Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Clarendon Paperbacks) 1st Edition

Hollis and Smith's book, now somewhat two decades old, still serves as a useful contrast in ways of approaching the study of international politics. It is well written, tightly argued, and provocative.

Having just completed this work as part of self-preparation for an entrance exam to a Master's program in IR, I would like to concur with the first reviewer's points (2002 review) and add what I hope is a salient point. For pure theorists, this is an excellent analysis of competing views of IR philosophy. I would caution, however, that this book is not for the faint of heart. Even a more-than-casual student may be put off by the lack of case studies- in a nine-chapter book, it is not until we approach Game Theory in chapter six that more than passing reference is made to application. And, it should be noted, since the book was published in 1991, the case-study in question is the USSR. To be fair, the authors make no pretensions that they are writing a collection of case-studies. Those prepared to invest some brain-power in studying this book will come away with a deep understanding of arguments for and against nearly every theory of IR, within the constraints of publication date. Martin and Hollis's work would benefit from a look at the more recent developments in IR, including the rise of non-state actors over the last two decades, but this is a problem of chronology, not an inherent flaw in their work.

A ponderous treatment of the question whether international politics can best be studies scientifically--like say physics or chemistry--or by writing journalistic and historical accounts that may not exaplain things as prcesicely as scientific theories, yet provide a lot of real "understanding" of politics. The two authors take opposing views and drag out this pointless discussion to the point of no resolution.

Good book

The strength of this book lies in the combination of authors and the insight you get from following the complementary and differing elements of their respective approaches to International Relations. There is nothing new or ground-breaking here but it provides clear perspectives on the problems at the heart of studying this field whilst leaving you to make up your own mind about it all.This is an excellent introduction. For anyone wanting to progress to a more comprehensive and contemporary survey, but one that is still eminently readable and clear, I would recommend Savigny and Marsden "Doing Political Science and International Relations"