¹ Hoffmann, Stanley, Primacy or World Order: American Foreign Policy Since the Cold War (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p. 133.Google Scholar

² By Boulding, Kenneth, in Knoll, Erwin and McFadden, Judith Nies, eds., American Militarism, 1970: A Dialogue on the Distortion of Our National Priorities and the Need to Reassert Control over the Defense Establishment (New York: Viking Press, 1969), p. 90.Google Scholar

³ Wood, David, “In National Interest,” Times (London), 9 06 1969, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁴ Quigg, Philip W., America the Dutiful: An Assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971), p. 107.Google Scholar

⁵ See the article on “National Interest” by James N. Rosenau.

⁶ Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), p. 33.Google Scholar

⁷ Johansen, Robert C., The National Interest and the Human Interest: An Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Stephen Krasner may come close. See his Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

⁹ See Cochran, Clarke E., “Yves R. Simon and ‘The Common Good’: A Note on the Concept,” Ethics, 88 (04 1978), 229–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Or if society can be seen as a partnership, it is in the sense of Burke's famous passage: “Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure — but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico, or tobacco, or some other low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence, because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born” (The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, 12 vols. [Boston: Little, Brown 1901], 111:359).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cochran, , “Political Science and ‘The Public Interest,’” Journal of Politics, 36 (03 1974), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ See Barry, Brian, “The Public Interest,” The Bias of Pluralism, ed. Connolly, William E. (New York: Atherton Press, 1969), pp. 173–74.Google Scholar

¹² U.S., President, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, 1953–)Google Scholar, Carter, Jimmy, 1980–1981, III:2890.Google Scholar

¹³ See Raymond Aron's argument that “Political life in the United States resembles a carnival, but, beneath the tumultuous surface, social conformism reigns. The majority of citizens obey the same rules and subscribe to the same values” (Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, trans. Howard, Richard and Fox, Annette Baker [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966], p. 539).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Marshall, Charles Burton, “National Interest and National Responsibility,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 282 (07 1952), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Quoted in Thomson, David, Democracy in France Since 1870, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 271.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Tucker, Robert W., The Inequality of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Kratochwil, Friedrich, “On the Notion of ‘Interest’ in International Relations,” International Organization, 36 (Winter 1982), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), p. 65.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Quoted in Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th ed., revised (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 9Google Scholar. See also pp. 8–10.

²⁰ Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Between States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), p. 197Google Scholar. See also Buzan, Barry and Jones, R. J. Barry, Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981), esp. chaps. 5 and 6Google Scholar; and the growing literature on evolving international “regimes.”

²¹ See also the views of Hamilton, Alexander, in Wolfers, Arnold and Martin, Laurence W., eds., The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs: Readings from Thomas More to Woodrow Wilson (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1956), pp. 148–49.Google Scholar

²² Quoted in Hinsley, , Power and the Pursuit of Peace, pp. 224–25.Google Scholar

²³ See Kant's claim, in his Ideas for a Universal History, that “the problem of establishing a perfect civil constitution is dependent upon the problem of law-governed relationship between states.”

²⁴ See the sections on Kant, in Hinsley, , Power and the Pursuit of PeaceGoogle Scholar, and in Gallie, W. B., Philosophers of Peace and War (Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁵ Walz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959).Google Scholar

²⁶ Aron, , Peace and War, p. 90.Google Scholar

²⁷ See the work of Cook, Thomas and Moos, Malcolm in “The American Idea of International Interest,” American Political Science Review, 47 (03 1953), 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Hindrances to Foreign Policy: Individualism and Legalism,” Journal of Politics, 15 (02 1953), 114–39Google Scholar; “Foreign Policy: The Realism of Idealism,” American Political Science Review, 46 (06 1952), 343–56Google Scholar; and Power Through Purpose: The Realism of Idealism as a Basis for Foreign Policy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1954).Google Scholar

²⁸ Crick, Bernard, In Defense of Politics, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 24Google Scholar. See also Weinstein, Eugene David, “The Ignoble Lie — National Interest Ideology in American Civilization” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1967).Google Scholar

²⁹ Quoted in Gilbert, Martin and Gott, Richard, The Appeasers (London: Lowe and Brydone, 1967), pp. 312–32Google Scholar. See also Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, p. 37Google Scholar; Tucker, Robert W., “Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Political ‘Realism,’” American Political Science Review, 46 (03 1952), 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seabury, Paul, Power, Freedom, and Diplomacy: The Foreign Policy of the United States of America (New York: Random House, 1963), pp. 144–46Google Scholar. The basic statement of the transmutation of individual altruism into group egoism remains Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932).Google Scholar

³⁰ Beitz, Charles R., Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 55. See also p. 176.Google Scholar

³¹ See Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977).Google Scholar

³² See Morgenthau, , In Defense of the National Interest, pp. 36–39Google Scholar, and Politics Among Nations, p. 11Google Scholar; Kratochwil, , “On the Notion of ‘Interest’”Google Scholar; Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wight, Martin, Power Politics, eds. Bull, Hedley and Holbraad, Carsten (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1978), esp. pp. 100–121Google Scholar. Observance of the informal rules of the balance of power varies from era to era in the same pattern.

³³ Though not all — see Herbert J. Storing, with the editorial assistance of Dry, Murray, What the Anti-Federalists Were For (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Eidelberg, Paul, A Discourse on Statesmanship: The Design and Transformation of the American Polity (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1971).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Hirschmann, Albert O., The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), esp. pp. 7–66Google Scholar; Gunn, J. A. W., Politics and the Public Interest in the Seventeenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969).Google Scholar

³⁵ All quotations from Tocqueville are taken from Democracy in America, trans. Reeve, Henry, 2 vols., 4th ed. (New York: J. & H. G. Langley, 1840), IIGoogle Scholar: bk. 2, chaps. 8 and 14. See also John Stuart Mill, in his introduction to the first English translation of Tocqueville's work, on the effect on the citizen of participation in public affairs: “He becomes acquainted with more varied business, and a larger range of considerations. He is made to feel that besides the interests which connect him with them; that not only the common weal is his weal, but that it partly depends on his exertions.” Much the same could be said of statesmen in the eras of closest international society.

³⁶ The phrase is used by Arnold Wolfers in his introduction to The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs, pp. ix–xxxvii.Google Scholar