The significance of history for the study of today's international relations has often been underestimated. The point of departure of this article is that historical studies of international affairs, in order to be relevant in a broader societal context, must relate to crucial issues for the survival of our civilization. The basic idea is that historical knowledge should be able to contribute to the making of a better world, a more peaceful world without violence and war. An emancipatory stance like this is essential if we are to show the urgency of studying international relations. In this respect, historical research has a great deal to learn from peace research. Having adopted a political stance in favour of peace, we can use history or historical methods in at least six different ways to increase our understanding of today's international affairs: ascertaining facts per se, focusing on the long lines of development, studying history as a cultural construction, looking for causes, explaining the establishment of historical phenomena and developing theories. Using these approaches, historical science has the potential to illuminate aspects of today's international situation where other disciplines lack the necessary analytical tools. At this critical juncture of world history, in particular in the aftermath of the Cold War, the first three approaches are considered most relevant. Finally, it is maintained that historians in the field of international relations have to initiate a debate concerning central issues or syntheses in world politics to point to the relevance of the historical dimension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alker, Hayward, R., Jr , 1988. `Emancipatory Empiricism. Toward the Renewal of Empirical Peace Research', pp. 219-241 in Peter Wallensteen, ed., Peace Research. Achievements and Challenges. Boulder, CO & London: Westview.
2.
Bergström, Lars , 1972. Objektivitet. En undersökning av innebörden, möjligheten och önskvärdheten av objektivitet i samhällsvetenskapen [Objectivity. A Study of the Significance, Potential, and Desirability of Objectivity in the Social Sciences]. Stockholm: Prisma.
3.
Boulding, Kenneth E. , 1989. `A Proposal for a Research Program in the History of Peace', Peace and Change, vol. 14, no. 4, October, pp. 461-469.
4.
Brecher, Michael & Jonathan Wilkenfeld, 1989. Crisis, Conflict and Instability. Oxford & New York: Pergamon.
5.
Floto, Inga , 1985. Historie. Nyere og nyeste tid [History. Modern and Recent Times]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
6.
Gaddis, John Lewis , 1987. `Expanding the Data Base. Historians, Political Scientists, and the Enrichment of Security Studies', International Security, vol. 12, no. 1, Summer, pp. 3-21.
7.
Gaddis, John Lewis , 1990. `New Conceptual Approaches to the Study of American Foreign Relations. Interdisciplinary Perspectives', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 3, Summer, pp. 405-423.
8.
Also pp. 213-243 in Johan Galtung, Transarmament and the Cold War. Peace Research and the Peace Movement. Essays in Peace Research. Volume Six. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
9.
Gardiner, Juliet , ed., 1988. What is History Today...?London: Macmillan.
10.
George, Alexander L. , 1979. `Case Studies and Theory Development. The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison', pp. 43-68 in Paul Lauren, ed., Diplomacy. New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy. New York: Free Press.
11.
Gerner, Kristian , 1980. `Kazan and Manchu. Cultural Roots of Soviet Foreign Relations', Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 15, no. 2, June, pp. 57-70.
12.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter , 1986. `Fredsforskning og politikk' [Peace Research and Politics], Politica, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 252-262.
13.
Habermas, Jürgen , 1986. Autonomy and Solidarity. Interviews. Edited and Introduced by Peter Dews, London: Verso.
14.
Holsti, Kalevi J. , 1985. The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston, MA & London: Allen & Unwin.
15.
Hunt, Michael H. , 1992. `Historiography: The Long Crisis in US Diplomatic History. Coming to Closure', Diplomatic History, vol. 16, no. 1, Winter, pp. 115-140.
16.
Jönsson, Christer , 1992. `International Politics. Scandinavian Identity or American Hegemony?' Paper prepared for conference `Political Science in Scandinavia - Trends and Challenges', Oslo, May.
17.
Kennedy, Paul , 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
18.
Kristiansen, Kristian , 1989. ` “Fortids Kraft og Kæmpestyrke”. Om national og politisk brug af fortiden' [`Ancient Might and Giant Strength'. On the National and Political Use of the Past], pp. 187-218 in Lotte Hedeager & Karen Schousboe, eds, Brugte historier. Ti essays om brug og misbrug af historien [Used History. Ten Essays on the Use and Abuse of History]. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
19.
Lauren, Paul Gordon , 1979. `Diplomacy. History, Theory, and Policy', pp. 3-18 in Paul Gordon Lauren, ed., Diplomacy. New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy. New York: Free Press.
20.
Lindqvist, Mats , 1992. `Between Realism and Relativism. A Consideration of History in Modern Ethnology', Ethnologia Scandinavica, vol. 22, pp. 3-16.
21.
Lukacs, John , 1992. `America and Russia, Americans and Russians', American Heritage, vol. 43, no. 1, February/March, pp. 64-73.
22.
Löfgren, Orvar , 1990. `Huvudentréer och köksingångar i kulturstudiet' [Main Entrances and Back Doors in the Study of Culture], pp. 9-33 in Henrik Horstbøll & Henrik Kaare Nielsen, eds, Delkulturer. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
23.
McCormick, Thomas J. , 1990. `Something Old, Something New. John Lewis Gaddis's “New Conceptual Approaches” ', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 3, Summer, pp. 425-432.
24.
McMahon, Robert , 1990, `The Study of American Foreign Relations. National History or International History?', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 4, Fall, pp. 554-564.
25.
Njølstad, Olav , 1990. `Learning from History? Case Studies and the Limits to Theory-Building', pp. 220-246 in Nils Petter Gleditsch & Olav Njølstad, eds, Arms Races. Technological and Political Dynamics. London & Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Nybom, Thorsten , 1991. `Frågor kring kulturforskningens karaktär, bestämningar och nytta. Vetenskapsideologi, forskningspolitik och forskningsorganisation i Sverige efter 1945. En preliminär diskussion' [Questions about the Character, Determinants, and Usefulness of Cultural Research. Scientific Ideology, Research Policy, and Research Organization in Sweden since 1945. A Preliminary Discussion], pp. 16-28 in Christian Kvium, ed., Historien og historikerne i Norden efter 1965 [History and Historians in Scandinavia since 1965]. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
27.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr , 1990. Bound to Lead. The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
28.
Olson, William & Nicholas Onuf, 1985. `The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed', pp. 1-28 in Steve Smith, ed., International Relations. British and American Perspectives. Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell.
29.
Paterson, Thomas G. , 1990. `Defining and Doing the History of American Foreign Relations. A Primer', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 4, Fall, pp. 584-601.
30.
Rystad, Göran , 1982. Prisoners of the Past? The Munich Syndrome and Makers of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War Era. Lund: Gleerup.
31.
Salomon, Kim , 1991a. Refugees in the Cold War. Toward a New International Refugee Regime in the Early Postwar Era. Lund: Lund University Press.
32.
Salomon, Kim , 1991b. `Varför skall vi studera internationell samtidshistoria' [Why Should We Study Contemporary International History?], Historisk Tidskrift, no. 3, pp. 340-355.
33.
Salomon, Kim , 1992. `En plädoajé för emancipatorisk historieundervisning' [A Plea for Emancipatory History Teaching], pp. 121-137 in Lars Edgren & Eva Österberg, eds, Ut med historien [Disseminating History]. Lund: Lund University Press.
34.
Tägil, Sven , 1976. `Empirisk konfliktforskning - en programförklaring' [Empirical Conflict Research - a Policy Statement], Humanistisk forskning, no. 1, pp. 32-36.
35.
Tägil, Sven , 1984. `Ethno-Regionalism as a Problem of Conflict Theory', pp. 13-43 in Sven Tägil, ed., Regions in Upheaval: Ethnic Conflict and Political Mobilization. Stockholm: Esselte.
36.
Wells, Samuel F., Jr , 1979. `History and Policy', pp. 269-277 in Paul Lauren, ed., Diplomacy. New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy. New York: Free Press.
37.
Wette, Wolfram , 1990. `Geschichte und Frieden. Aufgaben historischer Friedensforschung', pp. 14-60 in Reiner Steinweg, ed., Lehren aus der Geschichte? Historische Friedensforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
38.
Wiberg, Håkan , 1990. `Nye udfordringer til fredsforskningen' [New Challenges for Peace Research]. Working Paper no. 9, Centre for Peace and Conflict Research, Copenhagen.
39.
Wiberg, Håkan , 1991. `Focus On: States and Nations as Challenges to Peace Research', Journal of Peace Research, vol. 28, no. 4, November, pp. 337-343.
40.
Wittner, Lawrence S. , 1987. `Peace Movements and Foreign Policy. The Challenge to Diplomatic Historians', Diplomatic History, vol. 11, no. 4, Fall, pp. 355-370.
41.
Wright, Quincy , 1969. A Study of War. Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Österberg, Eva , 1990. `Etik·i·historisk forskning. Strunt - eller rosor i ett sprucket krus?' [Ethics in Historical Research], Historisk Tidskrift, no. 1, pp. 2-20.
43.
Österberg, Eva , 1992. `Gräset och historien. De långa linjernas strategi' [The Grass and History. The Strategy of the Long Lines], Kulturrådet, nos. 1-2, pp. 30-41.
44.
Østerud, Øyvind , 1984. `Forskning om krig og fred. En innledning' [Research on War and Peace. An Introduction], pp. 9-21 in Øyvind Østerud, ed., Den truede freden. Krig og fred under forskernes lupe [The Threatened Peace. War and Peace under the Researchers' Magnifying Glass]. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
