Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T19:34:28.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideology and international relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Michael Howard
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A distinctive feature of the evolution of the modern international system has been the emergence of ideologies so universalist in their assumptions that they have ignored, or worse, denied the cultural and political diversities of mankind—diversities which constitute the ineluctable framework of international politics and which make the conduct of foreign affairs such a complex and difficult craft. One major obstacle, however, to understanding the problems which this development poses for the theory and practice of international relations is the fact that the correct usage of the term ‘ideology’ is very much broader than that which is generally accepted today.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1989

References

1 Plamenatz, John, Ideology (London, 1970), p. 15.Google Scholar

2 Montesquieu, Baron de, trans. Thomas Nugent, The Spirit of the Laws (New York, 1949), p. 1.Google Scholar

3 Quoted by Kubalkova, V. and Cruickshank, A. A., ‘A double omission’, British Journal of International Studies, 3 (1977), p. 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Auden, W. H., Collected Shorter Poems 1930–1944 (London, 1950), p. 191.Google Scholar

5 Quoted by Minogue, K. R., Nationalism (London, 1969), p. 41.Google Scholar

6 Quoted by Kedourie, E., Nationalism (London, 1960), p. 83.Google Scholar

7 Quoted by Kohn, Hans, Prelude to Nation-States: the French and German Experience 1789–1815 (New York and London, 1967), p. 235.Google Scholar