Review: States, Nations and the Great Powers
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200906400125 |
| Author | Richard Little |
| Subject Matter | Review |
| International Journal | Winter 2008-09 | 289 |
| Reviews |
STATES, NATIONS AND THE GREAT POWERS
The Sources of Regional War and Peace
Benjamin Miller
Cambridge: Camb ridge University Press, 2007. 500 pp, US$39.00 pape r
(ISBN 978-0-521-69161-1)
The end of the Cold War and the emergence of a unipolar world took almost
all theoris ts in international relations by surprise. Before the Berlin Wall
came down and the Soviet Union disintegrated, there was a widespread
presumption that, for better or worse, bipolarity would prove to be an
enduring structure of international politics. Although there were realists as
well as liberals who were optimistic that the more divisive aspects of
bipolarity could be overcome, few predicted that the task of managing a
bipolar world would come to such an abrupt and peaceful conclusion. The
sudden and almost complete collapse of communism was greeted by liberals
with unbound enthusiasm and this putative end of history was accompanied
by talk of a new world order and the emergence of an expanding zone of
peace that would, over time, extend into the peripheral zone of war. Realists
urged caution; some even argued that we would soon experience some regret
for the passing of bipolarity and most insisted, at least initially, that
unipolarity would not persist for any length of time. In fact, the new world
order never materialized and unipolarity has proved to be remarkably
resilient and so theoris ts of a ll colours have had to do some serious
rethinking.
Four very significant developments have emerged from the
reassessments that have taken place in recent years. First, it is now regularly
acknowledged that it is not possible to make sense of world politics simply
from a global perspective and that it is essential to accommodate a regional
perspective. In
Regions and Powers
, Buzan and Wæver (2003), for example,
reassess globa l security in ter ms of regional s ecurity complexes and in
A
World of Regions
, Katzenstein (2005) looks at Asia and Europe in the context
of what he calls the American imperium. Second, there has been a growing
recognition that research must incorporate both domestic and international
levels of analysis. Third, it is argued that we must endeavour to find ways of
integrating the insights of divergent paradigms, as Katzenstein and Sil
advocate in their forthcoming edited book
Analytical Eclecticism
(2009).
Finally, there is a growing insistence that we need to operate on a broader
historical canvas.
To continue reading
Request your trial