Notes 187
International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5–53; Dimitri K. Simes,
“America’s Imperial Dilemma,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 6 (November/Decem-
ber 2003), pp. 91–102; Steve Smith, “The End of the Unipolar Moment? September
11 and the Future of World Order,” International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2002),
pp. 171–183; Charles Krauthammer, “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign
Policy for a Unipolar World” (A lecture given by Krauthammer in American Enter-
prise Institute for Public Policy Research, February 2004).
CHAPTER 4
- Michael Nicholson, Formal Theories in International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989). - Charles Taylor, “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man,” in Philosophical
Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), chapter 1, pp. 15–57. - According to Stephen Walt, any theory that is not verified by empiric find-
ings has no scientific value and should therefore be rejected. Stephen M. Walt,
“Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies,” International Secur-
ity, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999), pp. 5–48, at p. 32. - According to Alexander George, one of the main goals of theoretical
research in social science is conversion of historical knowledge into a broad com-
prehensive theory that covers the complexity of phenomena or actions that are
asked for achieving this goal. Alexander L. George, “Case Studies and Theory
Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Paul Gordon
Lauren, ed., Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy (New York:
Free Press, 1979), pp. 43–68, at pp. 44–49. The International Security Journal sum-
mer of 1997 edition is devoted to examining the feasibility of mutual inspiration
between history and political science. Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman, “Dip-
lomatic History and International Relations Theory: Respecting Difference and
Crossing Boundaries,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp.
5–21; John L. Gaddis, “History, Theory, and Common Ground,” International Secur-
ity, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 75–85; Alexander L. George, “Knowledge for
Statecraft: The Challenge for Political Science and History,” International Security,
Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 44–52; Stephen H. Haber, David M. Kennedy,
and Stephen D. Krasner, “Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and Inter-
national Relations,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 34–43;
Edward Ingram, “The Wonderland of the Political Scientist,” International Security,
Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 53–63; Jack S. Levy, “Too Important to Leave to
the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations,”
International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 22–33; Paul W. Schroeder,
“History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit,”
International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 1997), pp. 64–74. - According to Walt, the development of useful knowledge for understand-
ing human social behavior and important social problems is the main goal of social
science. Achieving this goal requires three objectives to be met: (A) Development
of theories with logical consistency and precision. Inconsistent theories are problem-
atic because some of their conclusions or expectations may not stem logically
from their basic assumptions and they may form a distorted picture of the world.
They are also harder to assess because it is difficult to check whether the common