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

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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Botnen, Ingvar , ed. 1983. Fakta om Krig og Fred. Oslo: Pax.

Choucri, Nazli & Robert C. North 1975. Nations in Conflict. National Growth and International Violence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

Common Security. A Programme for Disarmament 1982. Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security. London: Pan.

DePorte, A.W. 1979. Europe between the Superpowers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Falk, Richard and Saul Mendlovitz 1973. Regional Politics and World Order. San Francisco: Freeman.

Falk, Richard 1975. A Study of Future Worlds, New York : Free Press.

Hoffman, Stanley 1980. Primacy or World Order. American Foreign Policy since the Cold War. New York: McGraw Hill .

Kennan, George 1979. The Decline of Bismarck's European Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kindleberger, Charles P. 1978. Economic Response. Comparative Studies in Trade, Finance and Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

10.

Kindleberger, Charles P. 1964. Èconomic Growth in France and Britain, 1851-1950. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

11.

Nincic, Miroslav 1982. The Arms Race. New York: Praeger.

12.

Parsons, Talcott & Edward A. Shils , eds. 1951. Towards a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

13.

Patem, Michael 1983. 'The Buffer System in International Relations', Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3-26.

14.

Rosecrance, Richard N. 1963. Action and Reaction in World Politics. Boston: Little, Brown.

15.

Sipri 1983. World Armaments and Disarmament. London: Taylor and Francis.

16.

Small, Melvin & J. David Singer 1982. Resort to Arms. Beverly Hills: Sage.

17.

Stebbins, R.P. and E.P. Adams , eds. 1976. American Foreign Relations 1972. A Documentary Record. New York: New York University Press.

18.

Väyrynen, Raimo 1983. 'Economic Cycles, Power Transitions, Political Management and Wars between Major Powers', International Studies Quarterly , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 389-418.

19.

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.