Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:32:52.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On perspectives and approaches: British, American and others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

David J. Dunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between the United States and Great Britain is a subject of apparently endless fascination. It has given rise to innumerable books, theses, articles, essays and speculations. It is, however, riven with misunderstandings, inconsistencies and stereotypes. For all that the relationship has been written about, investigated, discussed and analysed, the topic is ripe, even yet, for further discussion.

Type
Review Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 69 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1987

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

1. Holsti, K. J., ‘The Dividing Discipline’ (London, 1985), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

2. Robert Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs, p. 1.

3. Ibid., p. 4.

4. The debate is summarized in Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969)Google Scholar.

5. George, Stephen, ‘Reconciling the “Classical” and “Scientific” Approaches to International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 5 (1976), p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Ibid.

7. Northedge, F. S., ‘Transnationalism: the American Illusion’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 5(1976), p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Ibid.

9. Smith, Steve, ‘Brother, can you paradigm? A Reply to Professor Rosenau’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 8 (1979–1980), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Steve Smith (ed.), International Relations, p. xii.

11. Jones, Roy, ‘The English school: a case for closure’, Review of International Studies, 1 (1981), pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Steve Smith (ed.), International Relations, pp. 19–22.

13. Ibid., p. 45.

14. Ibid., p. 132.

15. Ibid., p. 141.

16. Ibid., p. 38.

17. Ibid., p. 31.

18. Ibid., p. 32.

19. Ibid., p. 67.

20. Ibid., p. 66.

21. Ibid., p. 76.

22. Higgins, Rosalyn, ‘Integrations of Authority and Control: trends in the literature of international law and international relations’ in Michael Reisman, W. and Weston, Burns H. (eds.), ‘Towards World Order and Human Dignity’ (New York, 1976), p. 81.Google Scholar

23. Schulzinger, op. cit., p. 99.

24. Ibid., p. 86.

25. Ibid., p. 200.

26. Ibid., p. 203.

27. Lynn Miller, Global Order, p. 14.

28. Ibid., p. 15.

29. Julius Stone, Visions of World Order, p. 93.

30. R. B. J. Walker, Culture, Ideology and World Order, p. 2.