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

Peter Wallensteen
Additional contact information
Peter Wallensteen: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan

Journal of Peace Research, 1984, vol. 21, issue 3, 243-257

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1984
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/21/3/243.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:21:y:1984:i:3:p:243-257

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().