A01=Lucian M. Ashworth
academic discipline origins
Alfred Zimmern
American School Realism
Angell's Ideas
Angell's Thought
Angell's View
Angell's Work
Angell’s Ideas
Angell’s Thought
Angell’s View
Angell’s Work
Author_Lucian M. Ashworth
Category=JPA
Category=JPFK
Category=JPS
collective
Collective Security
David Mitrany
English School Realism
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Functional Approach
Functional Organisations
functionalism in IR
Great Illusion
internationalism
liberal
liberal internationalism
Liberal Internationalist Peace
Liberal Nationalism
liberal paradigm critique
Michael Banks
Mitrany's Conception
Mitrany's Ideas
Mitrany's View
Mitrany’s Conception
Mitrany’s Ideas
Mitrany’s View
Modern IR Theorist
peace
peace theory
perpetual
Perpetual Peace Project
Politico Military Competition
project
realist-idealist debate
Residual Conservatism
security
twentieth century diplomacy
UN
Utilitarian Instrumental Reason
Product details
- ISBN 9780754610489
- Weight: 406g
- Dimensions: 153 x 219mm
- Publication Date: 02 Nov 1999
- Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
- Publication City/Country: GB
- Product Form: Hardback
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
Through a critical evaluation of the works of Norman Angell and David Mitrany, this book explores the liberal roots of the academic discipline of International Relations (IR). Ashworth argues that, far from being the product of timeless realist truths, IR’s origins are rooted in liberal attempts to reform international affairs. Norman Angell’s work represents the first attempt to develop a comprehensive 'new liberal' approach to the problem of global governance, while David Mitrany’s exploration of the problems of international life led him to apply the left-liberal idea of functional government to global governance. Both writers demonstrated the extent to which early twentieth century liberal writers on international affairs had answered the critics of earlier nineteenth century liberal internationalists. The penultimate chapter argues that the realist-idealist 'Great Debate' never happened, and that liberal scholars such as Angell and Mitrany have been unfairly dismissed as 'idealists.' The final chapter evaluates the writings of Angell and Mitrany and claims that the works of both authors can be criticised for theoretical weaknesses common to the liberal paradigm.
Lucian M. Ashworth, University of Limerick, Ireland
