What do you think?
Rate this book
Theories of International Relations
Written by leading authorities, the most broad-ranging text on International Relations Theory on the market covering both traditional and more recent approaches.
364 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1996
82 people are currently reading
1282 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
June 24, 2015
كتاب ممتاز للمتخصصين لمتابعة اخر ما وصلت له نظريات العلاقات الدولية، ولغير المتخصصين للتعرف على كيفية تحليل العلاقات الدولة بعيدا عن نظريات المؤامرة، خاصة أن الكتاب يقدم الإطار النظري لبعض المفاهيم التى تستخدمهاالدول القمعية للتدليل على وجود مؤامرة ضد الدولة مثل نشر الديمقراطية والتدخل الانساني والحرب العادلة والعدالة الدولية والعدالة العالمية والتنمية المستدامة، ولامقاربات البيئية والنسوية لتحليل العلاقات الدولية.
كتاب للدراسة وليس فقط للقراءة.
كتاب للدراسة وليس فقط للقراءة.
August 5, 2017
International Relations for life.
January 24, 2026
Mission 2026: Binge reviewing all previous Reads, I was too slothful to review back when I read them.
Reading Andrew Linklater’s 'Theories of International Relations' in 2024 felt less like reading a book and more like being slowly inducted into a discipline’s long, unresolved argument with itself. This is not a book that tries to charm the reader, nor does it pretend that international relations theory is a neat toolbox of concepts ready for application.
Instead, Linklater presents IR theory as an ongoing moral, political, and philosophical struggle over how humans imagine community, obligation, violence, and coexistence beyond borders. It is dense, patient, and quietly ambitious — a work that assumes you are willing to think rather than be persuaded.
At first glance, the book appears to be a standard survey text: realism, liberalism, Marxism, critical theory, the English School, post-structuralism, and feminism. But that description undersells both its seriousness and its intent. Linklater is not merely cataloguing theories. He is interrogating the moral horizons that underlie them. The central question threading the book is deceptively simple: who counts, and why, in international politics? From that question unfolds an examination of how states justify exclusion, violence, sovereignty, and inequality — and how alternative traditions have tried to challenge those justifications.
What distinguishes Linklater from many IR theorists is his refusal to treat theory as politically neutral. He insists, often implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that every theory of international relations smuggles in assumptions about human nature, moral obligation, and historical possibility. Realism, for example, is not just a description of power politics; it is a normative stance that normalizes competition, distrust, and the primacy of state survival. Liberalism, likewise, is not simply optimistic; it embeds assumptions about progress, rationality, and institutional cooperation that are historically contingent and morally loaded.
Linklater’s treatment of realism is careful and unsparing. He acknowledges its explanatory power, especially in a world still structured by sovereign states and uneven power. But he also exposes its moral limitations. By treating the international realm as a domain of necessity rather than choice, realism forecloses questions of responsibility. Violence becomes tragic but inevitable. Exclusion becomes natural. The suffering of outsiders becomes regrettable but irrelevant. Linklater does not caricature realism; he lets it speak in its strongest form before showing what it cannot address.
The liberal tradition fares better, but not uncritically. Linklater appreciates liberalism’s emphasis on rights, institutions, and the possibility of moral progress beyond borders. He traces its roots from Kant through contemporary cosmopolitan thought, highlighting its challenge to the idea that moral obligations stop at national boundaries.
Yet he also points out liberalism’s blind spots: its tendency to universalise Western historical experiences, its reliance on state consent, and its difficulty grappling with deep structural inequalities that institutions alone cannot fix.
Marxist and critical approaches receive some of the book’s most interesting treatment. Linklater takes seriously their insistence that international relations cannot be understood apart from global capitalism, class relations, and historical materialism. He is particularly attentive to how these traditions challenge the state-centric focus of mainstream IR, revealing transnational forms of domination that operate beneath the surface of diplomacy and war. At the same time, he notes their occasional reductionism and their struggle to articulate viable political alternatives without collapsing into determinism.
The heart of the book, however, lies in Linklater’s engagement with critical theory and the English School. This is where his own intellectual commitments become most visible. Drawing on thinkers like Habermas and Norbert Elias, Linklater is deeply interested in the long-term evolution of moral boundaries. He asks whether humanity has gradually expanded its circles of inclusion — from tribe to city to nation—and whether international society might one day institutionalise concern for humanity as a whole.
The English School’s concept of international society — a world of states bound not only by power but by shared norms, rules, and institutions — becomes a key site of exploration. Linklater treats it neither as a complacent defence of the status quo nor as a fully emancipatory vision.
Instead, he sees it as an unfinished project, one that contains both solidarist impulses (human rights, humanitarian intervention) and pluralist restraints (sovereignty, non-intervention). The tension between order and justice, so central to the English School, mirrors the book’s broader preoccupations.
One of Linklater’s most persistent concerns is harm. Who suffers in international politics, and whose suffering is considered morally relevant? He introduces the idea of harm conventions: socially constructed limits on what kinds of violence and exclusion are acceptable. Over time, certain practices — slavery, genocide, torture — have become increasingly delegitimised, at least in principle. Linklater is cautious here. He does not claim linear moral progress. Instead, he traces uneven, fragile, and often reversible shifts in moral consciousness.
This emphasis on harm gives the book a quiet ethical gravity. International relations theory, in Linklater’s hands, is not about predicting outcomes but about evaluating forms of coexistence. Theories are judged not only by their explanatory power but also by the worlds they normalise. A theory that explains war while rendering its victims invisible is, for Linklater, morally impoverished.
The chapters on post-structuralism and feminism further complicate the picture. Linklater treats these approaches as necessary disruptions to established ways of thinking. Post-structuralism’s scepticism toward grand narratives and stable identities unsettles the foundations of traditional theory, exposing how concepts like sovereignty, security, and anarchy are discursively constructed. Feminist theory, meanwhile, reveals how international relations has been shaped by masculinist assumptions that privilege aggression, autonomy, and rationality while marginalising care, vulnerability, and interdependence.
Linklater does not fully embrace these perspectives, but he respects their critical force. He recognizes that they expand the moral imagination of the field, even as they sometimes struggle to articulate institutional pathways for change. This tension — between critique and construction — runs throughout the book.
Stylistically, 'Theories of International Relations' is demanding but fair. Linklater writes with clarity, but he does not simplify excessively. He assumes a reader willing to engage with abstraction and patient argument. This is not a book to skim. Its rewards accumulate slowly, through comparison and contrast, through the recognition of recurring dilemmas framed in different vocabularies.
Reading it in 2024, against the backdrop of renewed great-power rivalry, ongoing wars, climate breakdown, and humanitarian crises, the book felt oddly contemporary despite its academic tone. Many of the debates it outlines—sovereignty versus intervention, order versus justice, realism versus moral aspiration—remain unresolved because they reflect genuine contradictions in global life. Linklater does not pretend otherwise.
If there is a limitation to the book, it lies in its cautious optimism. Linklater believes in the possibility of moral learning at the international level, even if he acknowledges its fragility. Some readers may find this hope underdeveloped or insufficiently grounded in political reality. The gap between ethical aspiration and geopolitical practice can feel vast, and the book sometimes lingers more on normative frameworks than on concrete mechanisms of change.
Yet that may be precisely its value. 'Theories of International Relations' refuses the temptation to collapse theory into policy prescription. It insists that how we think about the world shapes what we consider possible. In a field often dominated by strategic calculation and managerial language, Linklater recentres moral reflection without lapsing into utopianism.
Looking back, this book functioned as an intellectual anchor for my 2024 reading. It provided a conceptual map that made sense of other works on power, nationalism, empire, and suffering. It reminded me that international relations is not merely about what happens between states, but about how humanity negotiates the boundaries of concern in an unequal world.
This is not a book that leaves you with answers. It leaves you with better questions, sharper distinctions, and a heightened sensitivity to what is at stake in theoretical choices.
In that sense, it does exactly what serious theory should do. It unsettles comfort, disciplines intuition, and refuses to let power speak without interrogation.
Most recommended.
Reading Andrew Linklater’s 'Theories of International Relations' in 2024 felt less like reading a book and more like being slowly inducted into a discipline’s long, unresolved argument with itself. This is not a book that tries to charm the reader, nor does it pretend that international relations theory is a neat toolbox of concepts ready for application.
Instead, Linklater presents IR theory as an ongoing moral, political, and philosophical struggle over how humans imagine community, obligation, violence, and coexistence beyond borders. It is dense, patient, and quietly ambitious — a work that assumes you are willing to think rather than be persuaded.
At first glance, the book appears to be a standard survey text: realism, liberalism, Marxism, critical theory, the English School, post-structuralism, and feminism. But that description undersells both its seriousness and its intent. Linklater is not merely cataloguing theories. He is interrogating the moral horizons that underlie them. The central question threading the book is deceptively simple: who counts, and why, in international politics? From that question unfolds an examination of how states justify exclusion, violence, sovereignty, and inequality — and how alternative traditions have tried to challenge those justifications.
What distinguishes Linklater from many IR theorists is his refusal to treat theory as politically neutral. He insists, often implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that every theory of international relations smuggles in assumptions about human nature, moral obligation, and historical possibility. Realism, for example, is not just a description of power politics; it is a normative stance that normalizes competition, distrust, and the primacy of state survival. Liberalism, likewise, is not simply optimistic; it embeds assumptions about progress, rationality, and institutional cooperation that are historically contingent and morally loaded.
Linklater’s treatment of realism is careful and unsparing. He acknowledges its explanatory power, especially in a world still structured by sovereign states and uneven power. But he also exposes its moral limitations. By treating the international realm as a domain of necessity rather than choice, realism forecloses questions of responsibility. Violence becomes tragic but inevitable. Exclusion becomes natural. The suffering of outsiders becomes regrettable but irrelevant. Linklater does not caricature realism; he lets it speak in its strongest form before showing what it cannot address.
The liberal tradition fares better, but not uncritically. Linklater appreciates liberalism’s emphasis on rights, institutions, and the possibility of moral progress beyond borders. He traces its roots from Kant through contemporary cosmopolitan thought, highlighting its challenge to the idea that moral obligations stop at national boundaries.
Yet he also points out liberalism’s blind spots: its tendency to universalise Western historical experiences, its reliance on state consent, and its difficulty grappling with deep structural inequalities that institutions alone cannot fix.
Marxist and critical approaches receive some of the book’s most interesting treatment. Linklater takes seriously their insistence that international relations cannot be understood apart from global capitalism, class relations, and historical materialism. He is particularly attentive to how these traditions challenge the state-centric focus of mainstream IR, revealing transnational forms of domination that operate beneath the surface of diplomacy and war. At the same time, he notes their occasional reductionism and their struggle to articulate viable political alternatives without collapsing into determinism.
The heart of the book, however, lies in Linklater’s engagement with critical theory and the English School. This is where his own intellectual commitments become most visible. Drawing on thinkers like Habermas and Norbert Elias, Linklater is deeply interested in the long-term evolution of moral boundaries. He asks whether humanity has gradually expanded its circles of inclusion — from tribe to city to nation—and whether international society might one day institutionalise concern for humanity as a whole.
The English School’s concept of international society — a world of states bound not only by power but by shared norms, rules, and institutions — becomes a key site of exploration. Linklater treats it neither as a complacent defence of the status quo nor as a fully emancipatory vision.
Instead, he sees it as an unfinished project, one that contains both solidarist impulses (human rights, humanitarian intervention) and pluralist restraints (sovereignty, non-intervention). The tension between order and justice, so central to the English School, mirrors the book’s broader preoccupations.
One of Linklater’s most persistent concerns is harm. Who suffers in international politics, and whose suffering is considered morally relevant? He introduces the idea of harm conventions: socially constructed limits on what kinds of violence and exclusion are acceptable. Over time, certain practices — slavery, genocide, torture — have become increasingly delegitimised, at least in principle. Linklater is cautious here. He does not claim linear moral progress. Instead, he traces uneven, fragile, and often reversible shifts in moral consciousness.
This emphasis on harm gives the book a quiet ethical gravity. International relations theory, in Linklater’s hands, is not about predicting outcomes but about evaluating forms of coexistence. Theories are judged not only by their explanatory power but also by the worlds they normalise. A theory that explains war while rendering its victims invisible is, for Linklater, morally impoverished.
The chapters on post-structuralism and feminism further complicate the picture. Linklater treats these approaches as necessary disruptions to established ways of thinking. Post-structuralism’s scepticism toward grand narratives and stable identities unsettles the foundations of traditional theory, exposing how concepts like sovereignty, security, and anarchy are discursively constructed. Feminist theory, meanwhile, reveals how international relations has been shaped by masculinist assumptions that privilege aggression, autonomy, and rationality while marginalising care, vulnerability, and interdependence.
Linklater does not fully embrace these perspectives, but he respects their critical force. He recognizes that they expand the moral imagination of the field, even as they sometimes struggle to articulate institutional pathways for change. This tension — between critique and construction — runs throughout the book.
Stylistically, 'Theories of International Relations' is demanding but fair. Linklater writes with clarity, but he does not simplify excessively. He assumes a reader willing to engage with abstraction and patient argument. This is not a book to skim. Its rewards accumulate slowly, through comparison and contrast, through the recognition of recurring dilemmas framed in different vocabularies.
Reading it in 2024, against the backdrop of renewed great-power rivalry, ongoing wars, climate breakdown, and humanitarian crises, the book felt oddly contemporary despite its academic tone. Many of the debates it outlines—sovereignty versus intervention, order versus justice, realism versus moral aspiration—remain unresolved because they reflect genuine contradictions in global life. Linklater does not pretend otherwise.
If there is a limitation to the book, it lies in its cautious optimism. Linklater believes in the possibility of moral learning at the international level, even if he acknowledges its fragility. Some readers may find this hope underdeveloped or insufficiently grounded in political reality. The gap between ethical aspiration and geopolitical practice can feel vast, and the book sometimes lingers more on normative frameworks than on concrete mechanisms of change.
Yet that may be precisely its value. 'Theories of International Relations' refuses the temptation to collapse theory into policy prescription. It insists that how we think about the world shapes what we consider possible. In a field often dominated by strategic calculation and managerial language, Linklater recentres moral reflection without lapsing into utopianism.
Looking back, this book functioned as an intellectual anchor for my 2024 reading. It provided a conceptual map that made sense of other works on power, nationalism, empire, and suffering. It reminded me that international relations is not merely about what happens between states, but about how humanity negotiates the boundaries of concern in an unequal world.
This is not a book that leaves you with answers. It leaves you with better questions, sharper distinctions, and a heightened sensitivity to what is at stake in theoretical choices.
In that sense, it does exactly what serious theory should do. It unsettles comfort, disciplines intuition, and refuses to let power speak without interrogation.
Most recommended.
September 30, 2014
class text book.
it's dense but great supplemental material to understanding International Relations (IR) Theory. however, I wouldn't say it's intro material--someone who has zip knowledge of IR theory might have a painful time unraveling this one.
includes:
chart of IR acronyms
explanations of:
Realism
Liberalism/Kant
The English School
Marx/Marxism
Historical Sociology
Critical Theory
Post-Structuralism
Constructivism
Feminism
Green Politics
International Political Theory
it's dense but great supplemental material to understanding International Relations (IR) Theory. however, I wouldn't say it's intro material--someone who has zip knowledge of IR theory might have a painful time unraveling this one.
includes:
chart of IR acronyms
explanations of:
Realism
Liberalism/Kant
The English School
Marx/Marxism
Historical Sociology
Critical Theory
Post-Structuralism
Constructivism
Feminism
Green Politics
International Political Theory
May 10, 2013
I found a few chapters (i.e. the ones that covered poststructuralism, feminism, green politics, and international political theory) to be revelationary and revolutionary. Other than that, though, I was over reading this book long before I was close to being done. I've read other IR theory books that are much more engaging. However the idea of shedding light on these underrated veins of IR theory is right on. Can't really say I enjoyed this book, and I look forward to selling it on Amazon. :P
October 27, 2014
Some of the more interesting schools of thought are missing from this edition, such as post-colonialism. Some of the articles are written in rather superfluous language, and many of them have big, redundant chunks of writing.
June 27, 2017
This book was the prescribed text for a course I did last year for my International Relations Masters. It’s very readable for a text book, so needless to say, I read it, and quite enjoyed it. It gives a good summary of a variety of theories – I found the strong focus on the international relations aspect very helpful, so as not to confuse in my head these theories in their sociological context (where relevant!). I have come back to this book a variety of times while writing subsequent assignments (I was particularly glad I had read this book, and studied the related subject, when I started my International Relations courses for the recently completed semester, which expected me to have a solid grasp of the concepts set out in this book). I am also pleased that my decision to read the complete book, rather than just the prescribed chapters, paid off, as I topped the class! A very valuable read!
August 21, 2014
As others have noted, the chief value in this book is its treatment of less dominant approaches such as critical theory, feminism and green theory. These are well-written and researched and throw down significant challenges to the dominant approaches, which it would have been nice to hear responses to. Overall however it declines to draw any weighty conclusions or offer a synthesis regarding the discipline or its object of study from the various perspectives it surveys. Some will no doubt find this appropriate in a textbook; others such as myself may find that opting to take no position is still taking a position of sorts, and an ultimately unsatisfying one.
November 22, 2019
موسوعي، غير أنه مُعاب بشبه التغييب لنقاش الحوارات الأربعة ومعركة المناهج، وبالطبع -وهذا راجع لتاريخ وضعه- يوجد غياب للحوار الخامس في الحقل، والمتعلق باستخدام نظرية الكم من قبل أمثال وينت.
الترجمة محترمة صحيحة ليست مبعثرة، لكنها ثقيلة الظل كذلك إلى حد ما. مع التنبيه لأجنبية الفصل الأخير في ترجمته عن باقي الكتاب، وأكاد أوقن أن الدكتور صفار لم يترجمه، فالأغلاط كثيرة.
وهو، في العربية، أحد كتابين من الواجب على دارس العلاقات الدولية أن يكون حافظًا لهما.
الترجمة محترمة صحيحة ليست مبعثرة، لكنها ثقيلة الظل كذلك إلى حد ما. مع التنبيه لأجنبية الفصل الأخير في ترجمته عن باقي الكتاب، وأكاد أوقن أن الدكتور صفار لم يترجمه، فالأغلاط كثيرة.
وهو، في العربية، أحد كتابين من الواجب على دارس العلاقات الدولية أن يكون حافظًا لهما.
Read
January 22, 2010This is a valuable resource, primarily because most of the chapters are devoted to perspectives outside of mainstream IR theory (critical theory, postmodernism, feminism, et al.), although it covers neo-realism and neo-liberalism as well.
June 4, 2013
Ini buku yang menemani usia saya berkuliah di Hubungan Internasional. Sebagai pengantar teoritik, simulasi alat penelitian, dan referensi untuk melangkah lebih jauh ke teori yang diminati.
Kabar bahagianya, buku ini telah diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Indonesia.
Kabar bahagianya, buku ini telah diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Indonesia.
April 28, 2020
As somehow an outsider to the field, trying to form a certain comprehension of IR theories, i took on the endeavor of reading several books about the topic.
This book is a collective work, containing 10 chapters by several authors.
First remark: the difference in style between the several authors is very obvious. While some are able to present their ideas in rather intelligible sentences, others hide behind undecipherable formulas (mostly, the second half of the last chapter).
An other remark related to the authors: some are able to objectively expose their topic (for eg., the chapters on critical theory, postmodernism, constructivism), others seem too connected to it - and therefore less critical, while others, such as the author of the chapter on Realism, says upfront he is opposed to realism: this chapter was not convincing, as i had before read a collection of papers by Waltz, in which he answered - convincingly - criticism against neo-realism. This means some theories like realism took on a good bashing while others like feminism were barely criticized.
On an other side, as someone used to legal literature, what i found quite annoying is the focus made on authors, as if there is no way to study political science outside of author’s works. This shows clearly in the last 2 chapters, probably because these theories are more recent (for instance, almost a third of the last chapter is a review of one author’s book).
Maybe this book is destined to specialists, and requires certain prerequisites, i don’t know.
But in general, for a beginner, it is quite complicated, the treatment of the different theories is uneven (in style, in the degree of criticism, in the approach itself).
And the use of the very complicated terms and formulas (reaching their climax in the last pages on green theories) reminded me of a french saying: what is well conceived, is expressed clearly...
This book is a collective work, containing 10 chapters by several authors.
First remark: the difference in style between the several authors is very obvious. While some are able to present their ideas in rather intelligible sentences, others hide behind undecipherable formulas (mostly, the second half of the last chapter).
An other remark related to the authors: some are able to objectively expose their topic (for eg., the chapters on critical theory, postmodernism, constructivism), others seem too connected to it - and therefore less critical, while others, such as the author of the chapter on Realism, says upfront he is opposed to realism: this chapter was not convincing, as i had before read a collection of papers by Waltz, in which he answered - convincingly - criticism against neo-realism. This means some theories like realism took on a good bashing while others like feminism were barely criticized.
On an other side, as someone used to legal literature, what i found quite annoying is the focus made on authors, as if there is no way to study political science outside of author’s works. This shows clearly in the last 2 chapters, probably because these theories are more recent (for instance, almost a third of the last chapter is a review of one author’s book).
Maybe this book is destined to specialists, and requires certain prerequisites, i don’t know.
But in general, for a beginner, it is quite complicated, the treatment of the different theories is uneven (in style, in the degree of criticism, in the approach itself).
And the use of the very complicated terms and formulas (reaching their climax in the last pages on green theories) reminded me of a french saying: what is well conceived, is expressed clearly...
August 10, 2021
For some reason Goodreads doesn't have the Fifth Edition listed, but the Third. Well the review is based on the Fifth Edition which is fine. The book has a lot going on with it, and sometimes it seems that the authors are just writing to strut on how intelligent they are. The points of the chapters are kind of not there and I found myself wanting to DNF this book but didn't because my Dad sent this copy to me and I was able to push through it. It has some good topics so all is not lost with this. Just expect it to go on and on and on in some places and that makes me glad that this book is done with.
March 17, 2019
Buku ini merupakan bacaan wajib bagi para calon sarjana maupun sarjana HI mengingat di dalamnya banyak sekali kandungan teori yang menjadi bahan bagi kita untuk memahami perdebatan yang membangun subjek ini. Mulai dari realisme, liberalisme, marxisme, perspektif neo, posmodernisme, strukturalisme, teori kritis, feminisme, hingga teori hijau. Penjabarannya memang cukup rumit sehingga butuh konsentrasi penuh dalam membaca buku ini. Alasan saya memberi bintang tiga, saya kurang begitu suka dengan versi terjemahan Nusamedia. Meskipun buku ini merupakan buku induk mahasiswa HI dan layak baca.
July 13, 2024
I have covered a fair bit of this book, and it is definitely the right amount of nuance for me to get started with the scholarship. I have to say that while dense, it serves as a good "via media" between the more serious works of scholars and beginners in IR. Other introductory textbooks are either too easy (too illustrative or breakdown the topics to the point of lacking nuance or theoretical relation) or too non-theoretical. This is perfect for those needing to get used to theories but not knowing where to start.
May 5, 2018
This book would get five stars if it wasn’t for the fact that I need to use a dictionary to understand it and that it makes my brain go soft because the sentences are so complicated. It’s a shame because the content is so good but very inaccessible.
December 16, 2024
Este livro foi recomendado para uma matéria que fiz para meu mestrado em Relações Internacionais. É muito fluido para um livro didático. Li e encontrei o que se espera de um manual de teoria de RI: dá um bom resumo das diversas correntes de pensamento.
December 23, 2018
Every student of IR should know this book by heart
February 1, 2020
I want to read this book
June 8, 2020
Solid intro to IR. Painfully lacking in the chapters on realism
August 2, 2021
It’s laughable how little the viewpoints presented in this book have to do with global relationships that you can find described in books dealing with diplomatic history or current affairs. I don’t know if this particular book is so bad, or is the whole academic discipline of international relations in such a poor shape. Most of the essays are moralistic polemics about all kinds of injustices and inequalities that exist in the world. They are also poorly structured and they don’t even give you a comprehensible overview of their ideological positions, but often just an array of pointless, loosely connected comments, criticisms, and references to other papers. If you’re looking for some theoretical explanations of what’s happening in the international politics today, don’t waste your time on this boring, worthless book.
February 5, 2016
I assigned this textbook for my spring 2011 master's seminar on international relations. I've frequently used prior editions, though this version includes both updated and new chapters. The additions focus on Historical Sociology and International Political Theory. My students are typically frustrated by the abstraction and breadth of the field reflected in this book's offerings.
May 17, 2017
Since this was required reading for me, I do have some mixed feelings. On one had, it was great at teaching me these theories.
On the other, it seemed to repeat itself far too often & seemed unnecessarily wordy at times.
On the other, it seemed to repeat itself far too often & seemed unnecessarily wordy at times.
October 12, 2024
read for uni. pretty good in depth understanding of different international relations theories. super helpful especially for citations and referencing in essays. will definitely reach for this book again
Read
October 6, 2008ha.ha.ha.
August 4, 2013
Comprehensive overview of international relations.
Read
May 8, 2016its a valuable book for the research
January 19, 2016
Its on the theories of international relations
Read
February 7, 2016i wanna read this book now and i will stay blessed forever....
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 27, 2020
Çeviri hayal kırıklığı
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews