The Study of International Relations in Italy

  • Fulvio Attina


The world community of students of international politics is divided along different lines, the most important of which concern paradigms or general views of the world: the Hobbesian or anarchy paradigm, the Grotian or community paradigm, the Marxian or market paradigm, and the Pluralist or Transnationalism paradigm which — in opposition to the first three — takes into account a world populated not only by states but also by individuals, social groups and various collective actors. Another important divide among the students of International Relations is the methodological approach they adopt: users of the state-centric approach (according to whom international politics can be interpreted on the basis of some attributes of states and of their foreign policies) differ from followers of the systemic approach (who maintain that international politics cannot be interpreted without reference to a structure that binds the behaviour of states as actors of a social interactions system). Today the controversy between the ‘Classical’ and ‘Scientific’ approaches has lost its importance (fortunately!): support of quantitative data and parsimonious use of game theory and related methods are welcomed, while tolerance is shown towards researchers devoted to testing hypotheses with an intensive manipulation of quantitative data.


Foreign Policy International Relation Political Behaviour Security Rule Cultural Diplomacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Bonanate, ‘Sistema internazionale’, in L. Bonanate (a cura), Politica internazionale ( Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1979 ), pp. 352–397.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Bonanate, ‘Politics internazionale e politica interna’, in L. Bonanate and C.M. Santoro (a cura di), Teoria e analisi nelle relazioni internazionali ( Bologna: Il Mulino, 1986 ), pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.M. Santoro, ‘Il sistema di guerra. Teoria e strategia del bipolarismo’, Il Mulino (294/5, 1984 ), pp. 220–260.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Attina, La politica internazionale contemporanea (Milano: Angeli, 1983), and ‘Elementi constitivi ed evolutivi dell’organizzazione del sistema globale, Teoria politica (No. 2, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Papisca, Democrazia internazionale, via di pace. Per an nuovo ordine internazionale democratico ( Milano: Angeli, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U. Gori, ‘Processi decisionali e scienze sociali: per una cultura della previsione’, in U. Gori and O. Onori (eds), Tecniche di analisi per le decisionali politiche ed economiche ( Milano: Angeli, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Bonanate, ‘L’Italia nel nuovo sistema internazionale’, Comunita (No. 170, 1973 ), pp. 13–75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Gori, La diplomazia culturale multilaterale dell’Italia ( Roma: Bizzarri, 1970 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Mongardini et al., Realtà e immagini della politica estera italiana ( Milano: Giuffré, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Attina et al., Governi e parlamenti nella formazione della politica estera italiana ( Catania: Culc, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Papisca, Verso il nuovo Parlamento Europeo ( Milano: Giuffré, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Attina, Parlamento Europeo e interessi comunitari ( Milano: Angeli, 1986 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Millennium: Journal of International Studies 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fulvio Attina

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations