Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T15:34:39.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tilting at windmills: a final reply to Jahn1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Andrew Moravcsik
Andrew Moravcsik*
Affiliation:
Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Department of Politics, Woodrow Wilson School, Robertson Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
*
* E-mail: amoravcs@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Correspondence: Is Liberal IR Theory Ideological?
Information
International Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 157 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

This article is a response to Beate Jahn, ‘Universal languages?: A reply to Moravcsik’, International Theory (2010), 2:1, 140–156. I am indebted to Mareike Kleine, Duncan Snidal and Alexander Wendt for suggestions on this response.

References

Acemoglu, D.Robinson, J.A. (2006), Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, G. (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1 edn., Boston, USA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Almond, G.Verba, S. (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Countries, Boston, USA: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1976), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, C. (2003), Democracy and Redistribution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (2000), The Post-Modern State and World Order, 2nd edn., London, UK: Demos.Google Scholar
Frieden, J. (1999), ‘Actors and preferences in international politics’, in D. Lake and R. Powell (eds), Strategic Choice and International Relations, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, pp. 39–76.Google Scholar
Hellman, G.Wolf, R. (1993), ‘Neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the future of 755 Nato’, Security Studies 3(1): 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, B. (2006), Classical Theory in International Relations, Cambridge, UK: New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, B. (2009), ‘Liberal internationalism: from ideology to empirical theory – and back again’, International Theory 1(3): 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, B. (2010), ‘Universal languages: A reply to Moravcsik?’, International Theory 2(1): 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khong, Y.F. (1992), Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, F. (2003), ‘The monologue of “Science” ’, International Studies Review 5(1): 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legro, J.W.Moravcsik, A. (1999), ‘Is anybody still a realist?’, International Security 24(2 Fall): 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, B. (1966), Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston, USA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1992), Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Center for International Affairs Working Paper Series 92–96. Cambridge: Harvard University 1992/rev. 1993.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1997), ‘Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics’, International Organization 51(4): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2003), ‘Liberal international relations theory: a scientific assessment’, in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Camdridge: MIT press. pp. 159–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2008), ‘The new liberalism’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 234–254.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2009), ‘Robert Keohane, Political Theorist’, in H. Milner and A. Moravcsik (eds), Power, Interdependence and Non-state Actors in World Politics: Research Frontiers, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2010), ‘Wahn, Wahn, Überall, Wahn. Defending liberal theory against relativism’, International Theory ….Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A.Schimmelfennig, F. (2009), ‘Liberal intergovernmentalism’, in T. Diez and A. Wiener (eds), European Integration Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
Oye, K. (1986), ‘Explaining cooperation under Anarchy: hypotheses and strategies’, in K. Oye (ed.), Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, K.A. (1998), ‘Domestic opposition and signaling in international crises’, The American Political Science Review 92(4): 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, S. (1960), Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, Boston, USA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar