Advertisement

Theoretical Framework: Realism as a Lens for Analysis

  • Enrico Fels
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

Current IR is a discipline of different schools of thought, which are entangled in “a protracted competition between the realist, liberal and radical traditions.” The proponents of these conflicting schools try to make sense of developments within the international realm or—in the case of die-hard constructivists and post-positivists—even claim that making sense of international processes and actions is a pointless endeavour. Manuela Spindler and Siegfried Schieder provide a very useful definition of this international realm, which also nicely connects to the previous chapter’s discussion on ontology. According to them, international relations are

Keywords

Foreign Policy International Relation International Cooperation Great Power International Affair 
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.

References

  1. Angell, N. (1913). The great illusion. A study of the relation of military power to national advantage. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Art, R. J. (2003). A grand strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Avey, P. C., Desch, M. C., Long, J. D., Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2012). The FP survey: The ivory tower. Foreign Policy, 90–93.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, D. A. (1994). Neoliberalism, neorealism, and world politics. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 3–25). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry, N. (1982). The tradition of spontaneous order. Literature of Liberty, 5(2), 7–58.Google Scholar
  7. Benson, O., & Stangroom, J. (2006a). Why truth matters. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Benson, O., & Stangroom, J. (2006b). The dictionary of fashionable nonsense: A guide for edgy people. London: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar
  9. Betts, R. K. (1993). Wealth, power, and instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War. International Security, 18(3), 34–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilfinger, C. (1951). Friede durch Gleichgewicht der Macht? Zeitschrift für ausländisches und öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (Heidelberg Journal of International Law), 13, 27–56.Google Scholar
  11. Booth, K. (2008). 75 years on: Rewriting the subject’s past – reinventing its future. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Booth, K. (Ed.). (2011). Realism and world politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, S. G. (1997). Dueling realisms. International Organization, 51(3), 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, N. J. L., Sokal, A. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2013, July 15). The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist. Advance online publication, doi: 10.1037/a0032850
  15. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Buzan, B. (2008). The timeless wisdom of realism? In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 47–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Buzan, B. (2010). China in international society: Is ‘peaceful rise’ possible? The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(1), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carr, E. H. (2001 [1939]). The twenty year’s crisis. 1919–1939. (With a new introduction by Michael Cox). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  19. Chalmers, D. (2007). Wege der Wissenschaft. Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Cheng-Chwee, K. (2008). Rising dragon, crouching tigers? Comparing the foreign policy responses of Malaysia and Singapore towards a re-emerging China, 1990–2005. BiblioAsia, 3(4), 4–13.Google Scholar
  21. Chiaruzzi, M. (2012). Realism. In R. Devetak, A. Burke, & J. George (Eds.), An introduction to international relations (pp. 35–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Copeland, D. C. (2012). Realism and neorealism in the study of regional conflict. In T. V. Paul (Ed.), International relations theory and regional transformation (pp. 49–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corry, O. (2013). Constructing a global polity. Theory, discourse and governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cox, R. (1996). Approaches to world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cox, D. G. (2013). The age of liberal imperialism: Twenty-five years of a flawed U.S. foreign policy. Orbis, 57(4), 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Bièvre, D. (2011). Falsification in theory-guided empirical social research: How to change a tire while riding your bicycle. In T. Gschwend & F. Schimmelfennig (Eds.), Research design in political science. How to practice what they preach (pp. 203–215). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Engels, F. (1976 [1890]). Die auswärtige Politik des russischen Zarismus. Berlin: Verlag Neue Einheit.Google Scholar
  28. Evans, T., & Wilson, P. (1992). Regime theory and the English school of international relations: A comparison. Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 21(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fels, E. (2009). Assessing Eurasia’s powerhouse. An inquiry into the nature of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Bochum: Winkler Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Ferris, W. H. (1973). The power capabilities of nation-states. International conflict and war. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (2006). Sicherheit, Territorium, Bevölkerung. Geschichte der Gouvernementalität I. Frankfurt (Main): Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  32. Friedberg, A. (2012). Bucking Beijing. An alternative US China policy. Foreign Affairs, 91(5), 48–58.Google Scholar
  33. Friedrich der Große. (2011). Ausgewählte Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Furlong, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). A skin not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (pp. 184–211). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Gallarotti, G. M. (2010a). The power curse. Influence and illusion in world politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  36. Gallarotti, G. M. (2010b). Cosmopolitan power in international relations. A synthesis of realism, neoliberalism, and constructivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilpin, R. G. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilpin, R. G. (1996). No one loves a political realist. Security Studies, 5(3), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goh, E. (2005). Meeting the China challenge: The US in Southeast Asian regional strategies. Policy Studies, No. 16. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS016.pdf
  41. Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grieco, J. M. (1993). Understanding the problem of international cooperation: The limits of neoliberal institutionalism and the future of realist theory. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 301–338). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Grieco, J. M. (1995). The Maastricht Treaty, economic and monetary union and the neo-realist research programme. Review of International Studies, 21(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gu, X. (2009). Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen. Munich: Oldenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Haas, E. B. (1953). The balance of power: Prescription, concept, or propaganda? World Politics, 5(4), 442–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Halle, L. J. (1955). Civilization and foreign policy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  47. Haslam, J. (2002). No virtue like necessity: Realist thought in international relations since Machiavelli. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hobbes, T. (1929 [1651]). Leviathan or the matter, forme [sic] and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civil. Reprint from the edition of 1651. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hostadter, D. R. (1985). Metamagical themas: Questing for the essence of mind and pattern. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. Ikenberry, G. J. (2004). American hegemony and East Asian order. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 58(3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ikenberry, G. J. (2008). The rise of China and the future of the West: Can the liberal system survive? Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  53. Jacobs, A. (2003). Realismus. In S. Schieder & M. Spindler (Eds.), Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen (pp. 35–59). Opladen: Leseke & Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jervis, R. (1982). Security regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jung, K. (2012). Willing to waning? NATO’s role in an age of coalitions. World Affairs Journal, March/April. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/willing-or-waning-nato’s-role-age-coalitions
  58. Kahn, H. (1961). On thermonuclear war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kant, I. (1795). Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Königsberg: Friedrich Nocolovius.Google Scholar
  60. Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of the great powers. Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  61. Keohane, R. O. (1982). The demand for international regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 325–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  64. Khoo, N. (2014). Is realism dead? Academic myths and Asia’s international politics. Orbis, 58(2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Knorr, K. (1975). The power of nations. The political economy of international relations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Knutsen, T. L. (2012). Realism – A European tradition. In A. Toje & B. Kunz (Eds.), Neoclassical realism in European politics. Bringing power back in (pp. 17–29). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Krasner, S. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Krasner, S. (1993). Global communications and national power: Life on the pareto frontier. In D. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 234–248). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Layne, C. (1994). Kant or Cant. The myth of the democratic peace theory. International Security, 19(2), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lebow, R. N. (2003). The tragic vision of politics. Ethics, interests and orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Levi, M. (2013). The power surge. Energy, opportunity, and the battle for America’s future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Lewis, D. K. (2002 [1969]). Convention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  74. Link, W. (1998). Die Neuordnung der Weltpolitik. Grundprobleme globaler Politik an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  75. Lipson, C. (1984). International cooperation in economic and security affairs. World Politics, 37(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. List, F. (1909 [1841]). The national system of political economy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  77. Little, R. (2009). The balance of power in international relations. Metaphors, myths and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Macdonald, J. (2015). When globalization fails. The rise and fall of Pax Americana. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  80. Machiavelli, N. (1998 [1513]). The prince (H. Mansfield, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  81. Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis. Achievements and agendas. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 3–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mann, M. (2011). Power in the 21st century. Conversations with John A. Hall. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  83. Marx, K. (1853). Die künftigen Ergebnisse der britischen Herrschaft in Indien. In K. Marx & F. Engels (Eds.) (1966). Ausgewählte Schriften in zwei Bänden (pp. 324–330). Berlin: Dietz Verlag.Google Scholar
  84. Masala, C. (2010). Neorealism. In C. Masala, F. Sauer, & A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Handbuch der Internationalen Politik (pp. 53–65). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mearsheimer, J. (1995a). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995b). A realist reply. International Security, 20(1), 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  88. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006). China’s unpeaceful rise. Current History, 105(690), 160–162.Google Scholar
  89. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010). Why is Europe peaceful today? European Political Science, 9(3), 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Meinecke, F. (1957 [1924]). Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte. München: Oldenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  91. Milner, H. (1994). Anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 143–169). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe. Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Moravcsik, A., & Schimmelpfennig, F. (2009). Liberal intergovernmentalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (pp. 67–87). New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  95. Morgenthau, H. J. (1946). Scientific man vs. power politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  96. Morgenthau, H. (2005 [1948]). Politics among nations. The struggle for power and peace. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  97. Morris, I. (2010). Why the West rules – for now. The patterns of history, and what they reveal about the future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  98. Mosher, J. (2003). Relative gains concern when the number of states in the international system increases. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(5), 642–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Nadkarni, V. (2010). Strategic partnerships in Asia. Balancing without alliances. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  100. Niebuhr, R. (1960). Staaten und Großmächte. Probleme staatlicher Ordnung in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Leck: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.Google Scholar
  101. Organski, A. F. K. (1968). World politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  102. Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  103. Owen, J. M., IV. (2012). Economic interdependence and regional peace. In T. V. Paul (Ed.), International relations theory and regional transformation (pp. 107–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pape, R. A. (2009). Empire falls. The National Interest, January/February, 21–34.Google Scholar
  106. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate. The modern denial of human nature. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  107. Popper, K. R. (1972). Wissenschaftslehre in entwicklungstheoretischer und in logischer Sicht. In: K. R. Popper (Ed.) (2012) Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik (pp. 15–44). Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
  108. Powell, R. (1993). Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 209–233). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Puchala, D., & Hopkins, R. F. (1982). International regimes: Lessons from inductive analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Reichwein, A. (2012). The tradition of neoclassical realism. In A. Toje & B. Kunz (Eds.), Neoclassical realism in European politics. Bringing power back in (pp. 30–60). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Renard, T. (2010). Strategy wanted: The European Union and strategic partnership. Security Policy Brief, No. 13. Egmont – Royal Institute for International Relations. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/10/sec-gov/SPB13-EU-Strategic-Partnerships.pdf
  112. Rosato, S. (2003). The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rostow, E. V. (1968). Law, power and the pursuit of peace. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  115. Rousseau, J. J. (1917 [1750]). A lasting peace through the Federation of Europe and the state of war (C. E. Vaughan, Trans.). London: Constable and Company.Google Scholar
  116. Ruggie, J. G. (1972). Collective goods and future international collaboration. American Political Science Review, 66(3), 873–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Schuett, R. (2010). Political realism, freud and human nature in international relations. The resurrection of realist man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  118. Schweller, R. L. (1998). Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Sheehan, M. (1996). Balance of power: History and theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Smith, J. A. (1930). The growth and decadence of constitutional government (p. 242). New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  121. Smith, A. (1974 [1789]). Der Wohlstand der Nationen. Eine Untersuchung seiner Natur und seiner Ursachen. Munich: dtv.Google Scholar
  122. Snidal, D. (1993). Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation. In D. A. Baldwin (Ed.), Neorealism and neoliberalism. The contemporary debate (pp. 170–208). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Eleganter Unsinn. Wie die Denker der Postmoderne die Wissenschaft missbrauchen. Munich: Beck Verlag.Google Scholar
  125. Sokolovsky, V. D. (Ed.). (1965). Militär-Strategie (p. 249ff). Köln: Markus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  126. Spindler, M., & Schieder, S. (2014). Theory in international relations. In S. Schieder & M. Spindler (Eds.), Theories in international relations (pp. 1–21). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  127. Spykman, N. J. (1944). The geography of the peace. Yale: Archon Books.Google Scholar
  128. Stein, A. A. (1982). Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. International Organization, 36(2), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stein, A. (1990). Why nations cooperate. Circumstance and choice in international relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Strange, S. (1982). Cave! Hic Dragones: A critique of regime analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Taylor, A. J. P. (1954). The struggle for mastery in Europe: 1848–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Tessman, B. F. (2012). System structure and state strategy: Adding hedging to the menu. Security Studies, 21(2), 192–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Thompson, K. W., & Clinton, W. D. (2005). Forword. In H. Morgenthau (Ed.) (2005 [1948]) Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. xvii–xxxix). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  134. Thucydides. (2009). The Peloponnesian war (M. Hammond, Transl). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Van Evera, S. (1999). Causes of war. Power and the roots of conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. von Bismarck, O. (1919). Gedanken und Erinnerungen (Vol. 3 Vols.). Stuttgart and Berlin: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  138. von Clausewitz, C. (2003 [1832]). Vom kriege. Munich: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  139. Waldron, A. (2005). The rise of China: Military and political implications. Review of International Studies, 31(4), 715–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Walt, S. M. (1998). International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the state, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  145. Waltz, K. (1986). Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A response to my critics. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 322–344). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Waltz, K. (1988). The origins of war in neorealist theory. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Waltz, K. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold war. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Wang, Y.-W. (2004). Offensive realism and the rise of China. Issues & Studies, 40(1), 173–201.Google Scholar
  149. Weber, M. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  150. Weber, M. (1988a). Bismarcks Außenpolitik und die Gegenwart. In Gesammelte Politische Schriften (pp. 112–119). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  151. Weber, M. (1988b). Deutschland unter den europäischen Weltmächten. In Gesammelte Politische Schriften (pp. 157–177). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  152. Weber, M. (1988c). Zur Frage des Friedensschliessens. In Gesammelte Politische Schriften (pp. 130–141). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
  153. Wight, M. (1973). The balance of power and international order. In A. James (Ed.), The bases of international order (pp. 85–115). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  154. Wilkins, T. S. (2012). ‘Alignment’, not ‘alliance’ – the shifting paradigm of international security cooperation: Toward a conceptual taxonomy of alignment. Review of International Studies, 38(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Wright, Q. (1964). A study of war. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  156. Young, O. R. (1982). Regime dynamics: The rise and fall of international regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Zakaria, F. (1999). From wealth to power. The unusual origins of America’s world role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  158. Zartman, I. W. (2009). The quest for order in world politics. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Imbalance of power. US hegemony and international order (pp. 1–23). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Fels
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Global StudiesUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations