamentally flawed but not irreparable. This may be the result of the inherent mismatch between strategy and policy and, more significantly, between America's prin- ciples and interests. In particular, the author argues that the U.S. approach toward Islam is "beset with ambiguities and tensions" (p. 3). Furthermore, he stresses that there is a somewhat dangerous growing gap between the American people and their representatives in Congress, on the one hand, and presidential administrations, on the other, when it comes to dealing with "islamists" (those who espouse greater religious activism in politics). The former lean toward a confrontational attitude that is fed by cultural differences, stereotyping, and negative images of Muslims, whereas the latter strive to accommodate or tolerate a majority of mod- erate or pro-West Islamic forces and states.

The 1990s were characterized by a substantial increase in the number of ethnic conflicts within states. The international community, especially the United Nations, responded by intervening to prevent or resolve violence but frequently failed to do so. Mary Kaldor attempts to explain why identity-based violence has increased and why the interna- tional community's actions have so often failed.

Social scientific interest in "social Europe" pales in compar- ison with the attention that has been directed toward the economic and political dimensions of the European Union (EU). This is perhaps hardly surprising; for much of its relatively short history, the system that is today the EU has been almost exclusively economic in its focus. Only since the 1980s has the project of European integration acquired a significant social dimension. Given this imbalance, Robert Geyer provides a welcome and timely addition to the litera- ture.

In the past ten years there has been a burst of theoretical and empirical research on the topic of learning in international relations. Russell J. Leng's new book is the latest addition to this body of scholarship, and it builds on his past research on learning and crisis bargaining. Leng examines the role of learning in crisis bargaining strategies within ongoing, inter- national rivalries. He asks a series of questions, including: Do patterns of crisis behavior repeat from one crisis to the next?

This book has an admirable goal: to present policy-relevant results of past academic research to "a wide audience of students, practitioners, policy makers and researchers who want a modern treatment of NATO" (p. xii). To direct fruitfully the results of scholarly work to less academic audiences is a difficult task, because many theoretical as- sumptions and methodological issues must be skimmed over and criticisms of the work summarized or ignored. Nonethe- less, the goal is a good one, and the authors are well positioned to accomplish their purpose, which they do to a large extent. For more than two decades Todd Sandler has been the primary proponent of the "joint product" model of alliances. This model is possibly the most prominent chal- lenge to (or modification of) the public-goods approach to the study of alliances that was pioneered by Mancur Olson and Richard Zeckhauser. Keith Hartley, director of the Centre for Defence Economics at the University of York, has written extensively on defense procurement, disarmament, and conversion.

The word globalization first appeared in the second half of the 1980s and now has become the most ubiquitous in the language of international relations. It has spawned a new vocabulary: globaloney (Why all the hype when the global economy was more integrated in the age of Queen Victo- ria?): globaphobia (the new, mainly mistaken, backlash); globeratti (the members of the international nongovernmen- tal organizations [INGOs] who travel around the world from conference to conference, except when they are on the Internet mobilizing for the next conference), and so on. For Robert Gilpin, among the world's most eminent scholars of international relations, globalization is insightfully defined as the deepening and widening integration of the world econ- omy by trade, financial flows, investment, and technology.

Space is a seductive place, where technology-induced vistas often blur the policy vision of earthbound military planners, scientific explorers, or commercial entrepreneurs. This is the message that beams down from Roger Handberg's book on space militarization. He leads the reader through the twists and turns of technology, law, and policy, through the bureau- cratic labyrinth of the U.S. military and space industrial complexes. In the end, one is faced with the same imponder- ables that confronted President Clinton in deciding whether to deploy the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Like an astute player on fourth down, he punted that space football to his successor, and the Handberg volume gives you the Monday morning quarterback advantage.