Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Nationalism and International Relations Theory *

Nationalism and International Relations Theory * NOTES 1 James B. Rule, “Tribalism and the State”, Dissent (Fall 1992): 519. 2 For the sake of simplicity, in this article we follow the convention proposed by Hollis and Smith of capitalising International Relations when referring to the academic discipline, and using the lower case — international relations — when referring to its field of inquiry. See Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 10. 3 Differences between nation and state, and other units of analysis, are well known in International Relations. Much of the literature devoted to the differences describes a “level of analysis problem”. See, for example, ibid ., pp. 7–9. 4 Students of international relations will be familiar with standard textbook descriptions of competing models, world views or traditions of thinking in the discipline. Terms such as realism and liberalism are understood in particular ways, and may be used interchangeably with such terms as power politics and pluralism. For the uninitiated, see for fairly typical representations of realism and liberalism in International Relations, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism (New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 1–19. 5 A good summary of these http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian Journal of Politics and History Wiley

Nationalism and International Relations Theory *

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/nationalism-and-international-relations-theory-sgfUuZyx7T

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0004-9522
eISSN
1467-8497
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8497.1997.tb01378.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

NOTES 1 James B. Rule, “Tribalism and the State”, Dissent (Fall 1992): 519. 2 For the sake of simplicity, in this article we follow the convention proposed by Hollis and Smith of capitalising International Relations when referring to the academic discipline, and using the lower case — international relations — when referring to its field of inquiry. See Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 10. 3 Differences between nation and state, and other units of analysis, are well known in International Relations. Much of the literature devoted to the differences describes a “level of analysis problem”. See, for example, ibid ., pp. 7–9. 4 Students of international relations will be familiar with standard textbook descriptions of competing models, world views or traditions of thinking in the discipline. Terms such as realism and liberalism are understood in particular ways, and may be used interchangeably with such terms as power politics and pluralism. For the uninitiated, see for fairly typical representations of realism and liberalism in International Relations, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism (New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 1–19. 5 A good summary of these

Journal

Australian Journal of Politics and History – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.