Analytical Framework

  • Christer Jönsson
  • Martin Hall
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)


As the title of the book suggests, we are looking for essence, that is, common denominators characterizing diplomacy across time and space. In postmodern and post-structuralist as well as in positivist literatures, the search for essences is seen as misguided and, for some, politically oppressive. In the various post-positivist approaches difference is celebrated and attempts at categorizing, let alone putting phenomena in the same category, cannot be but an expression of the categorizers’ political views. In the “science” camp, the object of inquiry is to make distinctions, identify and explain variations, and to establish typologies.


International Society International Relation Foreign Ministry Political Space English School 
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.
    Cf. O.R. Young, International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 32;Google Scholar
  2. J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, 52 (1998) 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    R.O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, 32 (1988) 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    A. Stone Sweet, N. Fliegstein and W. Sandholtz, “The Institutionalization of European Space,” in A. Stone Sweet, N. Fliegstein and W. Sandholtz (eds), The Institutionalization of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 6;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    M.S. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450–1919 (London and New York: Longman, 1993), pp. 73–87;Google Scholar
  6. K. Hamilton and R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 71–5.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    B. Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    P. Sharp, “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, 1 (1999) 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Cf. R. Cohen, “The Great Tradition: The Spread of Diplomacy in the Ancient World,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 107.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    N. Onuf, “Institutions, Intentions and International Relations,” Review of International Studies, 28 (2002) 211–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    R. Langhorne, “History and the Evolution of Diplomacy,” in J. Kurbalija (ed.), Modern Diplomacy (Malta: Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, 1998), p. 148.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 24–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London: Jonathan Cape, 1955), p. 196.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    R.O. Keohane, “Reciprocity in International Relations,” International Organization, 40 (1986) 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 18.
    L.C. Becker, Reciprocity (Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 111.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Cf. J. Lepgold and G.E. Shambaugh, “Who Owes Whom, How Much, and When? Understanding Reciprocated Social Exchange in International Politics,” Review of International Studies, 28 (2002) 232–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 24.
    R. Cohen, International Politics: The Rules of the Game (London and New York: Longman, 1981), p. 36.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    L.S. Frey and M.L. Frey, The History of Diplomatic Immunity (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999), p. 4.Google Scholar
  21. A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1983), p. 333.Google Scholar
  22. 28.
    G.V. McClanahan, Diplomatic Immunity: Principles, Practices, Problems (London: Hurst&Co, 1989), p. 32.Google Scholar
  23. 29.
    Y. Ferguson and R. Mansbach, Polities: Authority, Identities, and Change (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), p. 34.Google Scholar
  24. 30.
    J.N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 40.Google Scholar
  25. 32.
    See, for example, M. Mann, The Sources of Social Power I: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. C. Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States, ad 990–1992 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992).Google Scholar
  27. 33.
    C. Reus-Smit, “The Idea of History and History with Ideas,” in J. Hobson and S. Hobden (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 129.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    P. Abrams, Historical Sociology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), p. 2.Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    Y. Lapid, “Introduction: Identities, Borders, Orders: Nudging International Relations Theory in a New Direction,” in M. Albert, D. Jacobson and Y. Lapid (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), p. 19.Google Scholar
  30. 38.
    J. Margolis, What, After All, Is a Work of Art? Lectures in the Philosophy of Art (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), p. 9.Google Scholar
  31. 39.
    A. Abbott, “Things of Boundaries,” in A. Abbott (ed.) Time Matters: On Theory and Method (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2001), p. 255.Google Scholar
  32. 40.
    Cf. J.G. Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 132–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 41.
    H. Bull, The Anarchic Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 43.
    A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Wight, System of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  36. 45.
    B. Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School,” International Organization, 47 (1993) 327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 46.
    P.T. Jackson and D.H. Nexon, “Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 5 (1999) 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 50.
    A. Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Oxford: Polity, 1998), p. 46.Google Scholar
  39. 51.
    O. O’Neill, Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 52.
    K.J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order 1648–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 54.
    D. Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 225.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Jönsson
    • 1
  • Martin Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations