This book critically investigates the historiography of International Relations. For the past fifteen years, the field has witnessed the development of a strong interest in the history of the discipline. The chapters in this edited volume, written by some of the field’s preeminent disciplinary historians, all manifest the best of an innovative and exciting generation of scholarship on the history of the discipline of International Relations. One of the objectives of this volume is to take stock of the historical turn. Yet this volume is not simply a stock-taking exercise, as it also intends to identify the limitations and blind spots of the recent historiographical literature. The chapters consider a range of diverse thinkers and examine their impact on understanding various dimensions of the field’s history.
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serb Army commanded by General Ratko Mladic attacked the enclave of Srebrenica, a UN "safe area" since 1993, and massacred about 8,000 Bosniac men. While the responsibility for the massacre itself lays clearly with the Serb political and military leadership, the question of the responsibility of various international organizations and national authorities for the fall of the enclave is still passionately discussed, and has given rise to various rumors and conspiracy theories. Follow-up investigations by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and by several commissions have dissipated most of these rumors and contributed to a better knowledge of the Srebrenica events and the part played by the main local and international actors. This volume represents the first systematic, comparative analysis of those investigations. It brings together analyses from both the external standpoint of academics and the inside perspective of various professionals who participated directly in the inquiries, including police officers, members of parliament, high-ranking civil servants, and other experts. Evaluating how institutions establish facts and ascribe responsibilities, this volume presents a historiographical and epistemological reflection on the very possibility of writing a history of the present time.
International thought is the product of major political changes over the last few centuries, especially the development of the modern state and the industrialisation of the world economy. While the question of how to deal with strangers from other communities has been a constant throughout human history, it is only in recent centuries that the question of ‘foreign relations’ (and especially imperialism and war) have become a matter of urgency for all sectors of society throughout the world. This book provides the first comprehensive overview of the evolution of Western international thought, and charts how this evolved into the predominantly Anglophone field of International Relations. Along the way several myths of the origins of International Relations are explored and exposed: the myth of the peace of Westphalia, the myths of Versailles and the nature of the League of Nations, the realist-idealist ‘Great Debate’ myth, and the myth of appeasement. Major approaches to the study of international affairs are discussed within their context and on their own terms, rather than being shoe-horned into anachronistic ‘paradigms’. Written in a clear and accessible style, Ashworth’s analysis reveals how historical myths have been used as gatekeeping devices, and how a critical re-evaluation of the history of international thought can affect how we see international affairs today.
Historical approaches to the study of world politics have always been a major part of the academic discipline of International Relations, and there has recently been a resurgence of scholarly interest in this area. This Oxford Handbook examines the past and present of the intersection between history and IR, and looks to the future by laying out new questions and directions for research. Seeking to transcend well-worn disciplinary debates between historians and IR scholars, the Handbook asks authors from both fields to engage with the central themes of 'modernity' and 'granularity'. Modernity is one of the basic organising categories of speculation about continuity and discontinuity in the history of world politics, but one that is increasingly questioned for privileging one kind of experience and marginalizing others. The theme of granularity highlights the importance of how decisions about the scale and scope of historical research in IR shape what can be seen, and how one sees it. Together, these themes provide points of affinity across the wide range of topics and approaches presented here. The Handbook is organized into four parts. The first, 'Readings', gives a state-of-the-art analysis of numerous aspects of the disciplinary encounter between historians and IR theorists. Thereafter, sections on 'Practices', 'Locales', and 'Moments' offer a wide variety of perspectives, from the longue durée to the ephemeral individual moment, and challenge many conventional ways of defining the contexts of historical enquiry about international relations. Contributors come from a range of academic backgrounds, and present a diverse array of methodological and philosophical ideas, as well as their various historical interests. The Oxford Handbooks of International Relations is a twelve-volume set of reference books offering authoritative and innovative engagements with the principal sub-fields of International Relations. The series as a whole is under the General Editorship of Christian Reus-Smit of the University of Queensland and Duncan Snidal of the University of Oxford, with each volume edited by specialists in the field. The series both surveys the broad terrain of International Relations scholarship and reshapes it, pushing each sub-field in challenging new directions. Following the example of Reus-Smit and Snidal's original Oxford Handbook of International Relations, each volume is organized around a strong central thematic by scholars drawn from different perspectives, reading its sub-field in an entirely new way, and pushing scholarship in challenging new directions.
Good addition to handbooks programme, no direct competitiors HIST section of ISA is growing each year Faced with an uncertain future, an increasing number of scholars have looked to the past for guidance, patterns and ideas. This tendency has been clear, despite theoretical and methodological difference, this book will fill a lacuna.
Based on extensive archival research, this book provides a new and stimulating history of International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline. Contrary to traditional accounts, it argues that IR was not invented by Anglo-American men after the First World War. Nor was it divided into neat theoretical camps. To appreciate the twists and turns of early IR scholarship, the book follows a diverse group of men and women from across Europe and beyond who pioneered the field since 1914. Like architects, they built a set of institutions (university departments, journals, libraries, etc.) but they also designed plans for a new world order (draft treaties, petitions, political commentary, etc.). To achieve these goals, they interacted closely with the League of Nations and its bodies for intellectual cooperation, until the Second World War put an end to their endeavour. Their story raises broader questions about the status of IR well beyond the inter-war period.
After the Enlightenment is the first attempt at understanding modern political realism as a historical phenomenon. Realism is not an eternal wisdom inherited from Thucydides, Machiavelli or Hobbes, but a twentieth-century phenomenon rooted in the interwar years, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the transfer of ideas between Continental Europe and the United States. The book provides the first intellectual history of the rise of realism in America, as it informed policy and academic circles after 1945. It breaks through the narrow confines of the discipline of international relations and resituates realism within the crisis of American liberalism. Realism provided a new framework for foreign policy thinking and transformed the nature of American democracy. This book sheds light on the emergence of 'rational choice' as a new paradigm for political decision-making and speaks to the current revival in realism in international affairs.
International relations theorists are increasingly turning to historical sociology as a means both of broadening and refining their discipline, and critiquing mainstream thinking. Nevertheless, there is still only a rudimentary understanding of what historical sociology is and what it can offer the subject. This book acts as a manifesto for historical sociology, considering a range of issues, including accounts of the major variants of historical sociology; how they can be applied to international relations; why international relations theorists should engage with these approaches; and how historical sociological insight can enhance and reconfigure the study of international relations. In addition to describing the seven major approaches - neo-Weberianism, constructivisim, critical historical materialism, critical theory, postmodernism, structural realism and World Systems theory - the volume s introductory and concluding chapters set out in detail an approach and research agenda that revolve around what the editors call world sociology .
This book investigates to what extent and in what ways Marxist writings and precepts on imperialism informed the so-called idealist stage of International Relations (IR). Though the formative years of International Relations coincide with a vibrant period in Marxist political thought, Marxism is strikingly absent from the historiography of the discipline. Building on the work of revisionist scholars, the book reconstructs the writings of five benchmark IR thinkers. Villanueva analyzes the cases of John Hobson, Henry Brailsford, Leonard Woolf, Harold Laski and Norman Angell to explore the influence that Marxism played in their thinking, and in the “idealist years” of the discipline more generally. He ultimately demonstrates that, although Marxist thought has been neglected by mainstream IR disciplinary historians, it played a significant role in the discipline’s early development. As such, this book both challenges the exclusion of Marxist thought from the mainstream disciplinary histories of IR and contributes to a deeper understanding of the role it played in early 20th century IR theory.
This book is a comprehensive examination into the shifting international thought of Alfred Zimmern, a Grecophile intellectual, one of the most prominent liberal internationalists and the world’s first professor of IR. Identifying the writings of Burke and cultural Zionism as two important ideological sources that defined his project for empire and global order, this book argues that Zimmern can best be understood as an apostle of Commonwealth. It shows that while his proposals changed from cosmopolitan democracy to Euro-Atlanticism and to world federal government, they were constantly shaped by the organizing principles of a professedly universal British Commonwealth. It was the empire transhistorically chained to classical Athens.
