Book reviews International Relations theory International systems in world history: remaking the study of International Relations. By Barry Buzan and Richard Little. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. 452pp. Index. £17.99. 0 19 878065 6. This is an outstandingly good book, which succeeds on many different levels. It is in one sense a further development of the authors’ 1993 book (written with Charles Jones) The logic of anarchy, in that it explicitly carries on where that one left off; in another sense it is a very well thought-out and detailed exposition of a sophisticated systemic, if not structural, account of international relations. It also contains clear and comprehensive summaries of existing historical and theoretical discussions of the development of the international political system. But for me it succeeds mainly because, in developing its post-Waltzian account of international systems, it finally puts the last nail in the coffin of the still incredibly influential Waltzian-style neo-realism. This nail gets hammered in as Buzan and Little, in their examination of international relations over 60,000 (yes, 60,000) years, explode two of the key components of his structural version of realism, namely that a functionally differentiated system must be hierarchical, not anarchical, and that the major source of change in international systems is structural, not unit-based. Neo-realism, they conclude, cannot claim to be a universal theory of International Relations, rather it is at best a structural account of the modern European state-system. The book is exceptionally well structured and well written. This is important because there are so many themes at work in the book that it would have been easy to have lost the reader. This it does not do, as will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the authors’ separate and joint writing careers. The book has five sections. The first summarizes the literature on inter- national systems, world history and International Relations theory, and starts from the premise that existing international theory work on international systems is severely limited by focusing on only a very specific time period, namely that since 1648. This leads to an impoverishment both of the study of world history and of the conceptual basis of IR theory. The key chapters of this section outline the conceptual tool-kit of the book. This comprises three moves: first, they distinguish between the sectors of international systems (these come from Buzan’s work on security and are military–political, economic, social and environmental). Second, they discuss the five levels of analysis for investigating international systems (system, subsystem, unit, subunit and individual). Third, they suggest three sources of explanations for the nature of international systems: interaction capacity, process and structure. The next three sections of the book use this conceptual tool-kit to understand the functioning of three forms of international systems through history. The first section comprises two chapters on pre-international world history; the second has four chapters on the international systems of the ancient and classical worlds; the third has four chapters on the modern international system. In each section the same format is followed, with discussions of the nature of the units, interaction capacity, process and structure. These chapters are rich both historically and theoretically, and space simply does not allow me to do justice to them. Suffice it to say that they develop an 76_4_09_Reviews 833 13/10/00, 2:37 pm Book reviews intellectually powerful argument about the differences between the types of international system, and in so doing fatally undermine the Waltzian notion of structure. The final section comprises four chapters, looking at a possible future ‘post-modern’ (though in truth not very post-modern!) international system, at the lessons of world history for IR theory, at IR’s lessons for the study of world history, and a final chapter in which they outline a series of hypo- theses relating the relationships between strong/weak states and strong/weak international systems. They end by noting that their ‘end’ is really a new beginning, and I for one hope that they follow up this theoretically intriguing idea of the relationship between strong and weak states and systems. There is so much in this book for so many types of scholars of International Relations. It offers a quite distinctly innovative account of the development of different types of international systems, and in doing so it advances a sophisticated form of neo-realism; this is a considerable achievement on its own, and I am certain that this book will be seen over time not only as one of the most intellectually impressive mergers of theory and history in the field, but also as a massive advance on US-style neo-realism. In truth I cannot see how Waltzian neo-realists can respond to this book, since it demonstrates on page after page just how misleading and limited is that version of systems theory. But the book does so much more: most notably it convincingly points to the overlap between neo-realism and social constructivism (since state identity matters to the functioning of international systems), with the authors’ own theoretical take on this being to see tremendous potential in the linking between neo-realism and the ‘English School’. That, of course, looks like being their way of developing the strong/weak state/system relationship. In summary, this is a really major book, and it is a great tribute to both authors that one can see so many themes in this book that have had their (often separate) origins in their earlier works. Do I agree with the argument? Well, not always, but that is frankly irrelevant here. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, not least because I became fascinated with the argument, and found myself nodding in admiration as the authors pulled off the feat of bringing all the elements together into a powerful and intellectually impressive discussion of the types of international system found in world history. This is one of the most important books published in the last decade and for intellectual sophistication it leaves neo-realism US-style standing but also drowning. Steve Smith, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales International Relations, political theory and the problem of order: beyond International Relations theory? By N. J. Rengger. London, New York: Routledge. 2000. 232pp. Index. Pb.: £17.99. ISBN 0 415 09584 0. This is a puzzling book—a good book, but puzzling. Its core consists of five chapters that survey contemporary International Relations theory. The first three, under the general heading ‘Managing order?’, examine realism in all its forms, the English School and constructivism, and various liberal/liberal internationalist theories. The next two, ‘Ending order?’, focus on emanci- patory, critical theory and that body of late modern writing that is characteristically—but wrongly, as Rengger emphasizes—described as post-structuralist or post-modern. These five chapters make interesting reading; the material they cover has been pretty well ploughed over in recent years, but the author still manages to find something fresh to say about his subject. What is particularly impressive is the way in which he draws on a wide range of reading in order to make connections that are original and revealing. I consider myself reasonably up to speed on modern social theory and political philosophy, and yet Rengger refers to authors of whom I have not even heard, let alone read—I won’t say who they are for fear of the mocking laughter of my over- educated graduate students, but a quick perusal of the bibliography will give most people an idea of what I mean. Not everyone will agree with the line Rengger takes on his chosen authors, but I cannot believe that any IR theorist could read this without being stimulated and educated. Apart from the fact that someone who uses ‘Blumenbergian’ as an adjective is nominating himself for the George Steiner Prize for reader-friendliness (and, yes, I have read The legitimacy of the modern age), the one serious criticism I have is that, surprisingly, this book is so firmly rooted in 76_4_09_Reviews 834 13/10/00, 2:37 pm International Relations theory the conventional discourses of IR theory. References may be drawn from a wide range of literature, but the agenda is set by those authors who have established themselves within the discourse of IR theory, and topics they have not discussed are largely ignored. Thus, for example, ‘globalization’ is discussed briefly via the work of David Held and Andrew Linklater, but not that of, inter alia and almost at random, Arjun Appadurai, Benjamin Barber, Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, while new(ish) topics such as migration, borders and ‘de-bordering’, identity, refugees, asylum seekers and so on do not feature. And here is the puzzle—as the title indicates, this is not supposed to be a book about IR theory. The stated aim is to show that the problem of order is best approached from a different angle altogether, that the discipline of International Relations is misconceived, and that there is no such thing as ‘International Relations theory’ (always placed in scare-quotes). The quite substantial introduction is devoted to making this case and trying to establish the notion of ‘order’ and the discourses of political theory as alternatives to traditional IR (although, prefiguring the performative contradiction to be found later, Robert Keohane’s distinction between reflectivist and rationalist theory is used to make the case—a strange choice if the aim is to get away from the discipline of IR). As this, and the book as a whole, illustrates, it is very difficult to replace IR theory with political theory if you allow the former to set your agenda.