Int Rel Theo War

(ff) #1

Notes 189



  1. George, “Case Studies and Theory Development,” pp. 44–49; Alexander L.
    George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sci-
    ences (Cambridge, MA: BCSIA Studies in International Security, 2004).

  2. According to the similarity method, test cases that are different in all variables
    except for the explanatory variable, which is identical, are chosen. The researcher is
    left to prove that the explained variable remains identical and unchanged between
    the test cases. This increases the likelihood that the explanation proposed by him
    is a good one. According to the difference method, most variables become constant,
    except for the explanatory variable that varies between the test cases assessed
    by the study. In this case, the difference in the results of the explained variable
    increases the explanatory power of the study. King, Keohane, and Verba, Designing
    Social Inquiry, chapter 6.

  3. Levy, War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495–1975.

  4. Waltz, Theory of International Politics.

  5. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

  6. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” p. 620.

  7. Bueno De Mesquita, The War Trap; Levy, War in the Modern Great Power Sys-
    tem, 1495–1975; David J. Singer and Melvin Small, The Wages of War, 1816–1965:
    A Statistical Handbook (New York: John Wiley, 1972); Melvin Small and David J.
    Singer, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, CA:
    Sage Publications, 1982); Wright, A Study of War; Edward D. Mansfield, “The
    Distribution of Wars over Time,” World Politics, Vol. 41, No. 1 (October 1988),
    pp. 21–51.

  8. Two wars were fought in the Middle East and were therefore not included
    in the study: War (#25); War (#31). Four wars were fought in the Western Hemi-
    sphere and were therefore not included in the study: War (#40); War (#43); War
    (#49); War (#52). Two wars that were fought in Eurasia were not included in the
    assessment because they did not involve any of the five great powers constituting
    the system: War (#34); War (#37). See Appendix B.

  9. War (#100); War (#103); War (#112); War (#115); War (#117); War (#124); War
    (#125). See Appendix B.

  10. A number of historians have argued that the global hostility between Brit-
    ain and Russia originates from 1815 and even earlier. Edward Ingram, Commitment
    to Empire: Prophecies of the Great Game in Asia, 1797–1800 (New York: Oxford Uni-
    versity Press, 1981). On Russia as a European hegemon, see Smith M. Anderson,
    The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450–1919 (New York: Longman, 1993); Adam Wat-
    son, “Russia and the European State System,” in Hedley Bull and Watson Adam,
    eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984),
    chapter 4, pp. 61–74. Also see William R. Seton-Watson, Britain in Europe, 1789–
    1914: A Survey of Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937).

  11. Two wars were fought in the Western Hemisphere and were therefore not
    included in the study: War (#7); War (#19). Four wars that were fought in Eurasia
    were not included in the assessment because they did not involve either of the two
    superpowers constituting the system: War (#1); War (#10); War (#31); War (#16). See
    Appendix B.

  12. Stanley Hoffmann, Gulliver’s Troubles: or, The Setting of American Foreign Pol-
    icy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), chapters 2, 3.

Free download pdf