Say it with documents: British policy overseas, 1945–1952

In: Review of international studies: RIS, Band 18, Heft 4, S. 393-402

Abstract

It has not been easy for those in the relatively new field of international relations to find an intellectual niche, and a great deal of ink has been spilled in debates about the nature, sources and role of the discipline. The most basic area of the debate is between the largely British-based historical traditions and the North American behaviourist and 'scientific' schools. No doubt many international historians have winced at the vague phrase 'history shows us that...', which still appears in some textbooks. And no doubt international relations theorists have despaired of international history monographs in which the author appears to fail to draw any general conclusions after years of painstaking study in the archives. In institutions of higher education the professionals continually struggle to get the balance right between the different elements of an international relations degree, and the paucity of departments devoted solely to international relations is witness to the still ambiguous place of the discipline in the academic world. despite unrelenting student demand—but it also shows that the discipline is very much alive, vigorous, developing and innovative. It is also fairly obvious that intellectual disciplines do not have to be mutually exclusive, and perhaps one of the closest, even symbiotic, relationships is the key one between the study of international history and international relations, particularly foreign policy analysis.