In the post-cold war world those engaged in making foreign policy seem adrift searching for new ideas. Despite the growing production--and in some cases the sophistication--of scholarly literature on questions in international relations, policymakers seem to ignore much of this scholarly work in their search for new policy ideas. The contributors to this volume examine the promise and possibilities of making contemporary international relations theory more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy and international affairs. The essays in this volume assess the gap between theory and practice.
The volume has two parts. The first part explores the failure of much international relations scholarship to address practical problems. These essays consider problems arising from differences in the questions that concern academics and policymakers, the institutional settings in which they operate, and the perceptual and motivational baggage they carry.
Essays in the second part of the book illustrate how international theory and research could be made useful to policy makers. First, these writers argue that scholars should pay more attention in theory to the way foreign policy is shaped by its domestic political context. Second, scholars should do more to demonstrate how certain areas of specialized research shed light on specific policy challenges and how approaches based on the rational-actor model can help make sense out of current policy dilemmas.
The contributors are Steven J. Brams, Emily O. Goldman, Bruce Jentleson, Eric V. Larson, Robert J. Lieber, Donna J. Nincic, the late Kenneth Organski, Donald Rothschild, Arthur Stein, and Ernest J. Wilson III, in addition to the editors.
This book will be of interest to scholars and analysts in the areas of international relations and foreign policy and policy makers who wish to know how scholarship could inform their own work.
Miroslav Nincic is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis and is the author of numerous books and articles on international relations. Joseph Lepgold is Associate Professor of Government, Georgetown University.

Since the 1990s, the international security environment has shifted radically. Leading states no longer play as great a role in regional conflicts, and thus a new opportunity for regional conflict management has opened. This collection of original essays is one of the first to examine the implications and efficacy of regional conflict management in the new world order. The editors' general overview provides a framework for analyzing regional conflict management efforts and the kinds of threats faced by actors in different regions of the world. Case studies from every major world region then place these factors into specific regional contexts and address a variety of challenges. Drawing together a diverse group of scholars from around the world, Regional Conflict Management provides key lessons for understanding conflict management over the globe.

Joseph Lepgold's book examines the substance of and rationale for the American defense commitment to Europe between 1960 and 1990, a period marked by change in the U.S. world position, and continues into the 1990s, in light of the recent changes in Europe. Lepgold explores how and why political leaders have adapted to this change. His volume is the analysis of a hegemonic state's foreign policy adaption. His study probes such questions as: If policymakers do not adjust basic policy priorities, what other tradeoffs are made? Do these constitute meaningful patterns? Do commitments resist change or are they context-dependent and supple? The focus of this provocative study is on U.S. policy toward Europe, rather than NATO and its European members.

Chapter one of The Declining Hegemon provides the background for Chapters two and three's analytic discussion of policy adaption. It examines four policy debates of the late 1970s and 1980s; these discuss past adaption as well as future choices. These debates question the decline of U.S. power; the future U.S. role in Europe--whether any of the 1950 commitments should be adjusted; and the relationship of foreign policy commitments and resources--whether they should grow and decline in tandem. Chapters four through six provide a decade by decade case study of U.S. policy. The last chapter of Lepgold's timely study draws conclusions and suggests future implications in light of recent developments in Europe.

Joseph Lepgold's book examines the substance of and rationale for the American defense commitment to Europe between 1960 and 1990, a period marked by change in the U.S. world position, and continues into the 1990s, in light of the recent changes in Europe. Lepgold explores how and why political leaders have adapted to this change. His volume is the analysis of a hegemonic state's foreign policy adaption. His study probes such questions as: If policymakers do not adjust basic policy priorities, what other tradeoffs are made? Do these constitute meaningful patterns? Do commitments resist change or are they context-dependent and supple? The focus of this provocative study is on U.S. policy toward Europe, rather than NATO and its European members. Chapter one of The Declining Hegemon provides the background for Chapters two and three's analytic discussion of policy adaption. It examines four policy debates of the late 1970s and 1980s; these discuss past adaption as well as future choices. These debates question the decline of U.S. power; the future U.S. role in Europe--whether any of the 1950 commitments should be adjusted; and the relationship of foreign policy commitments and resources--whether they should grow and decline in tandem. Chapters four through six provide a decade by decade case study of U.S. policy. The last chapter of Lepgold's timely study draws conclusions and suggests future implications in light of recent developments in Europe.

In the post-cold war world those engaged in making foreign policy seem adrift searching for new ideas. Despite the growing production--and in some cases the sophistication--of scholarly literature on questions in international relations, policymakers seem to ignore much of this scholarly work in their search for new policy ideas. The contributors to this volume examine the promise and possibilities of making contemporary international relations theory more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy and international affairs. The essays in this volume assess the gap between theory and practice.
The volume has two parts. The first part explores the failure of much international relations scholarship to address practical problems. These essays consider problems arising from differences in the questions that concern academics and policymakers, the institutional settings in which they operate, and the perceptual and motivational baggage they carry.
Essays in the second part of the book illustrate how international theory and research could be made useful to policy makers. First, these writers argue that scholars should pay more attention in theory to the way foreign policy is shaped by its domestic political context. Second, scholars should do more to demonstrate how certain areas of specialized research shed light on specific policy challenges and how approaches based on the rational-actor model can help make sense out of current policy dilemmas.
The contributors are Steven J. Brams, Emily O. Goldman, Bruce Jentleson, Eric V. Larson, Robert J. Lieber, Donna J. Nincic, the late Kenneth Organski, Donald Rothschild, Arthur Stein, and Ernest J. Wilson III, in addition to the editors.
This book will be of interest to scholars and analysts in the areas of international relations and foreign policy and policy makers who wish to know how scholarship could inform their own work.
Miroslav Nincic is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis and is the author of numerous books and articles on international relations. Joseph Lepgold is Associate Professor of Government, Georgetown University.