Int Rel Theo War

(ff) #1

Notes 191


eds., Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations: Methodology in the Study
of Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution (New York: Lexington Books, 2004),
pp. 309–342, at p. 310.



  1. On the security dilemma, see John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and
    the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 1950), pp. 157–180;
    Glaser L. Charles “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1
    (October 1997), pp. 171–201.

  2. Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton,
    NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), chapter 3.

  3. Bruce M. Russett, The Prisoners of Insecurity: Nuclear Deterrence, the Arms
    Race, and Arms Control (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1983).

  4. Jack S. Levy, “The Role of Crisis Mismanagement in the Outbreak of World
    War I,” in Alexander L. George, ed., Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management
    (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 62–117.

  5. Zeev Maoz, Paradoxes of War: On the Art of National Self-Entrapment (Boston:
    Unwin Hyman, 1990), chapter 4; George, Avoiding War.

  6. Barbara W. Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: Ballantine Books,
    1962); Miles Kahler, “Rumors of War: The 1914 Analogy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 58,
    No. 2 (Winter 1979/1980), pp. 374–396.

  7. During the multipolar system of 1849–1870, a limited number of wars were
    fought in Europe involving the five great powers that constituted the system. An
    explanation for this phenomenon at the individual level has been offered by a
    number of historians. They argue that the major limitation, short duration, and
    low violence of the wars fought in those years stemmed from the skill and modera-
    tion demonstrated by Bismarck and Cavour. The current study denies this argu-
    ment because like the Prussian leader Bismarck, the Italian leader Cavour acted
    within a framework of limitations and possibilities within the European system.
    Paul W. Schroeder, “The 19th-Century International System: Changes in the Struc-
    ture,” World Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (October 1986), pp. 1–26, at pp. 7–8.

  8. Levy, “Theories of General War,” p. 346.

  9. Ludwig Dehio, The Precarious Balance: Four Centuries of the European Power
    Struggle (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter 4; David M. Goldfrank, The Origins of
    the Crimean War (London: Longman, 1994); Norman Rich, Why the Crimean War?
    A Cautionary Tale (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1985); David
    Wetzel, The Crimean War: A Diplomatic History (New York: Columbia University
    Press, 1985).

  10. Clive Ponting, The Crimean War (London: Chatto & Windus, 2004), p. vii.

  11. Ponting, The Crimean War, p. 1.

  12. Ponting, The Crimean War, p. 2 fn. 1.

  13. Ponting, The Crimean War, p. 3.

  14. Smith M. Anderson, The Eastern Question, 1774–1923: A Study in Inter-
    national Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Publication, 1966), p. 132.

  15. Gavin B. Henderson, “The Two Interpretations of the Four Points,” The
    English Historical Review, Vol. 52, No. 205 (January 1937), pp. 48–66.

  16. Richard Smoke, War: Controlling Escalation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
    versity Press, 1977), p. 193.

  17. Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, chapter 1; Jack, S.
    Levy, “Misperception and the Causes of War: Theoretical Linkages and Analytical
    Problems,” World Politics, Vol. 36, No. 1 (October 1983), pp. 76–99.

Free download pdf