Int Rel Theo War

(ff) #1

Notes 179



  1. For the constructivism theory of international relations, see Nicholas G.
    Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Rela-
    tions (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Emanuel Adler, “Seiz-
    ing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of
    International Relations, Vol. 3, No. 3 (September 1997), pp. 319–363; Richard K.
    Ashley, “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory
    of International Politics,” Alternatives, Vol. 12, No. 4 (October 1987), pp. 403–434;
    Richard K. Ashley, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization, Vol.
    38, No. 2 (Spring 1984), pp. 225–286; Jeffrey T. Checkel, “The Constructivist Turn
    in International Relations Theory: A Review Essay,” World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 2
    (February 1998), pp. 324–348; Robert W. Cox, “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Con-
    ceptualization of World Orders: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun,” in
    James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds., Governance Without Government:
    Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
    chapter 5, pp. 132–159; Martha Finnemore and Kathryin Sikkink, “International
    Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4
    (Autumn 1998), pp. 887–917; Stefano Guzzini, “A Reconstruction of Constructiv-
    ism in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6,
    No. 2 (June 2000), pp. 147–182; Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in Inter-
    national Relations Theory,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer 1998), pp.
    171–200; Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Iden-
    tity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Rey Koslowski
    and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, “Understanding Change in International Politics: The
    Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System,” International Organization,
    Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 215–247; Ruggie, “Continuity and Transformation
    in the World Polity”; John G. Ruggie, “What Makes the World Hang Together?
    Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organ-
    ization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn 1998), pp. 855–885; John G. Ruggie, Constructing
    the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization (New York: Routledge,
    1998); Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Secur-
    ity, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 71–81; Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make
    of It”; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cam-
    bridge University Press, 1999).

  2. Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It.”

  3. Robert Axelrod and Robert O. Keohane, “Achieving Cooperation under
    Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1 (October 1985),
    pp. 226–254; Oye, “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy.”

  4. Keohane, After Hegemony, chapters 5, 6.

  5. Martin Wight, “Why Is There No International Theory?” in James Der
    Derian, ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations (New York: New York Uni-
    versity Press, 1995), pp. 15–35. The first edition was published in Herbert But-
    terfield and Wight Martin, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of
    International Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 17–34.

  6. It is very important to make a clear distinction between preferences of
    countries and their action strategies. Preferences of countries are not affected by
    changes in their strategic environment, such as change in the distribution of capa-
    bilities in the system. Jeffrey W. Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still
    a Realist?” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999), pp. 5–55. Strategies of

Free download pdf