Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T00:33:35.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why there is International Theory now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Duncan Snidal  and
Alexander Wendt
Duncan Snidal*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Harris Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Alexander Wendt*
Affiliation:
Mershon Center and Political Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
*
E-mail: snidal@uchicago.edu
E-mail: Wendt.23@osu.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
Original Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

References

Brunnee, J.Toope, S. (2000), ‘International Law and constructivism: elements of an interactional theory of International Law’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 39(1): 19–74.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. (2004), Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, H. (1977), The Anarchical Society, New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J.Wendt, A. (2002), ‘Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Kahler, M., Keohane, R.OSlaughter, A.-M. (eds) (2001), Legalization and World Politics, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (ed.) (1996), Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R. (1990), Martin Wight, International Theory and the good life, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 19(2): 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.Nye, J. (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C.Snidal, D. (eds) (2004), The Rational Design of International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2002), ‘“The Lady Doth protest too much”. Kosovo, and the turn to ethics in International Law’, The Modern Law Review 65: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oye, K. (ed.) (1986), Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. (ed.) (2008), Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C.Snidal, D. (2008), ‘Between Utopia and reality: the practical discourses of International Relations’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M., Tulumello, A.Wood, S. (1998), ‘International Law and International Relations theory: a new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship’, American Journal of International Law 92(3): 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, J. (1974), Nonintervention and International Order, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wight, M. (1966), ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations, London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar