Classical political theorists such as Thucydides, Kant, Rousseau, Smith, Hegel, Grotius, Mill, Locke and Clausewitz are often employed to explain and justify contemporary international politics and are seen to constitute the different schools of thought in the discipline. However, traditional interpretations frequently ignore the intellectual and historical context in which these thinkers were writing as well as the lineages through which they came to be appropriated in International Relations. This collection of essays provides alternative interpretations sensitive to these political and intellectual contexts and to the trajectory of their appropriation. The political, sociological, anthropological, legal, economic, philosophical and normative dimensions are shown to be constitutive, not just of classical theories, but of international thought and practice in the contemporary world. Moreover, they challenge traditional accounts of timeless debates and schools of thought and provide new conceptions of core issues such as sovereignty, morality, law, property, imperialism and agency.

Drawing on a tripartite taxonomy first suggested by the so-called English School of International Relations of a Hobbesian tradition of power politics, a Grotian tradition of concern with the rules that govern relations between states; and a Kantian tradition of thinking which transcends the existence of the states system, this book discusses the thinking of central political theorists about the modern states system. Thinkers covered are Hobbes, Grotius, Kant, Vitoria, Rousseau, Smith, Burke, Hegel, Gentz and Vattel.

A group of international contributors critically assess how traditional interpretations of classical political theorists frequently ignore the intellectual and historical context in which they wrote. The essays provide alternative interpretations sensitive to these contexts and the trajectory of their appropriation in the international relations discipline.

This book calls for a reappraisal of liberalism in IR theory. Based on the first comprehensive analysis of the ideas by David Hume, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and a new perspective on Adam Smith and international relations, the analysis shows that classical liberalism differs substantially from other forms of liberalism.

In the tradition of the English School of International Relations theory, this project from Robert Jackson seeks to show how continuities in international politics outweigh the changes. The author demonstrates how the world is neither one of anarchy, as put forward by realists, nor is it a fully cosmopolitan order, as argued by those on the other side of the theoretical spectrum. Instead, it is a world of states who acknowledge a set of moral constraints that exists between them.

This edition provides a systematic introduction to the principle theories in international relations. It focuses on the main theoretical traditions - realism, liberalism, international society, and theories of international political economy. It also includes two chapters on social constructivism and foreign policy.

Within the realist school of international relations, a prevailing view holds that the anarchic structure of the international system invariably forces the great powers to seek security at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to an unrelenting struggle for power and dominance. Rational Theory of International Politics offers a more nuanced alternative to this view, one that provides answers to the most fundamental and pressing questions of international relations. Why do states sometimes compete and wage war while at other times they cooperate and pursue peace? Does competition reflect pressures generated by the anarchic international system or rather states' own expansionist goals? Are the United States and China on a collision course to war, or is continued coexistence possible? Is peace in the Middle East even feasible? Charles Glaser puts forward a major new theory of international politics that identifies three kinds of variables that influence a state's strategy: the state's motives, specifically whether it is motivated by security concerns or "greed"; material variables, which determine its military capabilities; and information variables, most importantly what the state knows about its adversary's motives. Rational Theory of International Politics demonstrates that variation in motives can be key to the choice of strategy; that the international environment sometimes favors cooperation over competition; and that information variables can be as important as material variables in determining the strategy a state should choose.