Suchergebnisse

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.

Attempts to explain the emergence of the peace movement in the 1980s often point to factors like fear of nuclear weapons, Soviet manipulation of public opinion in the West and NATO's double-track decision in 1979. Among these, the author emphasizes the third factor. He argues that NATO's double track de cision made the threat of nuclear war seem nearer and more real, thus motivating people to involve themselves in the peace movement. The author also introduces a fourth factor, arguing that anti- establishment attitudes constitute the most important single impulse behind the emergence of the peace movement in the 1980s. The movement reflects a subculture which is permanently pitted against establishment norms. It is this environment of critical attitudes, rather than a quest for peace or an op position against nuclear weapons, which induces people to involve themselves in the peace movement. The author substantiates this thesis through a discussion of the social groups which tend to actively sup port the peace movement, the political preferences of the peace activists and their goals and methods. The peace movement is also shown in a historical perspective, which emphasizes its relationship with other popular movements of the post-war era.