¹ A number of useful books about Cyprus have finally appeared, although the authoritative history of Cyprus, including the British Occupation until 1948, is still Hill, Sir George, A History of Cyprus (Cambridge, 1952).Google Scholar Three recent semi-scholarly works add useful information about the Emergency, the negotiations over independence, and the period since 1960, including the civil war still going on: Foley, Charles, Legacy of Strife: Cyprus from Rebellion to Civil War (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Stephens, Robert, Cyprus: A Place of Arms (London, 1966)Google Scholar; and Purcell, H. D., Cyprus (London, 1969).Google Scholar Stephens, former Middle East correspondent for the Observer, is reasonably impartial but relies heavily on contemporary Greek sources, interviews, and personal reportage; Foley, former editor of the Times of Cyprus, is strongly pro-Greek Cypriot; Purcell, who taught in Turkey and Iran from 1958 to 1963, is strongly pro-Turkish Cypriot. Adams, Thomas W. and Cottrell, Alvin W., Cyprus between East and West (Baltimore, 1968)Google Scholar, give a more scholarly account, focusing on the position of Cyprus in American foreign policy. Alastos’, DorosCyprus in History (London, 1955)Google Scholar and Cyprus Guerrilla (London, 1960) give a fair account from the Greek Cypriot point of view (“Alastos” is the distinguished Cypriot historian, Evdoros Joannides). Xydis’, Stephen G.Cyprus: Conflict and Conciliation, 1954–58 (Columbus, Ohio, 1967)Google Scholar gives a fantastically detailed account of the Greek recourses to the United Nations during the Emergency; he uses Greek sources extensively, and in the process casts a good deal of light on both Greek and Greek Cypriot perceptions and actions; Xydis spent 1942 to 1946 as executive secretary of Greek Government Information Services in Washington and New York, and served in the un Secretariat from 1946 to 1948.

² See Stegenga, J. A., The United Nations Force in Cyprus (Columbus, 1968).Google Scholar

³ It should be possible to make “acceptability” operational in terms of a ratio of favourable to unfavourable references to a given policy choice or outcome, perhaps in public speeches, perhaps in the editorials of newspapers such as the Times of London and New York. Pool, Cf. Ithiel De Sola, The “Prestige Papers” (Stanford, Calif., 1952)Google Scholar, and Rosenbaum, Naomi, “Substitute Victory – The French Withdrawal from Indochina, 1954,” forthcoming.Google Scholar Munich might be used as a paradigm case of failure, the Marshall Plan for success.

⁴ “Moral Fervor, Systematic Analysis, and Scientific Consciousness in Foreign Policy Research,” in Ranney, Austin, ed., Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago, 1968), 199.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 204, 199.

⁶ See Rosenau, James N., “Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Farrell, R. Barry, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Ill., 1966), especially p. 41.Google Scholar Rosenau in practice uses the term pre-theory to describe an advanced stage of typology construction, the meaning I am adopting here. He gives the following definition of the term: “Briefly, by pre-theory is meant both an early step toward explanation of specific empirical events and a general orientation toward all events, a point of view or philosophy about the way the world is” (n. 41, p. 41).

⁷ Ibid., 48, and Rosenau, , “Towards the Study of National-International Linkages,” in Rosenau, , ed., Linkage Politics (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

⁸ There is a vast literature on political scientists’ use of decision-making theory, but only a small part of it is directly relevant to international relations, and there is only one case study extant. The major source for the decision-making approach to the study of foreign policy is Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, Burton, eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York, 1962)Google Scholar, especially the widely reprinted article found there: Snyder, and Paige, Glenn D., “The U.S. Decision to Resist Aggression in Korea.” Paige, in The Korean Decision, June 24–30, 1950 (New York, 1968)Google Scholar, gives the complete Korea study, slightly modifying the pre-theory. Robinson, James A. and Majak, R. Roger, “The Theory of Decision-Making,” in Charlesworth, James A., ed., Contemporary Political Analysis (New York, 1967)Google Scholar, expands the section on motivation; Rosenau, in “The Premises and Promises of Decision-Making,” also in the Charlesworth volume, gives a memoir of Snyder and a pessimistic appraisal of the process. Robinson, James A. and Snyder, Richard C., “Decision-Making in International Politics,” in Kalman, H. C., ed., International Behavior (New York, 1965)Google Scholar, is a useful summary. See also Simon, H. A., “Political Research: The Decision-Making Framework,” in Easton, David, ed., Varieties of Political Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966)Google Scholar, for a useful discussion of the use of decision-making theory in political science in general.

⁹ See General Grivas-Dighenis, George, Guerilla Warfare and EOKA's Struggle (London, 1964), especially pp. 77–81Google Scholar, and Foot, Sir Hugh, A Start in Freedom (London, 1964), 170.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Even here, anything short of a Carthaginian destruction can be disputed. Juridical extinction would surely be preferable to physical; death, if quick, might be better than lingering radiation.

¹¹ For instance, it does not seem likely that American wishes to prevent communist control of South Vietnam would have been affected by foreknowledge of the disasters that have occurred in consequence of those wishes. The response to clairvoyance, a proper one, would have been to reconsider such policies as supporting Diem, sending in ground troops, and so on.

¹² See, again from a vast literature on the subject of evaluating political decisions, James M. Buchanan, “An Individualistic Theory of Political Process,” in Easton, Varieties of Political Theory, who makes clearly the necessary distinctions and their implications. Wolfer, Arnold considers the particular problems of foreign policy in his two articles, “The Goals of Foreign Policy” and “The Pole of Power and the Pole of Indifference” in his Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore, 1962).Google Scholar

¹³ English History, 1914–1945 (London, 1965), 430, n. 2. Cf. the analysis in Lammers, Donald M., Explaining Munich: The Search for Motive in British Policy (Stanford, 1967).Google Scholar

¹⁴ A Strategy for Decision (New York, 1963), and Jervis, Robert, “Hypotheses on Misperception,” World Politics, XX, no. 3 (April 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The Image (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1965), especially chap. 7, and “National Images and International Systems,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, II, no. 2 (June 1959).

¹⁶ “Ecological and Behavioral Models in the Analysis of State Capabilities,” a paper prepared for discussion in a conference at Northwestern University, June 20–21, 1958, p. 7. This unpublished paper is an excellent summary of the notion of the two environments of decision-makers. The quotation given above continues as follows: “It should be noted that so-called ‘common-sense’ models do in fact embody an assumption of approximate congruence.”

¹⁷ Foreign Policy Decision-Making, especially pp. 66–8, 177.

¹⁸ Brecher, Michael, Steinberg, Blema, and Stein, Janice, “A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, XIII, no. 1 (March 1969), 81.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., 81 and n. 6.

²⁰ In a letter to Ayer, A. J. dated Jan. 19, 1957, cited in The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1944–67, III (London, 1969), 130.Google Scholar

²¹ See Snyder et al., Foreign Policy Decision-Making, especially pp. 90–1.

²² “International Crisis as a Situational Variable,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (rev. ed. New York, 1969), especially pp. 413–15Google Scholar, and the diagram on p. 415 (the “situational cube”).

²³ Paige repeatedly talks of degrees of crisis (“the greater the crisis”) but with no consistency. In practice, he dichotomizes. The Korean Decision, 281–315.

²⁴ Ibid., 330–55, and, for instance, Rivera, Joseph De, The Psychological Dimension of Foreign Policy (Columbus, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁵ “The Power of Power,” in Easton, Varieties of Political Theory, 63.

²⁶ This is the notion used by Dahl, Robert A. in, among other places, “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science, II, no. 3 (July 1957).Google ScholarSinger, J. David, in “Inter-Nation Influence: A Formal Model,” American Political Science Review, LVII (1963)Google Scholar, distinguishes between the tactics of reinforcement and pressure, that is, between trying to get a situation to continue and trying to get it to change, in terms either of current or future behaviour. The success of reinforcement is likely to be even more problematical than that of pressure, but for the same reasons. I shall concentrate here on pressure, which seems to include all foreign policy choices likely to be significant. Cf. also Rosenau, James N., Calculated Control as a Unifying Concept in the Study of International Politics and Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ, 1963).Google Scholar

²⁷ Arms and Influence (New Haven, Conn., 1966).

²⁸ See, for instance, Russett, Bruce M., “The Calculus of Deterrence,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, VII, no. 2 (June 1963).Google Scholar

²⁹ The Nerves of Government (New York, 1963), chap. 17, especially p. 111.

³⁰ Deutsch, Karl W., The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, 1968), 26–7.Google Scholar

³¹ Sprout, Cf. Harold, “Britain's Defense Program,” in Britain Today: Economics, Defense and Foreign Policy (Princeton, 1959).Google Scholar

³² Dahl, “The Concept of Power,” 212–13.

³³ Power and Society (New Haven, 1950).

³⁴ Holsti, K. J., “The Concept of Power in the Study of International Relations,” Background, VII, no. 4 (Feb. 1964)Google Scholar, reviews such suggestions, to end with “mobilization of capabilities,” a very military concept as he describes it.

³⁵ Who Governs? (New Haven, 1961), especially chap. 24.

³⁶ “Foreign Policy as an Issue-Area,” in Rosenau, , ed., Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, “Theories and Pre-Theories of Foreign Policy.”

³⁷ These numbers do not mean anything about the magnitude of power involved, or the relative size of the categories. Tufte, Cf. Edward R., “Improving Data Analysis in Political Science,” World Politics, XXI, no. 4 (July 1969), 646Google Scholar, and Brecher's use of ranking in the article cited in n. 18 above.

³⁸ For the background of the Cyprus Convention, see Lee, Dwight E., Great Britain and the Cyprus Policy of 1878 (London, 1934).Google Scholar

³⁹ Field Marshal Lord Harding of Petherton, “The Cyprus Problem in Relation to the Middle East,” International Affairs, XXXIV, no. 3 (July 1958), 292.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Kedourie, Elie, England and the Middle East (London, 1956)Google Scholar; Bullard, Sir Reader, Britain and the Middle East (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Ensor, R. C. K., England, 1870–1914 (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar; Royal Institute for International Affairs, British Interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East (London, 1958)Google Scholar; and Blake, Robert, Disraeli (London, 1966).Google Scholar

⁴¹ For term and consequences of the Cyprus Convention, see Sir George Hill's History of Cyprus noted above and Storrs, Sir Ronald, Orientations (London, 1943)Google Scholar; Storrs was the Governor of Cyprus who finally got the Tribute abolished and suffered the revolt of 1931.

⁴² Royal Institute of International Affairs, The British Empire (London, 1937), 166.Google Scholar

⁴³ See the Institute of International Relations of the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Ankara, Turkey and the United Nations (New York, 1961), especially pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cmnd 124, Defence Outline of Future Policy (Secretary of State for Defence, April 1957). For an excellent summary discussion of the postwar evolution of British defence policy as exemplified in the successive white papers, see Woodhouse, C. M., British Foreign Policy since the Second World War (London, 1961)Google Scholar, chap. 7. See also the article by Sprout, “Britain's Defense Program,” cited above, which includes a detailed discussion of Cmnd 124.

⁴⁵ Harding, “The Cyprus Problem in Relation to the Middle East,” 296, 293.

⁴⁶ Brit. H. of C. Debates, July 28, 1954, col. 504.

⁴⁷ Ibid., col. 508.

⁴⁸ Ibid., col. 550.

⁴⁹ Cmd 9594, The Tripartite Conference on the Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Oct. 1955).

⁵⁰ Cmd 9708, Correspondence Exchange between the Governor and Archbishop Makarios (Secretary of State for the Colonies, March 1956).

⁵¹ Cmnd 42, Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus (Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dec. 1956).

⁵² Cmnd 455, Cyprus Statement of Policy (Prime Minister, June 1958).

⁵³ For the terms and assessments of the London Agreements, see Cmnd 679, Conference on Cyprus, Documents, and Cmnd 680, Final Statements (both Prime Minister, 1959).