Dimensions of National Interest: II
The preceding chapter dealt with the various schemes for classifying the dimensions of national interest and with the broad concepts of ‘salience’ and ‘scope’. It would be convenient if now one scheme, whether out of those already advanced or a new one, could be applied in the analysis of the actual dimensions distinguished here. Unfortunately the field of inquiry is too broad and the state of the art too poor to allow for this. Any scheme, however comprehensive for some purposes and in relation to some states, must be found wanting in other contexts. Advance in this direction must be slow and arduous and the best prospects for its progress lie in attempting comparisons of pairs or of small groups of fairly similar or closely interacting states.
KeywordsForeign Policy Physical Distance National Interest Political Argument Territorial State
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
5/Dimensions of National Interest: ll
- 1.Cf. C. H.Commager, “A Limit to Presidential Power?”, The New Republic q. in Survival July 1968, p. 128.Google Scholar
- 2.J. W. Burton, Systems, States Diplomacy and Rules, 1968, pp. 128–9.Google Scholar
- 3.Quoted in A. Wohlstetter, “Strength, Interest, and New Technologies”, Adelphi Paper, No. 46, 1967, p. 8.Google Scholar
- 4.Cf. H. and M. Sprout, The Foundations of National Power, 1945.Google Scholar
- 5.Cf. P. M. Burgess, Elite Images and Foreign Policy Outcomes: a Study of Norway, 1968, pp. 77, I43–4.Google Scholar
- 7.E. Hambro, “Small States and a New League: from the Point of View of Norway”, American Political Science Review, XXXVII, October 1943, p. 908, q. by P. M. Burgess, op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar
- 8.A. G. Nasser, Egypt’s Liberation: the Philosophy of the Revolution, 1956.Google Scholar
- 9.H. J. Morgenthau, Dilemmas of Politics, Chicago 1958, p. 48.Google Scholar