Revisiting Peace Research In The 21st Century Essay Sample
As I grow older I ground more and more of my instruction and authorship in the context of my ain professional history. I studied news media and political scientific discipline in college in the late fiftiess and earned a Masterss degree in political scientific discipline in 1962. After short stretchs in the military and working for the societal security disposal. I decided to prosecute a Ph. D in political scientific discipline. Missing a political vision much beyond liberalism and devoid of any practical political work. I thought being a professor would do a nice calling.
As most of you remember or have read about. the mid-1960s was a clip of agitation. Brave immature people. from the South and the North. launched a heroic run to stop Jim Crow segregation in the South. From the Gulf of Tonkin declaration in August. 1964 authorising President Johnson to intensify war in Southeast Asia. to the day-to-day bombardments over Vietnam ( Operation Rolling Thunder ) in 1965 to 540. 000 military personnels in South Vietnam by 1968. battles over the war in Vietnam and foreign policy in general enveloped the society. The 60s was a clip besides when the last traces of colonialism were being dismantled. Merely Lusitanian Africa resisted alteration as did white minority governments in the former Rhodesia and South Africa. In the Western Hemisphere. the Cuban revolution represented the hope of world for the building of a better universe.
It was an exciting clip to be alive. to go politicized. and to originate a instruction and research calling. I was drawn to the survey of international dealingss and United States foreign policy within political scientific discipline.
Social Science Paradigms: Realism. Behavioralism. and Modernization
I had studied international dealingss. foreign policy. and diplomatic history in college. My “radical” instructors in college were critical of the foreign policies of presidents Truman and Eisenhower. They besides condemned the most simplistic versions of the Cold War account of universe personal businesss. and the excessively avid stigmatization of all critics of United States foreign policy as being “communists. ”
I was influenced by my professors and the scholarly literature of the clip to see the universe from the lens of “the theory of political pragmatism. ” Foundational theoreticians who shaped the discourse on international dealingss included British historian E. H. Carr ( 1964 ) . theologian Reinhold Niebuhr ( 1947 ) . retired diplomat George Kennan ( 1957 ) . and political scientist Hans Morgenthau ( 1960 ) . The theory of political pragmatism they propounded Drew upon the classical Hagiographas of ascendants such as Thucydides. St. Augustine. Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli. and James Madison ( see Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff. 1971 ) . Each in their ain manner saw war and force as emanating from human nature. thrusts for power. greed. and personal award. In a universe of each against all. military capablenesss. “balances of power. ” and other devices whereby the power of one could be checked by the power of another constituted the tools for muffling. but ne’er extinguishing. war and force.
The modern-day realists. for illustration. Kennan and Morgenthau were critics of United States foreign policy non because the U. S. was interventionist or because the American authorities had launched an weaponries race with the former Soviet Union but because these activities were defended in the name of advancing freedom and democracy instead than “national interest” and “security. ” The job with the anti-communist announcements of the twenty-four hours and the promises of human release they articulated was that they were non accomplishable. There must be. the realists said. a tantrum between ends. rhetoric. and policy. And the figure one end that any state must prosecute is progressing national involvement and security. In a universe of ageless force. this was all that could be achieved.
While most teachers of undergraduate classs on international dealingss used Hans Morgenthau’s authoritative text. Politicss Among Nations ( it survived 11 editions ) . newer currents were emerging in the alumnus survey of international dealingss. Following the Soviet launch of Sputnik. an emerging U. S. cultural jubilation of scientific discipline. President Kennedy promised that an American would be on the Moon by the terminal of the 1960ss. Possibly most significantly because of the joust in Defense Department policies and forces from antique military wisdom to modern scientific direction. the survey of international dealingss began to switch toward the “scientific survey of international dealingss. ” Now. societal scientific discipline research workers needed to travel beyond description of political events and policies to explicate them and predict hereafter results. The new survey of international dealingss should encompass scientific techniques: postulate hypotheses. operationalize them clearly by placing variables that could be measured. and “test” the hypotheses by analyzing the information utilizing statistical techniques. The behavioural scientific discipline theoretical account became the dominant paradigm throughout the subject of political scientific discipline and significantly so in the survey of international dealingss ( Kaplan. 1966 ; Targ. 1983 ) .
While several theories became stylish in the survey of international dealingss and comparative political relations possibly none would hold a greater impact on societal scientific discipline and public policy than modernisation theory ( see Nils Gilman. 2003 ) . Get downing in the fiftiess with assorted preparations of structural functionalism. taking societal scientific discipline bookmans from Harvard. MIT. Yale. Princeton. and the University of Chicago developed a paradigm to explicate why the “newly” independent states of the universe were sing birth stabs of force and poorness. why they were non democracies. and why insurgent elements. such as anti-regime guerilla combatants. were actively seeking to sabotage development. The modernisation theoreticians studied the development of Europe and North America and concluded that societies needed to develop secular in-between category societies. governed by leaders with scientific and proficient preparation. At a certain phase. substructure development. in-between category formation. professionalisation of elites. and qualitative displacements from theological to scientific points of position would give democratic political establishments. When bookmans spoke about public personal businesss. many of them suggested that that procedure of modernisation was what was behind United States foreign policy.
Upon contemplation so. the 1960s was a decennary of political convulsion. on college campuses an waking up from the sleepiness of the fifties. and in the larger universe an escalation of the weaponries race. U. S. planetary interventionism. and the Vietnam war. Parallel to these political alterations a new societal scientific discipline was emerging as establishments of higher instruction exploded in Numberss. involvement in societal scientific discipline expanded. and the Department of Defense. the National Science Foundation and other beginnings began to fund large-scale undertakings of relevancy to international dealingss and development. In this context pragmatism ( although worsening in popularity ) . behavioralism. and modernisation grew to rule the survey of international dealingss.
Detecting Peace Research
I wrote about these contradictory currents at the clip ( Targ. 1971. 207 ) :
Since the dramatic escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965 and increasing racial struggles in urban countries. pupils and immature module have begun to re-evaluate the dominant motives of scientific enquiry: the relationship of cognition to U. S. foreign policy. the interaction of cognition and societal control. and the adequateness and/or insufficiency of cognition as docket and usher to societal alteration.
Energized by these urges. as pupil and immature professor. my wonder gravitated toward “peace research. ” I was foremost attracted to two outstanding diaries ; The Journal of Conflict Resolution. produced at the Center for Research on Conflict Resolution ( CRCR ) at the University of Michigan. and The Journal of Peace Research. the Institute for Peace Research. Oslo. Norway.
The JCR published articles that used the newer “scientific methods. ” were theory and informations driven. and implied that the kineticss of interpersonal. national. and international struggle might be similar or “isomorphic. ” so that bookmans might analyze struggle at these different degrees of analysis to detect the implicit in causes of struggle and force. JCR had a distinguished list of subscribers and editors stand foring psychological science. societal psychological science. sociology. economic sciences. political scientific discipline. and mathematics.
The JPR initiated publication in 1964 with Johan Galtung as editor. In its first issue. Galtung described two possible universes ; one he referred to as a status of General and Complete War ( GCW ) . In this universe cooperation occurred within groups. but conflict characterized between group interactions. Individual and group ( and state ) histrions were motivated wholly by individualistic ends ; designation was with self entirely. In this province of GCW there were no effectual restraints on the usage of force.
Another possible status. Galtung posited. was one of General and Complete Peace ( GCP ) . This was a status in which human integrating prevailed. harmoniousness of persons. groups and states was a characteristic characteristic of human being. and force was minimized. In this initial issue of JPR. Galtung declared that the peace research undertaking was to analyze how to travel from GCW to GCP ( an terminal to force and integrating of human society ) . Peace research should analyze force in its interpersonal. national. and international manifestations. It should turn to bettering the human status. It should be interdisciplinary. normative and futuristic every bit good. And. of class. the peace research undertaking should utilize the latest of scientific techniques to analyze the motion from GCW to GCP.
The growing of influence of these diaries paralleled the enlargement of webs of professional peace research/peace surveies associations. These included the International Peace Research Association ( IPRA ) . the Canadian Peace Research Association. the Consortium on Peace Research Education and Development ( COPRED ) . now the Peace and Justice Studies Association ( PJSA ) . and the Peace Science Society. Peace surveies caucuses were created in professional associations including those of societal psychologists. international dealingss bookmans. and sociologists.
As I acquainted myself more with peace research I became cognizant of the rational and activist tradition from which it evolved. First. peace research evolved from a long history of peace instruction. Religious pacificists and peace militants long preached and taught approximately options to force. Peace instruction frequently developed in parallel with anti-war activism. From Congregational. Unitarian. and Quaker meetings to anti-slavery and anti-war motions in the 19th and 20th centuries. militants every bit different as Henry David Thoreau. Jane Addams. Mark Twain. and Eugene V. Debs wrote and spoke about peace.
Second. peace surveies of assorted sorts evolved out of practical diplomatic accomplishments such as the Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907 which codified elements of international jurisprudence. These were followed after World War I with the first academic course of study on international jurisprudence.
Third. a organic structure of peace research scholarship was published in the period from the 1930s to the sixtiess that served as the theoretical account for the peace research tradition that followed. David Mitrany. a British bookman. wrote A Working Peace System. in 1943. which analyzed the chances for planetary integrating based upon cross-national economic. societal. and functional ties between peoples. He provided a model that stimulated the survey of regional “integration” in Europe. Africa. and Latin America in the sixtiess.
Major experimental surveies of war were published between 1940 and the late sixtiess that dramatically advanced the thought that data on wars. their frequence. causes. and effects could be accumulated such that assorted hypotheses associating these to each other could be tested. Quincy Wright. political scientist. published a 2. 000 page data-rich book on the history of war called A Study of War ( 1942 ) . Lewis Richardson. a retired meteorologist. gathered informations on wars from 1815 to 1945. Statisticss of Deadly Quarrels ( 1960 ) . Pitirim Sorokin’s four volume. Social and Cultural Dynamics ( 1957 ) . included historical informations on internal and international wars over clip. associating the frequence of such wars to cultural properties. In the 1950s and 60s Rudolph Rummel gathered an array of informations. from his Dimensionality of Nations Project ( 1968 ) as did long-time political scientist/peace research worker J. David Singer who published books and articles based on The Correlates of War Project ( 1972 ) .
In add-on to the rich history. peace research was progressively stimulated by the acknowledgment of the world’s greatest weaponries race. the turning danger of a atomic war that could destruct world. and an intense planetary ideological battle defined as between “communism” and “the free universe. ” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists portrayed a clock with the custodies gauging how near the universe was to midnight. the hr of atomic apocalypse. Each crisis would take the editors of the diary to travel the custodies on the clock to the top of the hr.
Peace Research Battles: Traditionalists vs. Groups
Despite the turning involvement in peace research. dominant paradigms in international dealingss. political scientific discipline. and history continued to reify power as the cardinal construct driving political analysis. This was so even among those who had gravitated to peace research.
The universe was understood as one dominated by two world powers supervising two viing power axis. The bipolar universe was a peculiar discrepancy of the province system that was created in the 17th century. The ultimate units of analysis were separate and distinguishable nation-states. Since a few were ever more powerful than all others. international dealingss became the survey of powerful provinces.
For the most portion traditional peace research workers concerned themselves with struggle between powerful provinces. peculiarly because of the danger of atomic war. For them. struggle. hence. was symmetrical. based on subjective factors such as misperceptions. misinterpretations. and miscommunications. and involved approximately equal antagonists. [ The work of Roger Fisher and Charles Osgood on dialogues and schemes for deescalating struggles is relevant here ( 2010 ) ] . Because of the weaponries race of the station World War II period. so. they fashioned a peace research that was committed to conflict direction or declaration among the large powers. Their end was accomplishing negative peace. or war turning away.
For other peace research workers. this scholarly lens on the universe seemed progressively divorced from political world ( Eide. 1972 ) . The dreams of human release that came with the rapid decolonisation of the African continent were being derailed as what Kwame Nkrumah called “neo-colonialism” replaced formal colonialism. Gaps between rich and hapless peoples and states began their dramatic addition. Covert operations. military putschs. large power intercessions in hapless states increased. Wars ensued against peoples in South and East Asia. the Middle East. Africa. and Latin America. And transnational corporations were distributing their operations all across the Earth. originating the first great moving ridge of outsourcings of production and occupations. For many Americans and Asians. the most racking experience of all these manifestations of planetary confusion was the Vietnam War.
In this historical context. extremist peace research workers began to reason that our apprehension of these phenomena required a important paradigm displacement. If we wanted to understand the universe in order to alter it we needed to interrupt out of the province centric. great powers. struggle direction construct of international dealingss. We needed to develop theories and prescriptions that helped us understand the universe we lived in so that we could work on the decrease of the tremendous spreads between human potency and human actuality ; and. hence. structural force.
These peace research workers called structural force the difference between how humanity could populate. secure in economic and societal justness. versus how most people live. They asked inquiries about the constructions and processes that prohibited the full realisation of human possibility. Peace research workers besides saw an inextricable connexion between direct force. or killing. which was the more traditional topic of peace research. and structural force. which involved the institutionalization of human wretchedness. Further. they hypothesized that there were connexions between imperialism. the workings of capitalist economy. patriarchate. institutionalised racism. societal and economic unfairness and both direct and structural force.
More specifically. extremist peace research workers began to see that both direct and structural force resulted from a planetary political/economic/ and cultural system in which Centers of Power within and between states controlled and exploited Periphery states and people. A system of imperialism existed whereby governing categories in nucleus states collaborated with opinion categories in peripheral states to work multitudes of people. This was a system that had its roots in the rise of capitalist economy out of feudal system. It was a system of imperial regulation. It was a system of patriarchate. It was a system of institutionalised racism. And wars were the consequence of battles for imperial control and domination. Extremist peace research workers borrowed thoughts from dependence theory and grafted them onto traditional theories of imperialism to offer an alternate paradigm to the state-centric. power goaded theoretical account that dominated the academy and political punditry ( Galtung. 1971 ) .
The Cult of Power
Berenice Carroll added to the emerging paradigm displacement in her article “Peace Research: The Cult of Power” ( 1972 ) by deconstructing the usage of “power” as the concept cardinal to the traditional paradigm. Besides she alerted peace research workers to the inexplicit credence in their work of the cult of power. Possibly most significantly. Carroll offered an alternate construct of power that would radically airt survey in a manner to associate peace research to peace action. In short. her work reflected a tradition of scholarship and activism that called for the linking of theory and pattern.
Professor Carroll pointed out that virtually all theories of international dealingss began with a construct of power. And the power variable had seeped into the public consciousness of universe personal businesss every bit good. In its modern-day use “power” referred to command. laterality. and the ability to determine the consciousness and behaviour of others– persons. groups. and/or states. Hans Morgenthau. the most influential theoretician of international dealingss in those yearss said that power was cardinal to human personal businesss: “Power is the control of the heads and actions of others. ” and “international political relations like all political relations involves the battle for power. ” Carroll pointed out that theoreticians sometimes defined power as the ability to rule. Sometimes they defined power as the instrumentalities of control ( such as military capablenesss ) . Sometimes they defined power as a sensed position ordination of states. But what was cardinal here was control and domination. And every bit long as the ability to command and rule were unevenly distributed merely those with the greatest power were worthy of attending.
Carroll reminded us that there used to be definitions of power in public discourse that emphasized release instead than control. These older definitions included words like strength. competency. asperity. energy. authorization. the ability to realize. To cite Carroll. “Thus it appears that the presently prevailing apprehension of power as control and laterality is a development of recent decennaries. The more traditional significance centered on the thought of ability and strength. ” She went on to warn extremist peace research workers that while they clearly had a better appreciation of world. they excessively reified power in the modern use. She suggested that peace research workers failed to “…challenge the prevalent construct of power as laterality ; its preoccupation with establishments. groups or individuals which are perceived as powerful. and to some extent besides in a inclination for the research worker to place with those establishments. groups. or individuals which are seen as powerful ; ” that is the elites. the cardinal determination shapers. the nation-states and the world powers. The danger. she implied. is that we. the most progressive of bookmans and militants. may be unwittingly encompassing the conceptual tools that reinforce the position quo instead than take sides for societal alteration.
To exemplify her point in a manner relevant to peace theory. Carroll offered a graphic quotation mark from a distinguished bookman of that clip Karl Deutsch ( 1968 ) who wrote:
Today. and for one or more decennaries to come. the nation-states are and will be the world’s chief centres of power. They will stay such centres every bit long as the nation-state remains man’s first practical instrument for acquiring things done.
What deductions for peace theory did Professor Carroll suggest should be deduced from this “cult of power? ” First. scholar/activists needed to reject the impression that power represents laterality. Second. scholar/activists needed to broaden their research lens from concentrating on alleged powerful establishments. like the nation-state. or determination devising elites and get down to analyze the entireness of the social/political/ and cultural terrain. Third. scholar/activists needed to use the older construct of power as realization. competency. averment of rights ; in other words a vision of power that understands that historical alteration is a complicated matter affecting multitudes of people non normally studied or valued by modern-day scholarship. Fourth. scholar/activists needed to reject a frame on world. accepted even by the more extremist. that presents history as the battle between the powerful and victims and which portrays people as impotent to asseverate their rights and privileges. ( I would reason that discourse in the academy is peculiarly good at bordering political world which consists of t people who are powerless. or nescient. or missing in resources to asseverate themselves. or are in the terminal the cause of their ain victimhood. This projection is peculiarly strong among those who ne’er set pes off the college campus as they pontificate about the behaviour of people ) .
Summarizing this up. Professor Carroll wrote ;
…one of the most baneful effects of the cultist constructs of power is that it has built up a strong association between the deficiency of power in the sense of laterality and impotence in the sense of helplessness… . To interrupt out of this cast what seems most desperately needed is to reconstruct to public consciousness andto the consciousness of bookmans the thought of power as competency ; to develop that thought more to the full by distinguishing the sorts of energy. ability. and strength which it may connote and. in peculiar. to seek to analyze powers of the allegedly powerless-the sorts of competency and potencies for independent action which are available to those who do non hold the power of dominance… .
Subsequent Developments in Peace Research and Peace Studies
Since the 1960s there have been paradigmatic differences in many of the societal scientific disciplines and humanistic disciplines. The rubric of an old book by Robert Lynd. poses the inquiry that has been raised many times: “Knowledge for What? ” ( 1970 ) Debates about values used in the choice of what to research and for what intents surfaced in extremist caucuses in doctrine. sociology. political scientific discipline. history. psychological science. and the modern linguistic communication association. Besides debates were forthcoming in international surveies about the substance of the field of survey and the class/race/gender positions reflected in dominant paradigms.
Peace research/peace surveies has grown peculiarly since the sixtiess. Numerous diaries turn toing peace research have been produced. About 250 colleges and universities have undergraduate plans in peace surveies. A few universities have peace surveies or likewise defined alumnus plans. International conferences. frequently organized under the auspices of IPRA. have been held all over the universe and good known peace research bookmans from every continent have participated in academic conferences and published original research.
Some peace research workers have combined their involvement in peace surveies with parallel and every bit interdisciplinary chases. Berenice Carroll. for illustration. has been a taking feminist bookman and while take parting in the Committee on Peace Studies at Purdue University besides served as the Chairperson of a alumnus and undergraduate plan in Women’s Studies.
While growing and development of peace surveies from both research and educational point of views has been blunt conceptual arguments. rank-ordering of undertakings. and other outstanding issues of difference remain.
First. at that place has ever been a tenseness between those who view the survey of peace in higher instruction as chiefly a scholarly undertaking and those who see the research docket for peace as accessory to activism. In add-on. different accents have emerged between those who support research versus those who highlight learning ( including peace teaching methods from K through 12 ) .
Second. there is a tenseness between those who see their work as chiefly empirical and others who argue for the centrality of normativity: fundamentally debating whether research and instruction should turn to what is or what ought to be.
Third. argument continues on foundational constructs: force and peace. Particularly. peace research workers and militants split on whether precedences should be placed on issues of direct force or structural force. In add-on inquiries exist about whether the war job can be resolved before we solve the societal unfairness job.
Fourth. issues have been raised about the possible intersections that can be created between the peace research forming constructs. force and peace. and forming constructs in Marxist. Feminist. and Critical Race theoretical literatures.
Fifth. sectors of the peace research community argue for a field of survey that is framed by rules of non-violence. Analysiss of what is. what should be. and how to acquire at that place. for these bookmans and militants is derived from contemplations on the literature of non-violence. Others emphasize the electoral sphere and a few still draw upon the literature of revolution. In any instance. many argue. peace research workers need to garner informations and analyze societal motions.
Sixth. the issues of difference described above between “traditional” and “radical” research have non disappeared. Cardinal to these is the topographic point of struggle declaration and mediation as tools of peace edifice.
Finally. peace surveies plans. as with many interdisciplinary and non-traditional plans. are and will be under careful examination because of the economic crisis in higher instruction. As major universities are required to shrivel their budgets many have called for extinguishing “frills” in the course of study. “Frills” . it is understood. refer to broad humanistic disciplines classs and peculiarly non-traditional and interdisciplinary plans. In add-on. there have been rightwing onslaughts on all interdisciplinary plans by showy self-seekers such as David Horowitz. Three Indiana professors were named to Horowitz’s grand list of the 101 most unsafe professors ( 2006 ) . All three were affiliated with Peace Studies plans.
Where make we travel from here?
For a immature faculty member who was easy drawn into the whirlpool of anti-war activities in the sixtiess and as a immature faculty member who desired to associate his instruction and research to the activism of that point in clip. peace research provided an rational ground tackle. a theoretical account for incorporating theory and pattern. and an academic community that could excite rational development. That tradition and the arguments raised within it. such as what we mean by force and peace. are as relevant today as in the past. We must form to support the viability of subjects such as Peace Research as they are capable to assorted political onslaughts.
In add-on. peace research must go on to be a theoretical account for engaged scholarship. It should pull upon issues of the decrease of force. bettering the human status. and acknowledging the possible strengths of the disempowered. As implied from Professor Carroll’s deconstruction of the “cult of power. ” the followers should steer the peace research and instruction community in the hereafter.
1 ) We need in our scholarship to stress the centrality of workers. adult females. people of colour. and all alleged marginalized people as makers of history. or at least to acknowledge their function in making history.
2 ) We need to prosecute in research undertakings that might assist persons. groups. and classes gain assurance and strength in their societal undertakings.
3 ) We need to widen our scholarship to the survey and jubilation of those who have chosen the way to authorization and the rating of their comparative successes and failures. This would non be an exercising in romanticism but instead an exercising in developing a more sophisticated apprehension of history and alteration.
4 ) We need to construct our theories and our research skills through active battle in the procedure of societal alteration. Theoretical proof comes from engagement non backdown.
5 ) We need to associate theoretical accounts of authorization to all sectors of society. We can non encompass the issue of competency. strength. and self-actualization for one constituency and utilize traditional theoretical accounts of domination to seek to understand other parallel constituencies. Here is where understanding the connexions between category. race. and gender play a peculiarly of import function.
Finally. peace research and activism should broaden its lens on the universe to research and measure motions for extremist alteration everyplace. We need to larn more about the World Social Forum and the monolithic figure of organisations which comprise its “membership. ” And. in add-on. we need to make out to and analyze the wide array of motions originating in the Global South. For illustration. we should detect the turning opposition to neoliberal globalisation. peculiarly among the states and peoples of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas ( ALBA ) . We need to reflect on the planetary significance of non-national autochthonal motions. cross-national signifiers of worker and women’s organisations. and the exciting array of new runs around land and mill businesss. Possibly most of all we need to measure the theory and pattern of what is called twenty-first century socialism.
Carr. E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Harper and Row. 1964.
Carroll. Berenice. “Peace Research: The Cult of Power. ” The Journal of Conflict Resolution. No. 4. December. 1972. 585-617.
Deutsch. Karl. W. the analysis of International Relations. Prentice-Hall. 1968.
Dougherty. James and Robert Pfaltzgraff. Contending Theories of International Relations. Lippincott. 1971.
Eide. Asbjorn. “Dialogue and Confrontation in Europe. ” The Journal of Conflict Resolution. No. 4. December. 1972. 511-523.
Fisher. Roger. William Ury. and Bruce Patton. “Getting to Yes. ” in David Barash erectile dysfunction. Approaches to Peace. Oxford Press. 2010. 71-78.
Galtung. Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism. ” Journal of Peace Research. No. 2. 1971. 81-119.
Gilman. Nils. Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Johns Hopkins. 2003.
Kaplan. Morton. “The New Great Argument: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations. ” World Politics. October. 1966.
Kennan. George. American Diplomacy. 1900-1950. Mentor. 1957.
Lynd. Robert. Knowledge for What? Princeton University Press. 1970.
Mitrany. David. A Working Peace System. Quadrangle. 1966.
Morgenthau. Hans. Politics Among Nations. Knopf. 1960.
Niebuhr. Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics. Scribners. 1947.
Osgood. Charles. “Disarmament Demands GRIT. ” in David Barash erectile dysfunction. Approaches to Peace. Oxford. 2010. 78-83.
Richardson. Lewis. Statisticss of Deadly Quarrels. Quadrangle. 1960.
Rummel Rudolph. “The Relationship Between National Attributes and Foreign Conflict Behavior. ” in J. David Singer erectile dysfunction. . Quantitative International Politics: Penetrations and Evidence. Free Press. 1968.
Singer. J. David and Melvin Small. The Wages of War 1816-1965. A Statistical Handbook. John Wiley. 1972.
Sorokin. Pitirim. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Porter Sargent. 1957.
Targ. Harry R. . International Relations in a World of Imperialism and Class Struggle. Schenkman. 1983.
Targ. Harry R. . “Social Science and a New Social Order. ” Journal of Peace Research. No. 3. 1971.
Wright. Quincy. A Study of War. University of Chicago. 1942.