alonovo.com (beta 2.0)

Not Enough Coverage of the School of International Realism 2010-05-23

Reviewer: hstoryfanatic

As a history major, I personally do not find political science classes very thrilling. But I took international politics this semester because it sounded interesting. I didn't really care for this text. But before I criticize Rourke, I would like to point out a few of his strengths, in fairness to him.

First, International Politics on the World Stage is not a dumbed-down analysis of international politics. For all of his faults, Rourke does not fall prey to that all too common problem in undergraduate textbooks of lowering his standards to the level of a freshman student. In other words, he has numerous terms and concepts which he presents in in such as way that requires students to read the book in order to understand the topics being discussed. He uses anecdotes and recalls Shakespeare again and again to aid in understanding, but the material in the text is substantial and requires much thought on the part of the student.

Secondly, Rourke himself continually reveals his thorough understanding of international politics in such a way that causes a student to recognize him as an authority in the subject. There is little doubt that this professor has studied politics for many years and knows his subject well.

That's all well and good, but I cannot rate this book very high because it has a flaw so egregious that it deserves to be noted. Namely, Rourke gives too much support to the internationalist school. Essentially, Rourke is very bias in his opinion that international politics will bring about world peace. He is convinced that man will have achieved utopia when he has adopted 'liberal democracy on an international level.' Rourke makes no bones about his views that nations and states should surrender their powers to an international organization such as the UN. He believes that an international court would force everyone to swear allegiance to a world-state, and he also thinks that allegiance to a world-government would unite people and bring about peace.

Well, that is what he thinks--very well, but the trouble is that while he is shoving this down students' throats he fails to give enough consideration to the realist school. The Realists maintain that a balance of power between international states is essential in order to preserve peace. They contend that international peace, or least a minimal amount of wars, can be only be achieved when states maintain their own power and do not surrender it to an international government. Furthermore, they think that the giving of national governmental powers to a single, concentrated power will result, not in peace, but in tyrannical rule from an all-powerful international government. They are wary of the UN and international peace movements, and this because they subscribe to a Hobbesian perspective of the nature of man.

Again, if Rourke wants to take up what he calls the 'international liberal' banner, that's fine and I do not fault him for his opinion; my objection is merely that he spends far too much time uttering platitudes of "world peace" and does not focus enough on the international realist perspective. I feel slightly cheated by Rourke because he barely touched on some realist perspectives while devoting pages and pages to the liberal perspectives. Some people might say that I'm being too concerned with this particular issue, but it really is an important thing, and to only view one side of the international political promotes a myopic view of international politics as a whole. Think about it for a moment: if you want to make a textbook which centers around two views of understanding international politics but only present one, you're ignoring a substantial amount of information which is crucial to your own book. Now, luckily for me, my professor recognized Rourke's flaw and did a nice job of presenting both the liberal and realist perspectives. He personally favored a liberal stance, but he gave equal weight to the realists and made sure we thoroughly understood the differences between the two rival systems.

As far as the format of the book: The textbook itself is pretty well put together. There is an extremely helpful index at the back of the book. Since the majority of exam questions were based off of key terms, I found the index very useful. The chapters can be excruciatingly long sometimes--but my complaint is not necessarily the length of the chapters, but the poor organizational format. Some topics become confusing as Rourke has a nasty habit of leaping from one subject to another within one chapter.

Good Textbook 2008-10-18

Reviewer: Stephanie M. Martin

I like this textbook. It is easy to read, and that's good! The material could be so dry, but I can almost sense the author's enthusiasm in presenting the material, and it is in that enthusiasm that keeps the book interesting.

There is also a website that goes along with the book, with vocabulary words, quizzes, and discussions.

Good textbook 2008-09-30

Reviewer: J. Hermann

I'm happy with the required textbook that my professor chose(WSU-that's Washington State). My only complaint is that there is no glossary of terms to reference at the end of the book. The book is easy to read, and the terms that are important are highlighted. I found the the end of the chapter summary very helpful. My attitudes toward the book might be a bit subjective, due to the fact that it's currently helping me ace my assignments.