HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
August 1, 2008
New Commission on United States Policy toward Russia
Announcement
The Belfer Center at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and The Nixon Center are pleased to announce a new Commission on United States Policy toward Russia. The commission will be co-chaired by former Senator Gary Hart and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Summer 2008
"Correspondence: Of Polarity and Polarization"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 33
By Joseph M. Parent, Joseph Bafumi, Charles A. Kupchan and Peter L. Trubowitz
Joseph Parent and Joseph Bafumi reply to the Fall 2007 International Security article, "Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States," by Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz.
July/August 2008
"Separatism's Final Country"
Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, issue 4, volume 87
By Richard N. Rosecrance, Adjunct Professor; Senior Fellow, International Security Program and Arthur A. Stein
"Muller argues that ethnonationalism is the wave of the future and will result in more and more independent states, but this is not likely. One of the most destabilizing ideas throughout human history has been that every separately defined cultural unit should have its own state. Endless disruption and political introversion would follow an attempt to realize such a goal. Woodrow Wilson gave an impetus to further state creation when he argued for "national self-determination" as a means of preventing more nationalist conflict, which he believed was a cause of World War I...."
February 13, 2008
"Europe's Power to Lead"
Op-Ed, Cypress Mail
By Joseph S. Nye, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations
"European countries’ success in overcoming centuries of animosity, and the development of a large internal market, has given them a great deal of soft power. At the Cold War’s end, East European countries did not try to form local alliances, as they did in the 1920s, but looked toward Brussels to secure their future. Similarly, countries like Turkey and Ukraine have adjusted their policies in response to their attraction to Europe."
AP Photo
Winter 2007/08
"America's Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 3, volume 32
In recent years, Democrats and Republicans have endorsed illiberal policies that include the pursuit of global hegemony, the launching of a preventive war, restrictions on civil liberties, and torture. These policies seem to contradict the Liberal tradition of the United States, but it is precisely this tradition that compels Americans to spread their values around the world and combat terrorism in this way. Only a foreign policy strategy based on realism—a decidedly non-Liberal way of viewing the world—will preserve the domestic virtues of Liberalism while diminishing its negative effects abroad.
Fall/Winter 2007
"Offshore Balancing or International Institutions? The Way Forward for U.S. Foreign Policy"
Journal Article, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, issue 1, volume XIV
By G. John Ikenberry and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
G. John Ikenberry, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, participated in a debate at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University on May 8, 2007. Christopher Lydon hosted the debate.
November 14, 2007
"The Impressive—But Limited—Soft Power of the United Nations"
Op-Ed, The Daily Star
By Joseph S. Nye, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations
"The UN has impressive power — both hard and soft — when states agree on policies under Chapter 7 of the Charter. It has modest but useful soft power when great powers disagree but are willing to acquiesce in a course of action. And it has very little power when the great powers oppose an action, or repressive member governments ignore the claims of the new "responsibility to protect." In such cases, it makes no sense to blame the UN. Soft power is real, but it has its limits. The fault lies not with the UN, but with the lack of consensus among member states."
November 7, 2007
"Smart Power and the U.S. Strategy for Security in a Post-9/11 World"
Testimony
By Joseph S. Nye, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations and Richard Armitage
Joseph S. Nye and Richard Armitage testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Hearing on Smart Power and the U.S. Strategy for Security in the Post-9/11 World
Fall 2007
"The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 2, volume 32
New historical evidence reveals that World War I, far from being accidental, was provoked by German leaders who hoped to dominate the European continent, fully aware that the conflict would be long and bloody. They did not have a blueprint for quick victory embodied in the Schlieffen Plan; they did not misjudge the nature of modern war; and they did not lose control of events and attack out of fear of their enemies moving first. This new historiography challenges the core concepts of defensive realism and calls for a reinterpretation of the war as it relates to causes of conflict.
Summer-Fall 2007
"The Virtues and Vices of Fixed Territorial Ownership"
Journal Article, The SAIS Review of International Affairs, issue 2, volume XXVII
By Boaz Atzili, Research Fellow, International Security Program
Today, territorial ownership of states is essentially fixed, in marked contrast to earlier periods in history. This change has affected states in two very different ways. In regions in which most states are socio-politically strong, fixed territorial ownership is a blessing. It enhances peace, stability, and cooperation between states. In regions in which most states are socio-politically weak, however, fixed territorial ownership is largely a curse. It perpetuates and exacerbates states' weakness, and contributes to internal conflicts that often spill overacross international borders.
