Show simple item record

Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order

dc.contributor.authorWallensteen, Peteren_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-14T14:01:23Z
dc.date.available2010-04-14T14:01:23Z
dc.date.issued1984en_US
dc.identifier.citationWallensteen, Peter (1984). "Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order." Journal of Peace Research 21(3): 243-257. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68816>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-3433en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68816
dc.description.abstractRelations between major powers can be described as shifting between universalism and particularism. In periods of universalism, major powers try to work out acceptable rules of behavior among one another, whereas in periods of particularism, they emphasize special interests of special powers. The way historians see shifts in major power relations since 1816 largely follows such a classification. By comparing the policies pursued during four periods of universalism and four periods of particularism, as well as analysing what ended or initiated such periods, the limits of major power universalism can be evaluated. Particularly, the short-comings of the recent period of detente are illuminated. Also some principles for a more enduring form of universalism are suggested.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent1270656 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleUniversalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Orderen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPolitical Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Lawen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Department of Political Science, University of Michiganen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68816/2/10.1177_002234338402100304.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/002234338402100304en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Peace Researchen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBotnen, Ingvar, ed. 1983. Fakta om Krig og Fred. Oslo: Pax.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoucri, Nazli & Robert C. North 1975. Nations in Conflict. National Growth and International Violence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCommon Security. A Programme for Disarmament 1982. Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security. London: Pan.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Porte, A.W. 1979. Europe between the Superpowers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFalk, Richard and Saul Mendlovitz 1973. Regional Politics and World Order. San Francisco: Freeman.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFalk, Richard 1975. A Study of Future Worlds, New York : Free Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoffman, Stanley 1980. Primacy or World Order. American Foreign Policy since the Cold War. New York: Mc Graw Hill.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKennan, George 1979. The Decline of Bismarck's European Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKindleberger, Charles P. 1978. Economic Response. Comparative Studies in Trade, Finance and Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKindleberger, Charles P. 1964. Èconomic Growth in France and Britain, 1851-1950. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNincic, Miroslav 1982. The Arms Race. New York: Praeger.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParsons, Talcott & Edward A. Shils, eds. 1951. Towards a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePatem, Michael 1983. 'The Buffer System in International Relations', Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3-26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosecrance, Richard N. 1963. Action and Reaction in World Politics. Boston: Little, Brown.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSipri 1983. World Armaments and Disarmament. London: Taylor and Francis.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmall, Melvin & J. David Singer 1982. Resort to Arms. Beverly Hills: Sage.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStebbins, R.P. and E.P. Adams, eds. 1976. American Foreign Relations 1972. A Documentary Record. New York: New York University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVäyrynen, Raimo 1983. 'Economic Cycles, Power Transitions, Political Management and Wars between Major Powers', International Studies Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 389-418.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWallensteen, Peter 1981. 'Incompatibility, Confrontation and War. Four Models and Three Historical Systems, 1816-1976', Journal of Peace Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57-90.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.