Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:59:59.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The promise of historical dynamism for the American study of international relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Bear Braumoeller
Bear Braumoeller*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While The Global Transformation makes a compelling case for the importance of the oft-ignored 19th century for IR theory, the book also represents an opportunity for an audience for which it was probably not intended: American IR scholars working in the quantitative empirical tradition, whom it should prompt to re-think the question of how the interactions that they seek to understand are conditional on deeper material and ideational dynamics.

Type
Symposium: Theory, History, and the Global Transformation
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 458 - 467
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Aron, Raymond. 1966. Peace & War: A Theory of International Relations. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth. 1962. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2012. The Great Powers and the International System: Systemic Theory in Empirical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart. 1977. Simulated Worlds: A Computer Model of National Decision-Making. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1998. “The End of the Cold War: Predicting an Emergent Property.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(2):131–155.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsnaes, Walter. 1992. “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 36(3):245–270.Google Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik. 1997. Emergent Actors in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Gordon A., and George, Alexander L.. 1983. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems of Our Time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W. 1966. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1992. “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.” International Security 17(3):5–58.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 1994. Contexts of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grenville, J.A. S. 2000. Europe Reshaped 1848-1878. Malden, MA: Blackwell Classic Histories of Europe.Google Scholar
Hart, Jeffrey. 1974. “Symmetry and Polarization in the European International System, 1870-1879: A Methodological Study.” Journal of Peace Research 11(3):229–244.Google Scholar
Herz, John H. 1951. Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study in Theories and Realities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1962. The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1999. Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton. 1957. System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Knorr, Klaus, and Verba, Sidney, eds. 1961. The International System: Theoretical Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, Hans. 1944. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lemke, Douglas. 1995. “The Tyranny of Distance: Redefining Relevant Dyads.” International Interactions 21(1):23–38.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 2011. Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816-2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review 87(3):624–638.Google Scholar
Modelski, George. 1987. Long Cycles in World Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Nettl, J. P., and Robertson, Roland. 1968. International Systems and the Modernization of Societies: The Formation of National Goals and Attitudes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Niou, Emerson M. S., Ordeshook, Peter C., and Rose, Gregory F.. 1989. The Balance of Power: Stability in International Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. 1967. The Stages of Political Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K., and Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2016. “The Global Transformation, Multiple Early Modernities and International Systems Change.” International Theory 8(3):481–491.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2016. “Theory, History, and Great Transformations.” International Theory 8(3):422–435.Google Scholar
Rose, Gideon. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51(1):144–172.Google Scholar
Rosecrance, Richard N. 1963. Action and Reaction in World Politics. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1998. Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sprout, Harold, and Sprout, Margaret. 1956. Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Center of International Studies.Google Scholar
Starr, Harvey. 1978. “‘Opportunity’ and ‘Willingness’ as Ordering Concepts in the Study of War.” International Interactions 4(4):363–387.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Katznelson, Ira. 2014. “Designing Historical Social Scientific Inquiry: How Parameter Heterogeneity can Bridge the Methodological Divide Between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.” American Journal of Political Science 58(2):526–546.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wohlforth, William Curti. 1993. The Elusive Balance: Power and Perception During the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar