¹ Renouvin, P., “The Contribution of France to the Study of International Relations,” Contemporary Political Science, A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching. UNESCO (Paris, 1950) pp. 561–581.Google Scholar

² Kirk, Grayson L., The Study of International Relations in American Colleges and Universities (New York, 1947).Google Scholar

³ Gurian, Waldemar, “The Study of International Relations,” Review of Politics, VIII (1946), pp. 275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, K. W., “The Study of International Politics: A Survey of Trends and Developments,” Review of Politics, XIV (1952), pp. 433–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, W. T. R., “Interwar International Relations Research: The American Experience,” World Politics, II (1949), pp. 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ de Tocqueville, A., Etudes Economiques, Politiques et Littéraires, Ouvres Completes (Paris, 1866), vol. IX, pp. 120–121.Google Scholar

⁵ Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919–1939 (London, 1945)Google Scholar; Morgenthau, H. J., Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946).Google Scholar

⁶ SirZimmern, A. E., The League of Nations and the Rule of Law 1918–1935 (London. 1935)Google Scholar; Brierly, T., The Covenant and the Charter (Cambridge, 1947).Google Scholar

⁷ Russell, F. M., Theories of International Relations (New York, 1936)Google Scholar; Meulen, J. Ter, Der Gedanke der Internationalen Organisation in seiner Entwicklung (Haag, 1929).Google Scholar

⁸ Berlin, I., “Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century,” Foreign Affairs, XXVIII (1950), pp. 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Carr, E. H., op. cit.Google Scholar; Morgenthau, H. J., op. cit.Google Scholar; Butterfield, H., “The Scientific vs. the Moralistic Approach in International Affairs,” International Affairs, XXVII (1951), pp. 411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson, D., Patterns of Peacemaking (London, 1945)Google Scholar; Herz, J. H., Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago, 1951)Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, G., Power Politics (New York, 1951), etc.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wynner, E. and Lloyd, G., Searchlights on Peace Plans (New York, 1949).Google Scholar

¹¹ Niemeyer, G., “Relevant and Irrelevant Doctrines concerning International Relations,” World Politics, IV (1952), pp. 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Hodé, J., L'Idée de fédération Internationale dans I'histoire: Les precurseurs de la Société des Nations (Paris, 1921).Google Scholar

¹³ Roberts, F., The Quest for Security (New York, 1947), p. 34.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The word “democratic” is used here in a non-partisan sense and does not specifically refer to the Democratic Party but to a general American democratic approach.

¹⁵ For German Conservative Internationalism see Meinecke, H., Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat (Munich, 1928).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The term “liberal” is used in the European sense of the word.

¹⁷ Muir, R., The Faith of a Liberal (London, 1933), p. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁸ de Ruggiero, G., The History of European Liberalism (London, 1927), p. 411.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a detailed analysis, Wandycz, P. S., Liberal Internationalism: the Contribution of British and French Liberal Thought to the Theory of International Relations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, London University (1951).Google Scholar

²⁰ Szczerba, K. and Schelting, A. V., “International Relations in Soviet Sociological and Legal Doctrine.” Contemporary Political Science, A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching. UNESCO (Paris, 1950), pp. 551–561.Google Scholar

²¹ Historicus, , “Stalin on Revolution.” Foreign Affairs, XXVII (1949), pp. 175–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Zinner, P. E., “The Ideological Bases of Soviet Foreign Policy.” World Politics, IV (1952), pp. 488–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Berlin, I., “Political Ideas of the Twentieth Century,” Foreign Affairs XXVIII (1951), pp. 351–358.Google Scholar

²³ Nationalism, A Report by a Study Group of Members of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London 1939), p. 214.

²⁴ Speech of Greek representative Antonopulos on August 19, 1949 Council of Europe, Consultative Assembly, Part II (Strasbourg, 1949), p. 419.Google Scholar

²⁵ Speech of Rozakis on August 17, 1949, ibid., p. 246.

²⁶ Treaty Constituting the European Defense Community, 82d Congress, Senate. Convention of Relations with the Federal Republic of Germany and a Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty (Washington, 1951).

²⁷ Speech of Dutch representative Van der Goes van Naters on August 16, 1949. Council of Europe, Consultative Assembly, Reports, Part I (Strasbourg, 1949), p. 168.Google Scholar

²⁸ US Economic Cooperation Administration. Office of the US Special Representative in Europe. European Coal and Steel Community Treaty Protocols and Related Documents (Special Publication, Paris).

²⁹ Lang, R. D., “The Philosophy of Federalism,” Basis of Federalism: A Symposium (Paris, 1949).Google Scholar

³⁰ Fédération, no. 42 (07, 1948), p. 6.Google Scholar

³¹ Lippmann, Walter, “Search for a New Foreign Policy,” New York Herald Tribune, 05 15, 1952.Google Scholar

³² Morgenthau, H. J., “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the United States,” American Political Science Review, XLVI (1952), pp. 961–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Kennan, G. F., American Diplomacy (Chicago, 1952).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Burnham, J., Containment or Liberation (New York, 1953).Google Scholar

³⁵ Department of State, Our Foreign Policy, 1952 (Washington, 1953).Google Scholar

³⁶ Dulles, John Foster in a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria, New York, New York Herald Tribune, 05 13, 1952.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cook, T. I. and Moos, M., “The American Idea of International Interest,” American Political Science Review, XLVIII (1953).Google Scholar

³⁸ Mitrany, D., The Progress of International Government (New Haven, 1933), p. 18.Google Scholar