Search

The realities of interdependence dictate that the ability of governments to pursue domestic policies effectively is influenced and constrained by developments in the international system. It is equally evident that the realization of international objectives depends meaningfully on domestic politics and economics. Our purpose in this paper is to lay the foundation for a Realist theory of state action which bridges domestic and international politics. We proceed by positing assumptions about state objectives and deducing strategies relevant to their pursuit. First, we examine conceptions of the state found in classical and structural Realism. Second, we present two models or "faces" of state action which relate the goals of state officials in one arena to the strategies available in the pursuit of such goals in the other. Third, building upon these two models, we put forth several hypotheses which explore the types of challenges to the state that arise in one arena that may trigger responses in the second. Fourth, we introduce variations in domestic and international structures and predict the choice of strategy made by the states across venues. Finally, a concluding section examines the implications of this effort for future Realist inquiry and the study of domestic and international politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues for conceiving international relations, including studies of world political order and disorder, as the intersection and union of behavioral-scientific, dialectical/Marxist and traditional approaches. Each is a tradition of scholarship, with dominant and inferior tendencies, visible in all parts of the scholarly world. A content analysis of Kornberg's collection of recent American international course lists shows a parochial behavioralism to dominate the instruction offered at our ‘leading’ universities. An intensive analysis of Waltz's influential treatment of radical/dialectical theorists shows many signs of the same myopia, as well as its consequences. Both epistemological and political differences in context are important for better, more ‘worldly’ and sophisticated research and teaching. Debates and convergences cutting across approaches or more specialized research programs are particularly important in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]