Article contents
On Approaches to the Study of International Relations, Or, Back to Machiavelli
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
Extract
A Heavy onslaught on the (predominantly American) “scientific” school of students of international relations has recently been delivered to the evident satisfaction and comfort of those who practice or respond most comfortably to the “classical approach.” Still, the defeat of one school—if defeat there was—need not, of course, necessarily redound to the honor of the other, and it is surely worth considering what positive case has been made out on this occasion, explicitly or by implication, in favor of “classicism.” In fact, this article will argue, neither approach is entirely adequate. Neither provides a really firm basis on which to found a coherent and well-integrated field of study or—what is undoubtedly more important—a framework within which the facts of contemporary international life can be selected, compared, and interpreted in a thoroughly valid and enlightening manner.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1967
References
1 Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” World Politics, xviii (April 1966), 361–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Strenuously denied by a notable “scientist”: see Kaplan, Morton A., “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations,” World Politics, xix (October 1966), 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 P. 361.
4 P. 367.
5 “Why Is There No International Theory?” in Herbert Butterfield and Wight, Martin, eds., Diplomatic Investigations (London 1966), 33Google Scholar.
6 P. 8, italics added.
7 P. II.
8 Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, Burton, Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York 1962)Google Scholar.
- 3
- Cited by