Abstract
One of the gravest obstacles to a commonly acceptable definition of national interest is the fundamental disagreement between those who conceive it broadly and hence rather vaguely and those who try to pin it down to a number of concrete single interests, elements, factors, functions or dimensions; all these terms are used without clear distinction in a partly differentiated but mainly overlapping manner.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
3/Theories of National Interest
Q. by W. J. Mackenzie, Politics and Social Sciences, 1967, p. 359, n. 2.
R. J. Rummel, “The Relations Between National Attributes and Foreign Conflict Behaviour”, in J. D. Singer (ed.), Quantitative International Relations, 1968.
They began with Charles A. Beard, The Idea of National Interest: An Analytic & Study of American Foreign Policy 1934. See literature in Rosenau, op. cit.
Cf. J. S. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 1966
J. Herz, International Politics in the Nuclear. Age, 1959 and 1963
E. Cassirer, The Myth of the State, 1946.
Cf. A. Wolfers, “The Pole of Power and the Pole of Indifference”, Discord and Collaboration, 1967
J. W. Burton, International Relations: A General Theory, 1965;
J. Frankel, “Power Politics and Beyond”, Political Studies, June 1966.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1970 Pall Mall Press Ltd. London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frankel, J. (1970). Theories of National Interest. In: National Interest. Key Concepts in Political Science. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00942-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00942-8_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-11354-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-00942-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)