Lebow’s Theory of International Relations

Part of the Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice book series (PAHSEP, volume 2)


How do psychological micro-foundations—the basis of Lebow’s work from the beginning—lead to a comprehensive international relations theory at the macro-level, organize a majestic journey through human history, and permit a new reading and arguing about the causes of war, the three major achievements of his work in the last decade? In order to understand the micro-macro connection, we have to pay attention to the shift in the psychological basis of Lebow’s work that occurred between the publication of ‘Between Peace and War’ (Lebow 1981) and the appearance of the “Tragic Vision of Politics” (Lebow 2003). This shift could be called “The Greek turn”.


International Relation Cultural Theory Political Entity Human Psyche Motivational Bias 
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.


  1. Betts, Richard K., 2012: “Strong Arguments, Weak Evidence”, in: Security Studies, 21,2: 345–51.Google Scholar
  2. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, 1983: The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Clark, Christopher, 2012: The Sleepwalkers. How Europe went to War in 1914 (London et al.: Allen Lane).Google Scholar
  4. Coker, Christopher, 2009: “A Matter of Honour: Ned Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations”, in: International Relations, 23,1: 161–65.Google Scholar
  5. Crawford, Neta, 2000: “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships”, in: International Security, 24,4: 116–56.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, Neta, 2013: “Emotions and International Security: Cave! Hic Libido”, in: Critical Studies on Security, 1,1: 121–23.Google Scholar
  7. Deudney, Daniel, 2007: Bounding Power. Republican Security Theory from The Polis To The Global Village (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Fearon, James, 1995: “Rationalist explanations for war”, in: International Organization, 49,3: 379–414.Google Scholar
  9. Jervis, Robert, 1976: Perception and Misperception in World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Jervis, Robert, 2012: “Fighting for Standing or Standing to Fight?”, in: Security Studies, 21,2: 336–44.Google Scholar
  11. Lebow, Richard Ned, 1981: Between Peace and War. The Nature of International Crisis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Lebow, Richard Ned, 1996: “Play it Again Pericles: Agents, Structures and the Peloponnesian War”, in: European Journal of International Relations, 2,2: 231–58.Google Scholar
  13. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2003: The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  14. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2008: A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  15. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2010a: Why Nations Fight (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  16. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2010b: “Motives, evidence, identity: engaging my critics”, in: International Theory, 2,3: 486–94.Google Scholar
  17. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2012: The Politics and Ethics of Identity: In Search of Ourselves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2014a: Constructing Cause in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Lebow, Richard Ned, 2014b: Franz Ferdinand Lives! A World without World War I (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan).Google Scholar
  20. Lebow, Richard Ned and Simon Reich, 2014: Goodbye Hegemony! Power and Influence in the Global System (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Little, Richard; Kaufmann, Stuart; Wohlforth, William C., (Eds.), 2007: The Balance of Power in World History (Basingstoke, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  22. Mercer, Jonathan, 2010: “Emotional Beliefs”, in: International Security, 64,3: 1–31.Google Scholar
  23. Mercer, Jonathan, 2014: “Feeling like a state: social emotion and identity”, in: International Theory, 6,3: 515–35.Google Scholar
  24. Morgenthau, Hans J., 1949: Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace (New York: Knopf).Google Scholar
  25. Morrow, James, 2010: “Eight Questions for A Cultural Theory of International Relations”, in: International Theory, 2,3: 475–80.Google Scholar
  26. Müller Harald; Druckman, Daniel, 2014: “Introduction: Justice in Security Negotiations”, in: International Negotiations, 19,3: 399–409.Google Scholar
  27. Organski, A.F.K.; Kugler, Jacek, 1981: The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  28. Singer, Tania, 2007: The Neuronal Basis of Fairness, Novartis Symposium 278:20–30.Google Scholar
  29. Tammen, Ronald, 2000: Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century (New York: Chatham House).Google Scholar
  30. Waltz, Kenneth N., 1979: Theory of international politics (New York: Random House).Google Scholar
  31. Welch, David A., 1993: Justice and the Genesis of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  32. Welch, David A., 2010: “A cultural theory meets cultures of theory”, in: International Theory, 2,3: 446–53.Google Scholar
  33. Wiener, Antje, 2008: The invisible constitution of politics: contested norms and international encounters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  34. Williamson, Samuel R. Jr., 2013: “July 1914 revisited and revised: The erosion of the German paradigm”, in: Levy, Jack S. and Vasquez, John A. (Eds.): The outbreak of the First World War, structure, politics, and decision-making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 30–62.Google Scholar
  35. Wohlforth, William C., 2010: “A matter of honor”, in: International Theory, 2,3: 468–74.Google Scholar
  36. Wolf, Reinhard, 2011: “Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition”, in: International Theory, 3:105–42.Google Scholar
  37. Wolf, Reinhard, 2014: “Status fixations, the need for ‘firmness’, and decisions for war”, in: International Relations, 28,2: 256–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations