Rosenau provides an overview of normative issues confronting us at the end of the twentieth century. He writes that the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is the story of convergence around ever more encompassing political entities in order to preserve individual values in the context of collective needs and wants; but today the process of community building has been reversed. He concludes that today, the story is one of fragmentation, of people opting for individual and subgroup needs and wants, and neither citizens nor leaders have any experience in adapting their traditional values to the demands of subgroupism and the increasing ineffectiveness, even the breakup, of whole systems.

Kegley asks whether in a culturally pluralistic global community it is possible to find a common normative principle that statesmen from diverse ethical traditions might embrace to discipline democratic behavior. He sets the stage for a discussion of ethical precepts that transcend artificial boundaries between East and West, North and South.

The fundamental question is whether the non-Western world is capable of developing our form of liberal democratic self-government, despite our differences in tradition and culture. The author taps on several critical differences of interpretation of what we consider to be integral to our form of government, such as John Locke's concept of “civil society”; the idea of “pluralism”; and the concept of “inherent human rights” counsel, which have distinctly different meanings in the West compared to those of Central and Eastern Europe. Interestingly, the differences are indicative of the profound cultural and historic differences of the societies engaged in the interpretation and adaption of these ideas. The author is optimistic in the regard of democracy “traveling,” provided that individuals recognize their own identity within the democratic society and acquire practice in exercising their freedoms. In this way, not only will democracy flourish under previously dictatorial regimes, but will continue to persist where it is already established.

Buultjens addresses the problem of integration and fragmentation in considering the cyclical patterns of democracy and the question of whether or not his most recent democratic moment will hold. His work builds on a basic question as to how citizens and leaders can “adhere to the middle of the road paved by traditional values when the course of history is moving groups and nations toward narrowly defined, self-serving solutions.” He finds some reasons for optimism in the new political realities that are potential sources for constructive integration. He discusses the future prospects for democracy by asking whether the present “democratic starburst” can be translated into durable systems and working institutions.

The end of the Cold War and the reduction of tensions between East and West have generated talk of a “new world order” in which greater cooperation between states might be possible. These developments also raise the possibility that state behavior might be constrained more than ever before by shared moral standards, contributing further to the reduction in international tensions. Brinkoetter investigates the potential role that shared moral standards - and international ethics in general - may play in this new world order. The role that one finds for international ethics in the new world order depends upon whose version of it is being evaluated - in this case George Bush's.

This article examines the present bifurcation of policy-making into domestic and foreign components, and urges a theoretical effort aimed at unifying national policy by integrating its various components. Beyond such an urging, the article aims to show that the act of making policy invariably involves decisions about events that take place both within and outside of a nation. This is not a claim for the superiority of any one segment of policy making. What is important or trivial is determined within a means-ends continuum. In breaking down artificial barriers inherited from nationalist models, it is possible to institutionalize a policy process that takes into account “shrinkage” of the world that is a direct consequence of new information technologies, and at the same time, incorporates the wisdom of classical ethical theories on the nature of power.

Chopra and Weiss address perhaps the fundamental issue in international relations today: the sacrosanct sets of sovereignty. The word “sovereignty” explains why the international community has difficulty countering human rights violations. The authors address questions such as “Is there a line between a state's sovereignty and the international community?”, and “Can there be laws to guide states and collections of states in determining when this line can or should be violated?” by studying recent cases where human rights came into conflict with intervention.

The author investigates Status's provocative ideas on the ethical dilemma in statecraft, and then compares and contrasts his position with that of three of the most important contributors to the German tradition of Realpolitik; Frederick the Great, Hegel, and Ranke. He also discusses Status's complex relationship to Social Darwinism and the relationship of his ideas on statecraft to those of one of his most influential critics, Friedrich Meinecke. He argues that the superficial mood of Western triumphalism, precipitated by the crisis of Communism, is symptomatic of the recurrent failure in the United States to soberly reflect upon the prospects for significantly ameliorating the oft-times tragic nature of international political developments in the twentieth century. He claims that conversation with Status, the seminal historical pessimist of the twentieth century, helps to provide an imperfect but useful corrective to this optimistic perspective.

This essay seeks to bring Reinhold Niebuhr into the postructuralist dialogue in order to suggest that his writings are far more constructive about the human predicament. The essay begins by presenting eleven positions commonly taken by poststructuralists. It then examines similarities between Niebuhr and postructuralist thinkers in their interrogation of the Enlightenment to expose the illusions of reason and progress and in their exposure of the Marxist philosophy of history as a false teleology that dramatizes truth and freedom emerging triumphant from conflict and struggle. Instead of posing postructuralist constraints and incarceration, however, Niebuhr's theology and philosophy of history offer indeterminate potentialities for freedom. Whereas the poststructuralists fetishize systems and structures, Niebuhr believes in the possibilities of human agency. And while Foucault presents us with a theory of oppression without an oppressor, Niebuhr seeks to show how power issues from ourselves, from the sin-prone ego that prevents consciousness from rising to knowledge of the motives for its own actions. The essay argues, finally, that in Niebuhr power and morality meet in one, with a suspicious glance at the disavowal of power and the pretensions of morality, and with responsibility for the use of power remaining within mind, will, and conscience.

This essay is an exploration of the ramifications for the Middle East of the profound transformations in global politics implied in the end of the Cold War and the birth of a new, American-dominated world order. In doing so, Anderson takes up an issue posed since the birth of many of today's Middle Eastern states after World War I: the influence of great-power politics in the Middle East and within the individual states of the region which, added to local traditions, result in an explosive mix. She concludes with the prospects for Middle East democracy in the new world order.

The three books reviewed in this essay, Morality Among Nations: An Evolutionary View (Mary Maxwell), Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American Culture in the Nuclear Age (Joel H. Rosenthal), and Securing Europe (Richard H. Ullman), in some sense represent a reaction to Reagan's ideological policies. Maxwell's book appeals to the sociobiological nature of international morality. Rosenthal's book invites the reader to consider the valid view of the realist model as a venue toward integration of morals with decision making in international relations. Ullman's main premise is that the disintegration of the Soviet empire and reunification of Germany gave a strong impetus for the European states to seek a common ground in all areas through cooperation, particularly on security issues.