Table Of ContentThe Oxford Handbook OfInternational Relations
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© The several contributors 2008
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2008
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
The Oxford handbook of international relations / edited by
Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal.
p. cm. – (Oxford handbook of political science)
ISBN-13: 978–0–19–921932–2 (acid-free paper)
1. International relations. 2. World politics.
I. Reus-Smit, Christian, 1961– II. Snidal, Duncan.
JZ1242.O94 2008
327–dc22 2008006027
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire
ISBN 978–0–19–921932–2
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
end p.iv
Contents
About the Contributors xi
Part I Introduction
1. Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International
Relations 3
CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT & DUNCAN SNIDAL
Part II Imagining the Discipline
2. The State and International Relations 41
DAVID A. LAKE
3. From International Relations to Global Society 62
MICHAEL BARNETT & KATHRYN SIKKINK
4. The Point Is not Just to Explain the World but to Change It 84
ROBERT W. COX
5. A Disabling Discipline? 94
PHILLIP DARBY
Part III Major Theoretical Perspectives
6. Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations109
PETER KATZENSTEIN & RUDRA SIL
7. Realism 131
WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH
8. The Ethics of Realism 150
JACK DONNELLY
9. Marxism 163
BENNO TESCHKE
10. The Ethics of Marxism 188
NICHOLAS RENGGER
11. Neoliberal Institutionalism 201
ARTHUR A. STEIN
12. The Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism 222
JAMES L. RICHARDSON
13. The New Liberalism 234
ANDREW MORAVCSIK
14. The Ethics of the New Liberalism 255
GERRY SIMPSON
15. The English School 267
TIM DUNNE
16. The Ethics of the English School 286
MOLLY COCHRAN
17. Constructivism 298
IAN HURD
18. The Ethics of Constructivism 317
RICHARD PRICE
19. Critical Theory 327
RICHARD SHAPCOTT
20. The Ethics of Critical Theory 346
ROBYN ECKERSLEY
21. Postmodernism 359
ANTHONY BURKE
22. The Ethics of Postmodernism 378
PETER LAWLER
23. Feminism 391
SANDRA WHITWORTH
24. The Ethics of Feminism 408
JACQUI TRUE
Part IV The Question of Method
25. Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice 425
ANDREW H. KYDD
26. Sociological Approaches 444
FRIEDRICH KRATOCHWIL
27. Psychological Approaches 462
JAMES GOLDGEIER & PHILIP TETLOCK
28. Quantitative Approaches 481
EDWARD D. MANSFIELD & JON C. PEVEHOUSE
29. Case Study Methods 499
ANDREW BENNETT & COLIN ELMAN
30. Historical Methods 518
JOEL QUIRK
Part V Bridging the Subfield Boundaries
31. International Political Economy 539
JOHN RAVENHILL
32. Strategic Studies 558
ROBERT AYSON
33. Foreign-policy Decision-making 576
DOUGLAS T. STUART
34. International Ethics 594
TERRY NARDIN
35. International Law 612
MICHAEL BYERS
Part VI The Scholar and the Policy-Maker
36. Scholarship and Policy-making: Who Speaks Truth to Whom? 635
HENRY R. NAU
37. International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice 648
JOSEPH S. NYE, JR.
Part VII The Question of Diversity
38. International Relations from Below 663
DAVID L. BLANEY & NAEEM INAYATULLAH
39. International Relations Theory from a Former Hegemon 675
RICHARD LITTLE
Part VIII Old and New
40. The Concept of Power and the (Un)discipline of International Relations 691
JANICE BIALLY MATTERN
41. Locating Responsibility: The Problem of Moral Agency in International
Relations 699
TONI ERSKINE
42. Big Questions in the Study of World Politics 708
ROBERT O. KEOHANE
43. The Failure of Static and the Need for Dynamic Approaches to
International Relations 716
RICHARD ROSECRANCE
44. Six Wishes for a More Relevant Discipline of International Relations 725
STEVE SMITH
Name Index 733
Subject Index 747
Robert Ayson
is Senior Fellow and Director of Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre,
Australian National University.
Michael Barnett
is the Harold Stassen Chair of International Affairs at the Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs and Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.
Andrew Bennett
is Professor of Government at Georgetown University.
Janice Bially Mattern
is Associate Professor of International Relations at Lehigh University.
David L. Blaney
is Professor of Political Science, Macalester College, St Paul.
Anthony Burke
is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Australian Defence
Force Academy, UNSW.
Michael Byers
holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of
British Columbia.
Molly Cochran
is Associate Professor in the Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Robert W. Cox
is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at York University.
Phillip Darby
is Director of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies, Melbourne, and a principal fellow of the
School of Political Science, Criminology and Sociology, University of Melbourne.
Jack Donnelly
is the Andrew Mellon Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies,
University of Denver.
Tim Dunne
is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Centre of Advanced
International Studies at the University of Exeter.
Robyn Eckersley
is Professor in the School of Political Science, Sociology and Criminology at the
University of Melbourne.
Colin Elman
is Associate Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University.
Toni Erskine
is Lecturer in International Politics at Aberystwyth University.
James Goldgeier
is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University
and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ian Hurd
is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University.
Naeem Inayatullah
is Associate Professor of Politics, Ithaca College.
Peter Katzenstein
is the Walter S. Carpenter, Jr. Professor of International Studies at Cornell University.
Robert O. Keohane
is Professor of International Affairs, Princeton University, a past president of the American
Political Science Association, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Friedrich Kratochwil
is Professor of International Relations at the European University Institute.
Andrew H. Kydd
is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin.
David A. Lake
is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego.
Peter Lawler
is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Manchester.
Richard Little
is Professor of International Politics in the Department of Politics at the University of
Bristol.
Edward D. Mansfield
is the Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science and Director of the Christopher H.
Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Andrew Moravcsik
is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University.
Terry Nardin
is Professor of Political Science at the National University of Singapore.
Henry R. Nau
is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Elliott School of International
Affairs, George Washington University.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
, is Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations and University Distinguished
Service Professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Jon C. Pevehouse
is Associate Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago.
Richard Price
is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
Joel Quirk
is an RCUK Fellow, Department of Law and Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery
and Emancipation, University of Hull.
John Ravenhill
is Professor of International Relations in the Department of International Relations,
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National University.
Nicholas Rengger
is Professor of Political Theory and International Relations at St Andrews University.
Christian Reus-Smit
is Professor and Head of the Department of International Relations, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National University.
James L. Richardson
is Emeritus Professor of the Australian National University.
Richard Rosecrance
is Adjunct Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Richard Shapcott
is Senior Lecturer in International Relations in the School of Political Science and
International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Kathryn Sikkink
is a Regents Professor and McKnight Distinguished University Professor of Political
Science at the University of Minnesota.
Rudra Sil
is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.
Gerry Simpson
is Professor of International Law, London School of Economics.
Steve Smith
is Vice-Chancellor and Professor of International Politics at the University of Exeter.
Duncan Snidal
is Associate Professor in the Harris School, the Department of Political Science, and the
College, at the University of Chicago.
Arthur A. Stein
is Professor of Political Science at UCLA.
Douglas T. Stuart
is the first holder of the J. William and Helen D. Stuart Chair in International Studies at
Dickinson College, Carlisle, and Adjunct Professor at the US Army War College.
Benno Teschke
is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the University of
Sussex.
Philip Tetlock
holds the Mitchell Endowed Chair at the University of California, Berkeley.
Jacqui True
is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Auckland.
Sandra Whitworth
is Professor of Political Science and Women's Studies at York University, Toronto.
William C. Wohlforth
is Professor and Chair in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College.
I Introduction
end p.1
end p.2
1 Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International
Relations*
show abstracts and keywords
Christian Reus-Smit
Duncan Snidal
WHAT kind of work is this Handbook? Is it a reference book? Is it an introduction? Is it a commentary? Is it a contribution
to research? Is it an account of international relations as a political practice, or of international relations as a field of
study? If the latter, is it a statement of where the field has been or where it should be going?
It is, at once, all of these things and none of them. We hope that it will serve as a useful entry point to the study of
international relations and global politics, a resource that junior and senior scholars alike can use to enhance their
understandings of the multiple perspectives and approaches that constitute our field. It is thus, in
end p.3
part, an introduction and a reference work. But it is envisaged as much more than this. We want it to be read as a critical,
reflective intervention into debates about international relations as a field of inquiry. It is much more than a commentary,
therefore, as our goal is to push debate forward, not merely to recount it. Because ideas about what we study, and why
we study it, condition what we do as scholars, we see it as a contribution to research into international relations and
global politics as political practice.
These ambitions have informed the Handbook's gestation at two levels. To begin with, they have informed the choices
we as editors have made about the volume's central themes and general structure. Because we see the Handbook as
more than a survey—as an intervention—we have deliberately sought to read the field in a particular way. As explained
below, two themes structure the content of the volume: the first being the relationship between empirical (and/or positive)
theory and normative theory; the second being the dynamic interconnection between different theories, methods, and
subfields. Our ambitions have also informed the Handbook's development at a second level. In addition to asking our
fellow contributors to respond to the above themes, we have asked them to reach beyond simple commentary or
exegesis to advance new, and hopefully thought-provoking, arguments and interpretations.
This chapter explains the Handbook's broad approach and advances a series of arguments about the nature of
international relations as a field, arguments informed by our reading of the chapters that follow. We are concerned, in
particular, with three interrelated questions. What is the nature of the theoretical endeavor in international relations? How
have the empirical and the normative aspects of theories interacted to shape individual theories and the debates
between them? And finally, has there been progress in the study of international relations, and if so in what sense?
Although there is no singular answer to these questions, our contributors have led us to a number of general
conclusions. First, they have encouraged us to formulate a distinctive understanding of the theoretical enterprise, one
broad enough to encompass the diverse forms of theorizing that populate the field. We argue that the art of theorizing
about international relations has come to integrate three components: questions, assumptions, and logical arguments.
Second, international relations theories are best conceived as contending practical discourses that, despite their
significant differences, are all, implicitly or explicitly, animated by the question “how should we act?” This abiding feature
of international relations theories explains the persistence of both empirical and normative aspects in all of them. Finally,
our contributors' discussions of diverse theories, methods, and problems in international relations invite comment on the
question of progress in the field. Across the board their chapters report increased sophistication in theory and method,
greater communication and learning across theoretical boundaries, and more artful borrowing of ideas from other fields.
However, progress within different
end p.4
areas remains heavily influenced by contestation among theoretical perspectives. Harnessed properly, such contestation
is an engine of increased understanding even as it simultaneously explains the sometimes seeming lack of progress for
the field as a whole.
1 Our Approach
There is no shortage of overviews and introductions to international relations and global politics, either as a field or as a
realm of political practice. New introductions—more or less advanced—appear each year, and this is not the first
“handbook” on the subject. With few exceptions, however, these all adopt variations on a common approach. A choice is
made by authors and editors about the topics worthy of discussion (a choice we too have made), and chapters are
crafted to do these topics justice. Seldom, though, do these volumes have a “voice” of their own, above and beyond that
of their individual, constituent chapters. The most recent handbook to appear, for example, has neither an introductory
framing chapter nor a general conclusion (Carlsnaes, Risse, and Simmons 2002). Although an excellent volume, it has
nothing to say or conclude about the field it has surveyed. Our goal is to step beyond this general approach to give
the Handbook a voice of its own.
The first thing to note about the Handbook is our emphasis on theory, on conceptions of international relations as a
discipline, on contending ideas of theoretical progress, on different theoretical perspectives, and on the methodological
ideas that drive the study of world politics. We have adopted this emphasis not because we value theoretical over
empirical inquiry or the pursuit of abstract ideas over more “practical” forms of scholarship. We have done so because
we believe that theoretical assumptions (and debates surrounding them) determine the contours of the field and inform
even the most empirical research. An inquiry into the field of international relations ought, first and foremost, to be an
inquiry into the ideas that animate it—the ideas that distinguish international relations (or global politics) as a domain of
social and political life, the ideas that determine what constitutes knowledge of this political realm, the ideas that dictate
the questions that merit answers, and the ideas that shape the field's relations with other disciplines. Without these
ideas, international relations would have neither identity, skeleton, nor pulse.
One consequence of this emphasis is our decision not to devote specific chapters to empirical issue areas, such as great
power competition, weapons proliferation, environmental protection, human rights, nationalism, and international trade
and finance. Again, this does not reflect a lack of interest in such issues; to the contrary. Rather, it reflects our belief that
it is the ideas and debates canvassed in this volume that have informed and structured analyses of these issues.
Theoretical and
end p.5
methodological ideas have determined which issues are legitimate foci of inquiry for international relations scholars, and
they have provided the intellectual tools that scholars have taken up in the pursuit of understanding. The complexities of
particular issue areas—especially new ones—do, of course, serve as catalysts for theoretical innovation, and grappling
with them has often driven international relations scholars to conscript new ideas from other fields of inquiry. Our
strategy, however, has been to concentrate on international relations as a milieu of ideas, and to ask our contributors to
draw on their diverse empirical expertise to illustrate their arguments and propositions. This choice of strategy has been
reinforced by our sense that the literature is now so saturated with survey chapters on new and old issue areas that yet
another compendium is unwarranted.
The most distinctive feature of the Handbook is not its focus on theory but our reading of theory
as both empirical and normative. Most surveys of international relations theory concentrate on empirical (and/or positive)
theory; if normative theory receives any attention, it is left for a final chapter or two on “ethics and international affairs.”
Interestingly, this is as true of surveys originating outside the United States as from within (see Carlsnaes, Risse, and
Simmons 2002; Baylis and Smith 2005; Burchill et al. 2005). The assumptions appear to be that empirical and normative
inquiry can be segregated and that international relations theory is almost exclusively an empirical or positive project.
Although it is acknowledged (in some limited fashion) that there is another body of theory—normative theory— that treats
the international as its subject, this is the preserve of philosophers or political theorists. Thus the default position is that
international relations is an explanatory endeavor, concerned with the “is” of world politics not the “ought.”
We find this segregation both unsustainable and unhelpful. All theories of international relations and global politics have
important empirical and normative dimensions, and their deep interconnection is unavoidable. When realists criticize
national governments for acting in ways inconsistent with the national interest, or for acting in ways that destabilize
international order, they base their criticisms on values of interest and order that can be defended only normatively.
When postmodernists recommend a scholarly stance of relentless critique and deconstruction, they do so not for
interpretative reasons (though this is in part their motive) but because this constitutes a practice of resistance against
structures of power and domination. Indeed, as the Handbook authors demonstrate, every international relations theory
is simultaneously about what the world is like and about what it ought to be like. One of the axes of diversity in our field is
the different orientations scholars, and their attendant theoretical traditions, have had to the relationship between the
normative and empirical aspects of theory. Some have embraced the intersection, many have sought to purge their
theories of normative traits, and still others have gone in the opposite direction, privileging philosophical reflection over
empirical. But the terrain between the empirical analysis and the normative is one trodden by all theorists, explicitly or
implicitly.
end p.6
The conventional explanation for why our theories all exhibit empirical and normative aspects is epistemological. Critical
theorists have long argued that our values enter our enquiries from the moment we ask questions about the world, from
the moment we make choices about what we will study to answer those questions, and from the moment we decide how
we will study whatever it is we have chosen (for a classic statement, see Taylor 1979). Nothing we say here challenges
this line of argument. Our explanation is different.
From the outset, international relations theory has been a practical discourse. We do not mean this in any deep
Habermasian sense of the word, or say this to promote simplistic notions of the practical over the theoretical. Rather, we
mean that all international relations theories, in one form or another, have at some level been concerned with the
question “how should we act?” This is true for realists and liberals, Marxists and feminists. It is true of those who
congregate under the umbrella of critical theory as well as those who pursue problem-solving theory. Different
perspectives emphasize different issues that demand action, and arrive at different conclusions about types of action
required. But whether they are concerned with the promotion of peace, order, institutional development, economic well-
