DOCSLIB.ORG

Meta-Theoretical Eclecticism in International Relations: the Limits of the “Neo-Neo Synthesis”1 Paulo Victor Zaneratto Bittencourt (DCP-USP)2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Meta-Theoretical Eclecticism in International Relations: the Limits of the “Neo-Neo Synthesis”1 Paulo Victor Zaneratto Bittencourt (DCP-USP)2 Meta-theoretical eclecticism in International Relations: the limits of the “Neo-Neo Synthesis”1 Paulo Victor Zaneratto Bittencourt (DCP-USP)2 Abstract: Throughout the 1980s, two theoretical bodies in mainstream International Relations theory moved from a state of rivalry to an attempt of complementarity. These bodies are Kenneth Waltz’s theory of international politics (or “neo-realism”), and Keohane and Nye’s “liberal-institutionalism” (or “neo-liberalism”) (2012). At the end of the decade, Keohane (1988) proposed unifying Waltz’s theory and his own into a same “rationalist research program”, which would unite the structural aspect from the former to process aspects of the latter. Nevertheless, having noticed conceptual inconsistencies between Waltz’s and Kehane and Nye’s works, as well as different references on theory-building, it is worth asking: how is it possible to synthesize these two bodies? And what are the limits of the resulting synthesis? 1 Introduction Ever since the first attempts to grasp International Relations as an academic discipline, the point of how to best study the phenomena of such realm has been a case for discussion. Allocating it epistemologically under the study of politics (CARR, 2001) may have helped to cast light upon some of the phenomena studied, but it has also brought many different perspectives as well. After a dispute between “traditionalism” (BULL, 1966) and “scientific” approaches (KAPLAN, 1966), the methods for theory-building in International Relations experienced a more fruitful discussion during the 1970s and the 1980s, when three “paradigms” vied for primacy in the field, namely, Marxism, (neo-)Realism, and (neo-)Liberalism (especially under its institutionalist variant) (WAEVER, 2008). This moment is known in the literature as “the third debate” of the development of International Relations as an academic enterprise. It also coincides with the publication of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s Power and interdependence (1977), and Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of international politics (1979). The latter interests us more directly in this paper, since it offers a discussion on the scientific-ness of theories, and puts forward an effort to develop such a scientific theory. As a consequence, it 1 Trabalho apresentado no 44º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS, no Simpósio de Pesquisa Pós-Graduada (SPG) 27 – Metodologia da Ciência Política: Novos métodos para superar velhos dilemas. Este texto foi produzido a partir do projeto fomentado pelo processo nº 2016/05352-0, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). 2 Bacharel em Relações Internacionais e mestre em Ciências Sociais pela Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências da Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” (UNESP/Marília). Doutorando em Ciência Política pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política da Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo (FFLCH/USP). A apresentação deste trabalho contou com o apoio da CAPES/PROEX. Contato: [email protected] 1 pushes the concern of how to develop scientific theories for international relations to the debate in the 1980s. Both works interest us because they represent different positions on the debate proposed by Waever (2008): namely, Waltz supposedly belongs to a neo-Realist position, emphasizing the role of material capacities and the persistent possibility of the use of force internationally; while, Keohane and Nye stressed the role of norms and institutions on states’ dealing with common interdependences. It seems, however, that the main point of this discussion should not be posed upon the role of institutions or material capacities, but on the way both Waltz and Keohane (especially, but also with his seminal works with Joseph Nye) intend to develop their ideas in a scientific fashion. These authors and their works turn out to be of utter importance to our research due to a theoretical and argumentative movement that synthesizes Waltz’s and Keohane’s theoretical developments. This movement (KEOHANE, 1988) is what Waever (2008) called “neo-neo synthesis”: no longer were realism and liberalism ‘incommensurable’ – on the contrary they shared a ‘rationalist’ research programme, a conception of science, a shared willingness to operate on the premise of anarchy (Waltz) and investigate the evolution of co-operation and whether institutions matter (Keohane) (WAEVER, 2008, p. 163). Our point in this paper is that the references Keohane, Nye, and Waltz use for theory- building are different, and, (not necessarily, but) consequently in this case, they end up positioning their theories differently toward reality. What we mean by this is that they conceive differently the role of the theory, the way it should be constructed, and also the role and the limits of the theoretician themselves. Thus, our research question for this paper is roughly the same of its author’s Master Thesis, namely, is there a possibility of synthesizing Waltz’s theory of international politics and Keohane and Nye’s liberal-institutionalist approach, departing from their conceptions on theory-building? When we question the “possibility” of synthesis of the theories mentioned, we are referring to the eclecticism involved in such an operation. The characterization we give to this concept is proposed by José Jeremias de Oliveira Filho (1995), described as a methodological pathology: Eclecticism as a methodological pathology can be defined by the use of concepts out of their respective conceptual schemes and theoretical systems, altering their meanings. The occurrence of a term without a definition that reduced or precluded its ambiguity would not allow to know to which possible concepts it is associated. Inadvertently one frequently uses the signal that expresses the concept, but not the concept itself. (…) If such occurrence is serious at the theoretical level, it will be even more so at the meta-theoretical or at the meta-sociological level (OLIVEIRA FILHO, 1995, p. 263). 2 In order to address such a question, we have relied upon a vast bibliographical research, tracking the concepts the authors used and establishing their meanings, while also monitoring the permanence and modifications on the substance of these concepts. Once we have achieved this, we have tried to grasp how these concepts are held together and how they are related to one another so we could figure out what are the conceptions on theory building for the authors under scrutiny. In other words, we are concerned not only with the methodology of these theories, i.e., the inner consistence of the concepts of a given theory and how they relate to one another (JACKSON, 2011), but also with the references these authors use to construct their theories. Strategically, the research was divided into two parts: the first one on the works of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye during the 1970s, and, separately, on the works of Kenneth Waltz, until the publication of his seminal 1979 Theory of international politics. Since this book seems to have pushed a more meta-theoretical debate on the field of International Relations, the second part of the research is focused on the 1980s, a period where the movements that would lead to a “neo-neo synthesis” took place. Therefore, we scrutinized the approximations of concepts, so we could address the question on the possibility of such a synthesis. We shall not discuss detailed findings during this paper due to space constraints, and also because they are already exposed in the Master Thesis mentioned. We stick to the most relevant aspects on theory-building, which is the concern of this discussion panel. Therefore, the next sections will deal with Kenneth Waltz’s conceptions of theory, and, in turn, Robert Keohane’s (and Joseph Nye’s when fit). A fourth section will hold a discussion on these aspects, and will be followed by a conclusion on this study. 2 Kenneth Waltz: theory as simplification Kenneth Waltz is unquestionably one of the main authors of International Relations. To be true, both Kenneth Waltz and Robert Keohane figure as the most relevant “sub-disciplinary leaders” in data presented by Robert Goodin (2011) in the Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Kenneth Waltz came to prominence in the study of International Relations after his Man, the state, and war, published as a book in 1959, but his seminal work on framing his ideas into a well-defined theory only came twenty years later, when Theory of international politics was first published. It is important to bear in mind that both books maintain an important dialogue, as noted by Griffiths (2001), for whom Man, the state, and war contained ideas that would be 3 fully developed in Theory of international politics. Despite agreeing with this point, we should stress that such dialogue exists not only in the themes approached by Waltz. Especially for our concerns in this paper, the dialogue between the two books is connected because of aspects of theory construction that are approached, and it will become clearer as we explore these points. In this sense, Theory of international politics would display a more sophisticated approach to theory-building than his previous works, which we call “methodological leap” elsewhere (BITTENCOURT, 2018). A criticism posed by Waltz is that in International Relations, the word “theory” would be used “often to cover any work that departs from mere description, seldom to refer only to work that meets philosophy-of-science standards” (WALTZ, 1975, p. 2). Such discomfort of the author with the theory of International Relations is evident when reading his opus magna: his Theory of international politics spends a good part of its volume setting the standards of a theory as proposed by Waltz. Its first chapter, “Laws and theories”, is exemplar of this concern, and its title can work as a good starting point for our arguments here. According to the conception of theory proposed by Waltz, there is a fundamental difference between what one conceives of as a “law” and what would be a theory.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waltz's Theory of Theory
    WALTZ’S THEORY OF THEORY 201 Waltz’s Theory of Theory Ole Wæver Abstract Waltz’s 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, is the most infl uential in the history of the discipline. It worked its effects to a large extent through raising the bar for what counted as theoretical work, in effect reshaping not only realism but rivals like liberalism and refl ectivism. Yet, ironically, there has been little attention paid to Waltz’s very explicit and original arguments about the nature of theory. This article explores and explicates Waltz’s theory of theory. Central attention is paid to his defi nition of theory as ‘a picture, mentally formed’ and to the radical anti-empiricism and anti-positivism of his position. Followers and critics alike have treated Waltzian neorealism as if it was at bottom a formal proposition about cause–effect relations. The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being so consistently misinterpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing any ambitious theorising. The article suggests a possible movement of fronts away from the ‘fourth debate’ between rationalism and refl ectivism towards one of theory against empiricism. To help this new agenda, the article introduces a key literature from the philosophy of science about the structure of theory, and particularly about the way even natural science uses theory very differently from the way IR’s mainstream thinks it does – and much more like the way Waltz wants his theory to be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Change in International Politics: the New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach
    Analyzing Change in International Politics: The New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach - Guest Lecture - Peter J. Katzenstein* 90/10 This discussion paper was presented as a guest lecture at the MPI für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln, on April 5, 1990 Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Lothringer Str. 78 D-5000 Köln 1 Federal Republic of Germany MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Telephone 0221/ 336050 ISSN 0933-5668 Fax 0221/ 3360555 November 1990 * Prof. Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, Department of Government, McGraw Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853, USA 2 MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Abstract This paper argues that realism misinterprets change in the international system. Realism conceives of states as actors and international regimes as variables that affect national strategies. Alternatively, we can think of states as structures and regimes as part of the overall context in which interests are defined. States conceived as structures offer rich insights into the causes and consequences of international politics. And regimes conceived as a context in which interests are defined offer a broad perspective of the interaction between norms and interests in international politics. The paper concludes by suggesting that it may be time to forego an exclusive reliance on the Euro-centric, Western state system for the derivation of analytical categories. Instead we may benefit also from studying the historical experi- ence of Asian empires while developing analytical categories which may be useful for the analysis of current international developments. ***** In diesem Aufsatz wird argumentiert, daß der "realistische" Ansatz außenpo- litischer Theorie Wandel im internationalen System fehlinterpretiere. Dieser versteht Staaten als Akteure und internationale Regime als Variablen, die nationale Strategien beeinflussen.
    [Show full text]
  • PSC 760R Proseminar in Comparative Politics Fall 2016
    PSC 760R Proseminar in Comparative Politics Fall 2016 Professor: Office: Office Phone: Office Hours: Email: Course Description and Learning Outcomes Comparative politics is perhaps the broadest field of political science. This course will introduce students to the major theoretical approaches employed in comparative politics. The major debates and controversies in the field will be examined. Although some associate comparative politics with “the comparative method,” those conducting research in the area of comparative politics use a multitude of methodologies and pursue diverse topics. In this course, students will analyze and discuss the theoretical approaches and methods used in comparative politics. Course Requirements Class participation and attendance. Students must come to class prepared, having completed all of the required reading, and ready to actively discuss the material at hand. Each student must submit comments/questions on the assigned readings for six classes (not including the class you help facilitate). Please e-mail them to me by noon on the day of class. Students are expected to attend each class. Missing classes will have a deleterious effect on this portion of the grade. Arriving late, leaving early, or interrupting class with a phone or other electronic device will also result in a drop in the student’s grade. Students are not allowed to sleep, read newspapers or anything else, listen to headphones, TEXT, or talk to others during class. You must turn off all electronic devices during class. Any exceptions must be cleared with me in advance. Laptop computers and iPads are allowed for taking notes ONLY. I reserve the right to ban laptops, iPads, and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook
    Department of Political Science __________________________________________________________ PhD in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook Contents Pages 2-3: Examination Overview and General Directions Pages 4-10: Reading Lists Page 4- Methodology Page 5- American Government Page 6- Comparative Politics Page 7- International Relations Page 9- Public Policy Page 11-13: Sample Questions for Written Examination Page 11- Methodology Page 12- American Government Page 12- Comparative Politics Page 12- International Relations Page 13- Public Policy EXAMINATION OVERVIEW AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS Doctoral students sit For the comprehensive examination at the conclusion of all required coursework, or during their last semester of coursework. Students will ideally take their exams during the fifth semester in the program, but no later than their sixth semester. Advanced Entry students are strongly encouraged to take their exams during their Fourth semester, but no later than their FiFth semester. The comprehensive examination is a written exam based on the literature and research in the relevant Field of study and on the student’s completed coursework in that field. Petitioning to Sit for the Examination Your First step is to petition to participate in the examination. Use the Department’s graduate petition form and include the following information: 1) general statement of intent to sit For a comprehensive examination, 2) proposed primary and secondary Fields areas (see below), and 3) a list or table listing all graduate courses completed along with the Faculty instructor For the course and the grade earned This petition should be completed early in the registration period For when the student plans to sit For the exam.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a More Democratic Congress?
    TOWARD A MORE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS? OUR IMPERFECT DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: THE CRITICS EXAMINED STEPHEN MACEDO* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 609 I. SENATE MALAPPORTIONMENT AND POLITICAL EQUALITY................. 611 II. IN DEFENSE OF THE SENATE................................................................ 618 III. CONSENT AS A DEMOCRATIC VIRTUE ................................................. 620 IV. REDISTRICTING AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM? ................ 620 V. THE PROBLEM OF GRIDLOCK, MINORITY VETOES, AND STATUS- QUO BIAS: UNCLOGGING THE CHANNELS OF POLITICAL CHANGE?.... 622 CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 627 INTRODUCTION There is much to admire in the work of those recent scholars of constitutional reform – including Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, and prior to them, Robert Dahl – who propose to reinvigorate our democracy by “correcting” and “revitalizing” our Constitution. They are right to warn that “Constitution worship” should not supplant critical thinking and sober assessment. There is no doubt that our 220-year-old founding charter – itself the product of compromise and consensus, and not only scholarly musing – could be improved upon. Dahl points out that in 1787, “[h]istory had produced no truly relevant models of representative government on the scale the United States had already attained, not to mention the scale it would reach in years to come.”1 Political science has since progressed; as Dahl also observes, none of us “would hire an electrician equipped only with Franklin’s knowledge to do our wiring.”2 But our political plumbing is just as archaic. I, too, have participated in efforts to assess the state of our democracy, and co-authored a work that offers recommendations, some of which overlap with * Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values; Director of the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Political Science
    Introduction to Political Science Professor Scott Williamson Fall 2021, Bocconi University e-mail: [email protected] Office hours: TBD Office: TBD Office room: TBD Class hours: TBD Class room: TBD Course Description What explains the rise of populism? How do authoritarian regimes hold onto power? Who opposes migration and why? When is the public more likely to hold political leaders accountable for poor governance? This course introduces the academic discipline of political science by exploring what its literatures have to say about these topics and others with substantive importance to global politics. We will read and discuss recent academic work utilizing a variety of methodological tools to answer these questions. In addition, the course is designed to help students navigate practical issues related to the effective conduct of political and social science research. We will review research practicalities ranging from choosing a research question to finding data and submitting articles to journals. Throughout the course, students will prepare a research proposal on a topic of their choice, which they will present to the class and submit in written format at the conclusion of the term. Course Objectives Throughout the course, students should expect: ▪ To develop knowledge about several major literatures in political science, gaining familiarity with ongoing debates and established findings. ▪ To acquire familiarity with a variety of primarily quantitative research methods used in political science and other social science disciplines. ▪ To develop understanding of how to consume and evaluate academic research, including how to recognize positive contributions, identify weaknesses, and provide constructive feedback in oral and written forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar
    The Profession ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar Michael Peress, SUNY–Stony Brook ABSTRACT This article develops a number of measures of the research productivity of politi- cal science departments using data collected from Google Scholar. Departments are ranked in terms of citations to articles published by faculty, citations to articles recently published by faculty, impact factors of journals in which faculty published, and number of top pub- lications in which faculty published. Results are presented in aggregate terms and on a per-faculty basis. he most widely used measure of the quality of of search results, from which I identified publications authored political science departments is the US News and by that faculty member, the journal in which the publication World Report ranking. It is based on a survey sent appeared (if applicable), and the number of citations to that to political science department heads and direc- article or book. tors of graduate studies. Respondents are asked to I constructed four measures for each faculty member. First, Trate other political science departments on a 1-to-5 scale; their I calculated the total number of citations. This can be
    [Show full text]
  • Paths to a Sound Governance of the World
    Governance in a Changing World: Meeting the Challenges of Liberty, Legitimacy, Solidarity, and Subsidiarity Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Extra Series 14, Vatican City 2013 www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/es14/es14-kuan.pdf Paths to a Sound Governance of the World HSIN-CHI KUAN Introduction In his paper “Accountability, Transparency, Legitimacy, Sustainable De- velopment and Governance”, Buttiglione takes governance as “the product or the activity of government” that is in turn defined as “a system of organs that govern a community”. This understanding is not very useful for our search for a better gover- nance of the world. It only suggests that the most distinct feature of gover- nance is the lack of a government. It remains uncertain whether the world is being “governed” by a system of organs that is however not qualified as a government. The distinction between government and governance ap- parently lies not in the activity. The activity of government varies radically from time to time and from country to country. In the past when govern- ment governed much less, the destiny of a people was also influenced by decisions that were not taken by their government authorities but by other domestic subjects whose actions were relevant to their welfare. This is, struc- turally speaking, the same kind of situation like what Buttiglione has de- scribed as of today, except that there are subjects acting from outside the affected country. In an indirect way, Buttiglione has attempted to clarify the difference between government and governance by reference to the erosion of state sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Cooperating Under Anarchy,” by Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane, 1985
    Devarati Ghosh “Achieving Cooperating Under Anarchy,” by Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane, 1985 · Definitions: remember that for cooperation to occur, there must be some combination of conflicting and shared interests. Cooperation is distinct from harmony, where there is a total identity of interests between states. Anarchy is the absence of common world government, but it does not imply that the world is devoid of organizational forms. · Three dimensions of structure impact the incentives for states to cooperate: the mutuality of interests, the shadow of the future, and the number of players. The mutuality of interests—is determined by an objective structure of material payoffs, as well as upon actors’ perceptions of that structure. Changes in beliefs about other players, as well as about the most optimal policy, may cause state leaders to prefer unilateral action. This is true of both political-economic and security issues. · The longer the shadow of the future, the more the costs of defection offset the short-term incentive to defect. This is more true of political-economic issues, where there is a greater likelihood of extended interaction, than of security issues, where a successful preemptive war would seriously advantage one of the players. Also important is the ability of states to identifying defection, which Axelrod and Keohane believe does not distinguish political-economic issues from security ones. · Once defection has been identified, the next problem is sanctioning the cheater. This becomes significantly more difficult when there is a large number of actors. Defection can be costly, so there must be enough incentive for states to punish defectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Realist Thought and the Future of American Security Policy
    We encourage you to e-mail your comments to us at: [email protected]. The Past as Prologue Realist Thought and the Future of American Security Policy James Wood Forsyth Jr. Realism is dead, or so we are told. Indeed, events over the past 20 years tend to confirm the popular adage that “we are living in a whole new world.” And while some have proclaimed the death of power politics, it is worth remembering that we have heard this all before. Over the past 60 plus years, realism has enjoyed its time in the sun. Within the United States, realism initially arose during the interwar period in response to the perceived failures of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism. By 1954, with the publication of the second edition of Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations, those ideas had been discredited. During the 1970s, with gasoline shortages and a long, unsuccessful war in Vietnam tearing at America, the inadequacies of policy makers to properly frame world events led many to pursue other alternatives. Economic, political, and social changes led to the rise of topics such as transnational politics, international interdepen­ dence, and political economy, each of which allowed nonrealist perspec­ tives to carve out a substantial space for themselves. The dramatic ending of the Cold War—combined with the inability of policymakers to adequately explain, anticipate, or even imagine peaceful global change—ushered in a new round of thinking. Today many decision makers frame their policies around democracy, seeing it as the historical force driving the apparent peace among the world’s leading powers.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Second State Debate' in International Relations: Theory Turned Upside-Down
    Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 395–414 Copyright © British International Studies Association The ‘second state debate’ in International Relations: theory turned upside-down JOHN M. HOBSON Abstract. This article argues that conventional understanding of how IR theory concep- tualizes the state is in need of revision. By relocating IR theories of the state within the ‘second state’ debate, we find that neorealism underestimates the power of the state in world politics, while neoliberal institutionalism exaggerates its power. Moreover, liberalism, con- structivism, Marxism, postmodernism, and ‘second-wave’ Weberian historical sociology, all endow the state with greater degrees of agential power in the international realm than does neorealism. The significance of the second state debate will be not merely to reconfigure our understanding of how IR theory conceptualizes the state, but to turn conventional under- standing of IR theory upside-down. Introduction In this article I argue that conventional interpretive frameworks for understanding how IR theory conceptualizes the state are highly problematic, and are accordingly in need of revision. In particular, I argue that we can reconfigure traditional under- standing through the lens of what I propose to call the ‘second state debate’. In the process, I suggest that we emerge with a more accurate and nuanced understanding of IR theories of the state as well as of IR theory more generally. This essentially involves relocating IR theories of the state within the agent-structure problematic. In particular, I introduce two concepts when understanding the state: (1) domestic agential state power, (2) international agential state power. For the purposes of this article the most significant concept is the international agential power of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World Bruce W. Jentleson
    1 Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World Bruce W. Jentleson Paper presented at the University of Virginia, International Relations Speaker Series April 12, 2013 Comments welcome; [email protected] Do not cite without permission 2 The usual metric for the world leaders’ scorecard is who has done the most to advance their own country’s national interests. The book I’m writing, Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World, poses a different question: who has done the most to try to build peace, security and justice inclusive of, but not exclusive to, their own country’s particular national interests? There is statesmanship to make one’s own nation more successful. And there is Statesmanship to make the world a better place. This is not altruism, but it also is not just a matter of global interests as extensions of national ones as typically conceived. Both statesmanship and Statesmanship take tremendous skill and savvy strategy. The latter also takes a guiding vision beyond the way the world is to how it can and should be, as well as enormous courage entailing as it does great political and personal risk. Not surprisingly there are not a lot of nominees. Writing in 1910 and working with similar criteria --- not just “winning a brief popular fame . but to serving the great interests of modern states and, indeed, of universal humanity” --- the historian Andrew Dickson White identified Seven Great Statesmen.1 Two 19th century British historians compiled the four- volume Eminent Foreign Statesmen series, but using more the traditional small s-statesmanship criteria of just national interest.
    [Show full text]