Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order

Relations between major powers can be described as shifting between universalism and particularism. In periods of universalism, major powers try to work out acceptable rules of behavior among one another, whereas in periods of particularism, they emphasize special interests of special powers. The way historians see shifts in major power relations since 1816 largely follows such a classification. By comparing the policies pursued during four periods of universalism and four periods of particularism, as well as analysing what ended or initiated such periods, the limits of major power universalism can be evaluated. Particularly, the short-comings of the recent period of detente are illuminated. Also some principles for a more enduring form of universalism are suggested.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68816/2/10.1177_002234338402100304.pd

The European Security Order between American Hegemony and French Independence

We investigate the impact of historically rooted domestic constructions of purpose and ambition on the patterns of discord and collaboration in the Franco-American relationship over the course of the postwar and post-cold war periods. We stress the importance and tenacity of domestic historical constructions for explaining and understanding the foreign policy strategies that would otherwise confound a power-based analysis. The Franco-American bilateral relationship, in particular, illustrates the persistence and tenacity of each nation's historically constructed foreign policy conception during the bipolar distribution of power during the cold war and the contested unipolarity of the post-cold war era. We conclude with an assessment of the salience and relevance of domestic elements of foreign policy role and purpose for explaining and understanding how their bilateral relationship has affected the European security order into the second decade of the twenty-first century