Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order
dc.contributor.author | Wallensteen, Peter | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-14T14:01:23Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-14T14:01:23Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1984 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Wallensteen, 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.issn | 0022-3433 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68816 | |
dc.description.abstract | Relations 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.extent | 3108 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 1270656 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.publisher | Sage Publications | en_US |
dc.title | Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Political Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Government, Politics and Law | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68816/2/10.1177_002234338402100304.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/002234338402100304 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Peace Research | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Botnen, Ingvar, ed. 1983. Fakta om Krig og Fred. Oslo: Pax. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Choucri, Nazli & Robert C. North 1975. Nations in Conflict. National Growth and International Violence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Common Security. A Programme for Disarmament 1982. Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security. London: Pan. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | De Porte, A.W. 1979. Europe between the Superpowers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Falk, Richard and Saul Mendlovitz 1973. Regional Politics and World Order. San Francisco: Freeman. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Falk, Richard 1975. A Study of Future Worlds, New York : Free Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hoffman, Stanley 1980. Primacy or World Order. American Foreign Policy since the Cold War. New York: Mc Graw Hill. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kennan, George 1979. The Decline of Bismarck's European Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kindleberger, Charles P. 1978. Economic Response. Comparative Studies in Trade, Finance and Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kindleberger, Charles P. 1964. Èconomic Growth in France and Britain, 1851-1950. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Nincic, Miroslav 1982. The Arms Race. New York: Praeger. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Parsons, Talcott & Edward A. Shils, eds. 1951. Towards a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Patem, Michael 1983. 'The Buffer System in International Relations', Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3-26. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rosecrance, Richard N. 1963. Action and Reaction in World Politics. Boston: Little, Brown. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sipri 1983. World Armaments and Disarmament. London: Taylor and Francis. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Small, Melvin & J. David Singer 1982. Resort to Arms. Beverly Hills: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stebbins, 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.citedreference | Väyrynen, 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.citedreference | Wallensteen, 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.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
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.