Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T17:42:16.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contention and Management in International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Kenneth N. Waltz
Kenneth N. Waltz
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
Get access

Extract

THE idea that peaceful adjustment of the relations of states may result from contention among them Claude believes to be hopelessly outmoded. The presence of nuclear weapons means that any equilibrium of states, however stable it may seem, is not nearly stable enough. The task of the theorist and the statesman alike is to introduce order from above, to replace the “invisible hand” by which adjustments are contrived in systems of self-regulation with something a little more substantial. Here the juxaposition of our two authors enlivens the subject. F. H. Hinsley considers the notion of spontaneous equilibrium to be a liberating idea. He applies the eighteenth century's beautiful system of natural harmony to the world of the present and is delighted with the result. Though large-scale war would now be devastating, we need not worry. Nuclear power is absolute and nuclear states, competent to control the instruments of power at their disposal, deter each other absolutely.

Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 1965 , pp. 720 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans, by Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott, ed. by Talcott Parsons (New York 1947), 338.Google Scholar

2 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans, and ed. by Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (London 1947), 232, 230.Google Scholar

3 The point is nicely made by Burin, Frederic S., “Bureaucracy and National Socialism: A Reconsideration of Weberian Theory,” in Merton, Robert K.Gray, Alisa P.Hockey, BarbaraSelvin, Hanan C., eds., Reader in Bureaucracy (Glencoe, Ill., 1952), 33–47.Google Scholar

4 Secretary of Defense McNamara, speech to the Economic Club of New York, November 18, 1963; quoted in Kaufmann, William W., The McNamara Strategy (New York 1964), 310.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Hinsley, F. H., “The Development of the European States System Since the Eighteenth Century,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, II (London 1961), 79.Google Scholar His conclusion is essentially the same as Halevy's, and his analysis has the same merits and defects. See Halévy, Elie, The World Crisis of 1914–1918 (Oxford 1930).Google Scholar

6 de Jouvenel, Bertrand, “On the Nature of Political Science,” American Political Science Review, LV (December 1961), 776.Google Scholar

7 Keynes, J. M., “The End of Laissez-faire—II,” New Republic, XLVIII (September 1926), 37.Google Scholar

8 “If the sovereign command a man, though justly condemned, to kill, wound, or maim himself; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey. … When therefore our refusal to obey, frustrates the end for which the sovereignty was ordained; then there is no liberty to refuse: otherwise there is.” Further: “If a monarch, or sovereign assembly, grant a liberty to all, or any of his subjects, which grant standing, he is disabled to provide for their safety, the grant is void. …” (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. by Michael Oakeshott [Oxford, n.d.], ch. 21, pp. 142, 144.)

9 Deutsch, Karl W. and Eckstein, Alexander, “National Industrialization and the Declining Share of the International Economic Sector, 1890–1959,” World Politics, XIII (January 1961), Table 2, 275.Google Scholar

10 For 1957, imports and exports as a percentage of national income: United States, 9.2 per cent; Soviet Union, 4.9 per cent (ibid.).

11 Cf. Masters, Roger D., “A Multi-Bloc Model of the International System,” American Political Science Review, LV (December 1961), 789–90.Google Scholar

12 Tucker, Robert W., The Just War: A Study in Contemporary American Doctrine (Baltimore 1960), 190–93.Google Scholar

13 Fulbright, J. William, Prospects for the West (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 “Excerpts from Speech to Coast Guard,” New York Times, June 4, 1964.

15 The distinction is unwarranted. Contrast Kuhn's, Thomas S. profound examination of accumulation, crisis, and spasmodic creativity in the natural sciences, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago 1962)Google Scholar, esp. sees. 9, 10, 13.