The style of writing in international relations (IR) has evolved in recent decades. The lessons of “vintage” IR, to which we return in this article, have been largely forgotten by those writing in the discipline today. A merit will be substantial, we argue, in drawing m... View more
1. Strunk and White (2000) was first published as a co-authored version in 1959 and is based on Strunk (1918). Zinsser (2006) was first published in 1976, and the version we use is the 30th anniversary edition.
2. See Kratochwil (1993): “The academic exponents of 'realism' had prided themselves on giving greater precision, depth and, above all, scientific respectability, to the fuzzy realism practiced or preached . . .” (64).
3. IR, as a separate discipline, emerged in the aftermath of World War I (Hollis and Smith 1990, 16). What interests us primarily here, however, is that IR does have a tradition longer than thirty years!
4. This quotation was chosen by Kamila Pieczara.
Biersteker, Thomas J. 2009. “The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for 'American' International Relations.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, eds. Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Waever. London: Routledge.
Cha, Victor D. 1999. Alignment despite Antagonism: The United States-Korea-Japan Security Triangle. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
_. 2000. “Abandonment, Entrapment, and Neoclassical Realism in Asia: The United States, Japan, and Korea.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 261-91.
Elman, Colin. 1996. “Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies 6 (1): 7-53.
Eun, Yong-Soo. 2012. “Why and How Should We Go for a Multicausal Analysis in the Study of Foreign Policy? (Meta-)Theoretical Rationales and Methodological Rules.” Review of International Studies 38 (4): 763-83.
Higgott, Richard. 1997. “De Facto and De Jure Regionalism: The Double Discourse of Regionalism in the Asia Pacific.” Global Society 11 (2): 165-83.