Hegemonic, And Pluralistic Theories Of International Relations

Submitted By zareefhamid65
Words: 8608
Pages: 35

Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of International Relations: Some Comparative
Reflections on War Causation
Author(s): Franz Kohout
Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol.
24, No. 1, Power Cycle Theory and Global Politics. Cycle de pouvoir et politique mondiale
(Jan., 2003), pp. 51-66
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601329 .
Accessed: 12/03/2014 22:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 198.91.32.137 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:13:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Review(2003), Vol 24, No. 1, 51-66
InternationalPoliticalScience

I P S.

I

S P

. ii :;'? i ii:i??:.i::::

Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of
International Relations: Some Comparative
Reflections on War Causation
FRANZ
KOHOUT

ABSTRACT.
Comparisonof hegemonic stabilitytheory, transitiontheory, long cycle theory,and power cycle theory places this assessmentat the heart of the contemporarydebate over the dynamicunderstandingof internationalrelations.Pluralistic versushegemonic assumptions provide the key organizing principle for this examination of embedded implications. *
Keywords: Hegemonic stability * Long cycle * Power cycle
Transition

"All is in a state of flux" (Heraclitus)

Despite great progress in theorizing on the causation of war during the second half of the 20th century, the weaknesses and limits of the explanatory attempts created a sense of pessimism. As Jack Levy (1983: 1) described it: "Our understanding of war remains at an elementary level. No widely accepted theory of the causes of war exists and little agreement has emerged on the methodology through which these causes might be discovered." Is such a pessimistic view still appropriate, or have the social sciences made noticeable progress in explaining war? After two decades of intense theoretical debate and empirical testing, some scientific contributions have been made which are able to bring greater clarity into the complex subject, and at the beginning of a new century some optimism is permissible. In times of rapid economic, technical and ideological changes, the issue of war causation becomes even more crucial. Can we use organizational patterns such as a cyclical interpretation of world history to bring about a better understanding on the causation of war? Or do we require an organizational model which depends on a hegemon (dominant state) as the main organizer of the international system?
0192-5121 (2003/01) 24:1, 51-66; 028610 ? 2003 International Political Science Association
SAGE
Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi)

This content downloaded from 198.91.32.137 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:13:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

52

International
PoliticalScience
Review
24(1)

Or do we find more explanatory power in a pluralistic view of the world system?
The aim of this essay is to answer these questions by comparing different theoretical approaches and putting them into the larger framework of international relations theory. Of course, there are many causes for war;here the main focus lies in a macro analysis, or in other words in a