What Is the Use of International History?

Author(s): Kim Salomon

Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 375-389
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/424482 .
Accessed: 14/10/2011 19:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace
Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 ? Journal of Peace Research, vol. 30, no. 4, 1993, pp. 375-389

What Is the Use of InternationalHistory?*

KIM SALOMON
Department of History, Lund University

The significance of history for the study of today's international relations has often been
underestimated. The point of departure of this article is that historical studies of international affairs, in
order to be relevant in a broader societal context, must relate to crucial issues for the survival of our
civilization. The basic idea is that historical knowledge should be able to contribute to the making of a
better world, a more peaceful world without violence and war. An emancipatory stance like this is
essential if we are to show the urgency of studying international relations. In this respect, historical
research has a great deal to learn from peace research. Having adopted a political stance in favour of
peace, we can use history or historical methods in at least six different ways to increase our
understanding of today's international affairs: ascertaining facts per se, focusing on the long lines of
development, studying history as a cultural construction, looking for causes, explaining the
establishment of historical phenomena and developing theories. Using these approaches, historical
science has the potential to illuminate aspects of today's international situation where other disciplines
lack the necessary analytical tools. At this critical juncture of world history, in particular in the
aftermath of the Cold War, the first three approaches are considered most relevant. Finally, it is
maintained that historians in the field of international relations have to initiate a debate concerning
central issues or syntheses in world politics to point to the relevance of the historical dimension.

1. Prologue provide facts, these scholars did not think

Do we need history for the study of today's that it had an independent role in the
international development? Or, to put it analysis.
more precisely: Can history or historical The practice of historical studies of in-
methods be used as analytical tools for ternational relations, or diplomatic history
understanding international development as it is often called in the USA,' began in
and hence helping to create a better world? the 19th century with the publication of
A few decades ago, several sociologists, great series of international treaties and
political scientists and peace researchers, diplomatic documents. The discipline
and perhaps even some historians, would emerged as the study of statecraft and the
probably have answered 'no' to the last conduct of foreign policy at the highest
question. This 'no' is not difficult to under- level in the state. The purpose was to
stand. In historical research, it is true, there record a formal narrative of what actually
has traditionally been great interest in happened, and at the same time reveal the
studying relations between states. The topic pattern of the secret strategies of monarchs
of foreign policy has occupied a large and statesmen (Gardiner, 1988, pp. 131-
number of historians. But these historians 135).
mostly omitted to put their findings in a World War I was a breakthrough for the
broader societal context. They were primar- study of relations between states in modern
ily interested in 'what one clerk wrote to times. These studies were based on tra-
another clerk'. Historical knowledge was ditional diplomatic documents, correspon-
felt to have its intrinsic value. Social scien- dence between governments, instructions to
tists came to believe that history as a disci- embassies, and internal memoranda. Even
pline was too descriptive. Although it might though the historians raised new questions
and problems, the nature of the source ma-
terial accessible for the scholars restricted
' I thank Runc Johansson, a number of other col-
leagues at the Departmcnt of History in Lund, Stein
and limited the perspectives. This kind of
T0snnesson and the rcfcrecs for their comments on this material favoured analyses of motives on an
alrticlk. The translation is by Alan Crozicr. individual level and day-to-day descriptions
376 Kim Salomon
of conflicts. Causes of economic or domestic
origin were not evident in the documents
and therefore seldom exposed in the analy-
ses (Floto, 1985, pp. 130-133). This narrow
perspective, partly due to the nature of the
source material, was predominant in diplo-
matic history even for a period after World
War II.
In the 1960s, social history began to attain
a strong position, and it dominated the
research scene in history in the 1970s and
1980s - for better or worse. Social history
made central historical perspectives visible;
its methodological and theoretical vitality
gave the subject a new orientation. In other
branches of historical science the scholars to
a certain degree continued to plough the old
furrows, adopting a defensive attitude in the
debate on alternative approaches.
My introductory question about the use-
fulness of history would no doubt receive a
more positive response today. Historians
have become more theoretically aware in
their studies of international relations. They
have started to consider 'non-political'
aspects of the past. The advance of social
history in the 1970s and 1980s, in the view of
Thomas G. Paterson (1990), meant that
many US historians with foreign policy as
their field of study began a self-critical reap-
praisal of their angles of approach and per-
spectives.
Debate about the scholarly 'stagnation' in
diplomatic history has in recent years been
especially lively in the USA. This discipline
was criticized, among other things, for
having a descriptive purpose, with the pri-
mary aim being to retell a course of events.
It was accused of lacking an analytical per-
spective, of not being interested in method-
ological problems. It was also criticized for
not relating to other research trends, and for
lacking the ability to generalize. Historians
in this field were said to be mainly interested
in government policy, decision-making, and
national power. On the other hand, these
historians were given credit for their skill at
narrating history and burrowing in archives
(Gaddis, 1990, pp. 405-415; Hunt, 1992;
Lauren, 1979, p. 6; McCormick, 1990;
McMahon, 1990).
The fact that diplomatic history in the
USA was and to some extent still is uninter-
esting, however, is not only due to its meth-
odological limitations and its failure to try
new angles, as several critics have main-
tained. It seems rather to be due to the fact
that people in this research tradition have
not discussed what type of knowledge we
need, or, to be more exact, what kind of
knowledge is relevant in a broader societal
context.
The aim of this essay is to show the signifi-
cance of the historical perspective in the
study of international relations. First, my
ambition is to specify what type of knowl-
edge can be relevant and hence what over-
arching principles can guide the choice of
approach and problem area. My basic idea
is that the historical study of international
affairs must start from some kind of emanci-
patory stance (see Salomon, 1992, 1991b).
With this ambition, historical studies of in-
ternational relations partly cover the same
research field as peace studies. It is there-
fore important to specify the potential of
historical science in relation to peace
research. Second, I discuss the use of his-
torical science in studies of international re-
lations, that is, the different ways in which
history or historical methods can be useful
to increase our understanding of contem-
porary international issues.
2. The Role and Utility of Cultural Science
To be able to demonstrate the relevance of
studying international relations, it is necess-
ary to try to specify the over-arching prin-
ciples for the choice of research topic and
for the adoption of relevant perspectives.
On a more general level, of course, it is a
matter of the social role and utility of
science. In the 20th century it is possible to
discern at least three major principles con-
cerning the social role and utility of the cul-
tural sciences: one idealistic/traditional, one
pragmatic and one emancipatory.
The idealistic or traditional view maintains
that the cultural sciences have an intrinsic
value. Research neither can nor should be
linked to externally formulated goals and
values. The only utilitarian aspect that is
invoked is that every country must have a

living cultural heritage. The pragmatic view
defends the cultural sciences by referring to
their social relevance and utility. The cul-
tural sciences must be able to show how use-
ful they are for society. This utility should
preferably be demonstrable instrumentally
or economically - which can be difficult.
According to the pragmatic view, however,
one can always defend one's work with
reference to the indirect contribution to
social development. The reasoning is that
the cultural sciences ought to be able
to increase the total efficiency of society
by compensating for any negative conse-
quences of an excessively one-sided tech-
nocracy. The humanities can thereby have
a decisive 'therapeutic' function in the
modern development of society (Nybom,
1991, pp. 20-21).
The emancipatory view re-emerged in the
1960s as a reaction to the two earlier views.
To avoid the irrelevance of the traditional-
ists and the collaborationist tendencies of
the pragmatists, the representatives of this
new outlook sought to anchor the cultural
sciences in a critical theory in order to con-
cretize the visions and utopias of human life.
Their point of departure is some form of
active moral and political stance. It is im-
portant, however, to distinguish between
two main categories: the externally moti-
vated action researcher and the rational
emancipator. The action researchers regard
their work as a direct and immediate instru-
ment in the service of particular social
groups and interests; in practice, these
action researchers are not infrequently serv-
ing the expressed or presumed needs of
their 'principals'. The rational emancipator
must also fulfil a demand to take sides, but
he is serving superior values and principles
such as freedom and democracy. 'Regard
for these values must always permeate the
relevant cultural science with respect both
to problem formulation and choice of scien-
tific theory. Apart from this, the cultural
scientist has loyalties and duties only to his
own work: rational scientific discourse'
(Nybom, 1991, p. 21).
The demand of the action researcher for
immediate and explicit instrumental utility
is at least as great as the pragmatist's; the
What Is the Use of International History? 377
only difference is the principal. In the same
way, the outlook of the rational emanci-
pator is related to that of the idealist. 'The
difference between them concerns the view
of science and the demand for social rele-
vance in the widest sense' (Nybom, 1991, p.
22).
The term 'emancipatory' is loaded with
values, suggesting that the research is
'biased'. There is of course also a risk that
the scholar will obtain the findings that he
wants. It is therefore extremely important to
discuss what is meant by the concept of
emancipation. Should a researcher be
emancipatory in the sense of telling others
how everything ought to be, or should an
emancipatory approach be used primarily to
specify relevant research tasks?
Researchers in international contempor-
ary history try to explain processes and
establish correlations in a world consisting
of the interplay of many actors. The ambi-
tion is to identify, describe, and explain
events as well as general patterns in human
behaviour. There are scholars who do this
regardless of the wider relevance of a
research task; they can be said to represent
the idealistic view of the role of cultural
science. There are also researchers who
more or less directly try to assist politicians
or administrators with suggestions as to how
to solve concrete problems; they can be said
to have a pragmatic view of the social role of
cultural science. In addition, there are re-
searchers who discuss what international
politics ought to be like, not necessarily
how it actually is. Their writings include
comments, criticisms and suggestions about
how the world ought to be. Researchers in
this tradition represent the emancipatory
stance in the view of the social role of cul-
tural science (see for example Lauren, 1979,
p. 8).
The question of what knowledge is inter-
esting in a broader context must be dis-
cussed on the basis of the significance for
society which the topic is considered to
have. The idealistic approach gives no guid-
ance about the choice of problem to study.
But the emancipatory stance does give guid-
ance, and this approach is also what gives
peace research its special profile.
378 Kim Salomon
3. Peace Research
It was as an alternative to traditional
research in foreign policy and international
relations that peace research developed in
the late 1950s and early 1960s. Outlooks
from sociology and other generalizing
social sciences were opposed to research
influenced by law and history. At the same
time, this opposition was political. The
years after World War II were dominated by
extreme international polarization. This led
to the growth in many places of opposition
to the Cold War, to atomic bombs and the
arms race. It was in this atmosphere that
peace research was born. Johan Galtung
and other peace researchers outlined a pro-
gramme for interdisciplinary, goal-directed,
international societal research. The concept
of peace was broadened to include not only
the absence of war but also the absence of
structural violence. Comparisons were
made with medicine: the peace researchers
were to study the health of global society
(Gleditsch, 1986, p. 253; Tagil, 1976;
0sterud, 1984, pp. 9-14).
Although it is the explicitly normative
approach that has given peace research its
special profile, this discipline encompasses
everything from relatively traditional studies
of foreign policy to studies where the
missionary message is more important than
the scholarly one. Peace research is thus not
a homogeneous discipline with a clearly
defined framework. To begin with, there is
an 'empirical' peace research which exam-
ines problems in the past. Second, there is a
'critical' peace research which concentrates
on today's problems and attempts, for
example, to shape concrete policies. Third,
there is a 'constructive' peace research
which states how the future should be and
indicates possible strategies for peace (Gal-
tung, 1985, p. 153).
In the second and third categories there
are normative elements and guidelines
which are beyond the bounds of what his-
torians generally consider acceptable. His-
torians work according to the guidelines
sketched in the first category, that is, they
try to describe, explain or create under-
standing, although this need not rule out
some kind of emancipatory stance. At
the same time, this 'emancipatory' peace
research can also be described as a precon-
dition for the formation of concrete policies
and the indication of possible strategies for
peace.
4. The Emancipatory Stance
In the discipline of history, the ideal of
objectivity has had a dominant position for
much of the 20th century, especially within
the positivist paradigm. It is only in recent
decades that this ideal has been subjected
to a thorough reappraisal. In the social
sciences, however, there has long been an
awareness of the significance of values for
scholarly activity. It appears to be a general
view that science neither can nor should be
free of values. The solution to the problem
of objectivity in the social sciences has been
to bring the values fully out into the open, to
make them conscious and explicit, and to
declare openly how they have determined
the research. It is a common view that
values are - or can easily be - subjective,
arbitrary and uncontrollable. It can then
appear natural to advocate openness and
awareness (Bergstrom, 1972, pp. 21-27, 37-
43).
Yet one can also demand some kind of
objectivity in the values that can be permit-
ted to influence research. This can be inter-
preted in several different ways. One in-
terpretation is that values in scholarship
should be objective in the sense that they
can be achieved in reality; in other words,
that they are not utopian or unrealistic.
Utopian values, however, can be held up as
an ideal to which one should try to come as
close as possible. Moreover, it can be diffi-
cult to know in advance whether a particular
value is utopian or not. Another possible
interpretation is that values should be objec-
tive in the sense that they are actually
accepted by some people or groups and
hence take on an objective existence (Berg-
strom, 1972, pp. 43-49).
I believe that we as historians must claim
some kind of objectivity for the values
which influence our work, that is, adopt a
stance like that of the rational emancipator.
Jurgen Habermas argues that an emancipat-
 What Is the Use of International History? 379

ory stance linked to superior values and obviously affects their work. In one way, an
goals, such as peace and the survival of hu- emancipatory stance primarily means that
manity, should not be seen as a subjective scholars deal with problems relevant in
clue to be followed by scholarly research. order 'to make the world better'. What is a
He says that the view that humanity should better world, and what is good or bad then
escape suffering, for example, is an uncon- depends on the visions and principles of the
ditional human value. Human suffering can scholars.
and should be eradicated as much as poss- The emancipatory stance, however, should
ible. According to Habermas, this attitude is not prevent the researcher from playing
ingrained in our social structures and the role of the testing sceptic. The aim
reflects a fundamental need to combat injus- 'must be that we arrive at our own findings
tice and repression (Habermas, 1986, p. after a hard struggle, in ceaseless dialogue
198; see also Alker 1988, pp. 220-221). with other research, with the sources, or
Habermas seems to assume that these su- with alternative interpretations' (Osterberg,
perior values are independent of time and 1990, pp. 16-17). A fundamental task for
place, but this is far from certain. the historians must still be the hard and
Values like the survival of humanity can time-consuming work of source studies,
in one way be considered as objective not without necessarily drowning in diplomatic
only by being ingrained in our social struc- correspondence, names and dates. And it
tures, but also since they are recognized by a should be research into peace, not research
rather large group of people and since they for peace.
are not necessarily utopian. However, that As in peace research, the concept of
does not mean that all scholars are guided peace is also central to historical studies of
by them. If scholars who share these values international relations. It is central because
do not pay attention to them, they do not much of this research focuses on power
need to affect their work. Or scholars may struggles, wars and conflicts. The starting-
even deliberately neglect them. They may, point for historical studies of international
for example, primarily be interested in just relations must therefore be a stance which,
telling a story regardless of the utility of for example, rejects human suffering and
their study. violence. This stance does not neglect the
Emancipatory approaches not only deter- fact that human beings are suffering and
mine what problems a scholar will bring into exposed to violence, and will be so in the
focus, but also the questions he poses, the future. It may even be wrong to say that this
choice of methods, definitions, hypotheses starting-point improves the scientific value
and thereby the results. The fact that the of a historical study as such, but it does
emancipatory stance affects the different improve its general value.
phases of the research process does not By assigning priority to the issue of peace
exclude that there are other kinds of factors in the problem-formulating phase of the
and values which influence the work, such as research process, and by trying to establish
traditions and personality. To what degree why the world functions the way it does, we
the emancipatory stance affects the work create the potential for change. Approaches
partly depends on the ambition of the like this must guide the sort of problem from
scholars. the past which is to be the focus of study,
Scholars with similar emancipatory start- and which makes research into international
ing-points do not necessarily choose the relations relevant. The use of history as
same methods, the same concepts or ap- an analytical tool for understanding and
proaches. A right-wing revisionist historian explaining the present presupposes an ex-
and a left-wing historian who is committed plicit reasoning about what kind of knowl-
to studying the conditions for a more peace- edge is relevant. The urgency of the
ful world do not necessarily define peace in research task is determined by some form of
the same way, and they may have different stance outside scholarship; in this case it is
views on how to achieve peace, and this the aspiration for peace and the survival of
380 Kim Salomon

humanity, perceived as a norm for societal and important contributor to studies of

development. international relations. Another peace re-
Historical research which starts from an searcher, Kenneth Boulding (1989, pp. 463-
emancipatory stance is often guided by 464), argues that 'in the interest of human
current issues. Problems and angles of survival, there is a desperate need to de-
approach are developed in a contemporary velop images of the relevant past . . . that
perspective. There is a danger, however, in are more accurate than those that most
writing history purely about the tendencies people have today. These images should
that predominate in today's society. The particularly stress what might be called the
risk is that we lose sight of the alternatives "other side" of history, in which peace is
which once existed but which failed. Those seen essentially as the norm, and war is seen
alternatives were just as real and burning for as an interruption in the long process of the
people in the past as any of the victorious development of knowledge and skill, es-
solutions. Ignoring them means writing the pecially in the management of conflict'.
history of the victors with the benefit of Historical studies of international re-
hindsight. Yet we have no right to judge lations are to be considered as an indepen-
people's actions in history solely on the basis dent discipline and should not be reduced
of what we are privileged to know by hind- to an auxiliary science. An emancipatory
sight (Osterberg, 1992). stance like the one Boulding refers to helps
While peace research for obvious reasons to give this discipline its own identity.
often formulates its problems on the basis of Historians themselves, as we have seen in
our own day and hence runs the risk of for- the postwar era, have been sceptical of the
getting the alternatives that failed, historicalideological and normative profile of peace
science gives the possibility of bringing out research. They have had little sympathy for
the past on its own premises. It is possible to the demand for immediate utility, and they
show the extinct lines of development, and have hesitated to use history to develop
hence to discuss the whole scope of possi- political strategies.
bilities in existence. We can, however, discern other tend-
encies in previous historical works. In the
half-century before the outbreak of World
5. An Independent Discipline War I, in the wake of the triumph of
In the traditional environment of peace nationalism, the historians were usually
studies, there is a certain lack of under- nationally biased. The nations and states
standing of the usefulness of historical ap- were cast as heroes and villains. At the same
proaches and of history as analytical tools. time, socialists and liberals advocated other
To be able to talk about, for example, the versions focusing, for example, on the social
consequences of events in Europe in 1989, and economic origins of imperialism. Some
one must, according to a peace researcher, rejected the notion of a 'just war'. After
Hakan Wiberg (1990, p. 1), use theory, his- World War I these ideas and perspectives
torical statistics and intuition. Historical inspired a new generation of historians. The
statistics, by which he probably means more vision was a peacefully ordered world based
precisely historical facts, can be used for two on collective security and international co-
purposes in his opinion: to test different operation. Profoundly disillusioned by the
theories and as an inspiration for the forma- war and its doctrine of nationalism, his-
tion of new theories. Wiberg's view is fairly torians felt the need to look for new expla-
common among social scientists. They see nations of what had happened before
history as the laboratory of the social August 1914 and looked for those particular
sciences, where they can test their theories. individuals who had taken decisions which
History is thus reduced to an auxiliary led to war (Floto, 1985, pp. 130-133; Gar-
science. diner, 1988, pp. 135-137).
Yet there are examples of the opposite, Quincy Wright wrote in the foreword to
where history is held up as an independent the original edition of A Study of War pub-

lished in 1942: 'This investigation, begun in
the hopeful atmosphere of Locarno and
completed in the midst of general war, has
convinced the writer that the problem of
preventing war is one of increasing import-
ance in our civilization and that the problem
is essentially one of maintaining adaptive
stability within the world-community . .
(Wright, 1969, p. ix).
During the interwar period one can notice
an interest in peace-related issues on the
basis of an emancipatory stance for peace,
although not always expressed as explicitly
as by Wright. World War II and the sub-
sequent Cold War, however, ushered in a
new era in the history of international
relations. Hans J. Morgenthau's Politics
Among Nations appeared as one of the first
examples of the new era, and many were to
follow. In the face of the world events the
realist position became predominant (Olson
& Onuf, 1985, p. 24).
Gradually, international history has di-
versified, and we have recently seen
several examples of historians with the ex-
plicit ambition to formulate problems on
the basis of a peace-related emancipatory
stance.
The Council on Peace Research in
History, founded in the USA in 1964, urges,
for example, its members to concentrate on
'the kind of research on the history of war,
peace, violence and conflict that can clarify
the causes of international peace and the
difficulties in creating it' (Wittner, 1987, p.
360).
The US historian Lawrence Wittner
(1987, p. 370) considers that by focusing on
'the war-making behavior of the nation-
state and the alternatives to that behavior
posed by peace movements, diplomatic his-
torians can not only write better history, but
may actually help to do something about the
age-old institution of war'.
The German historian Wolfram Wette
(1990, pp. 19-20) maintains that one should
use historical methods to study areas that
are relevant for peace. By this he means not
only ideas about peace, peace projects, state
and non-state actions for peace, but also his-
torical forces which try to obstruct peace.
According to Wette, it is important to focus
What Is the Use of International History? 381
on the capacity or incapacity for peace,
which he says is hardly ever done in tra-
ditional historical research.
There are thus tendencies in the historical
research environment to use emancipatory
stances as a basis for formulating problem
areas and research projects concerning
peace. In this respect, however, the subject
of international history has a great deal to
learn from peace research.
Emancipatory approaches are, as men-
tioned above, particularly necessary in the
problem-formulating phase if historical
studies of international relations are to be
relevant. These approaches must link up
with issues of decisive importance for our
civilization, such as possibilities for peace
and the preconditions for resolving conflicts
without violence and repression. They also
help to give historical studies of inter-
national relations an identity as a discipline.
The concrete topic that is chosen by the
historian - conflict resolution or the refugee
problem, the arms race or the United
Nations - is actually of less importance.
What is crucial is the point of departure,
which in turn has decisive consequences for
the choice of problem areas, questions,
angles of approach and the organization of
the inquiry, in other words, for the way to
use history or historical methods.
6. Six Ways to Use History
In two recently published articles mentioned
above, Boulding and Wette identify
research tasks for historians studying issues
related to peace. The topics Boulding (1989,
pp. 465-469) comes up with concern 'the
impact of the development of agriculture on
the incidence of war and peace', 'the devel-
opment following military conquest', 'epi-
sodes of the diminution (or rise) of internal
violence within countries or regions', 'the
impact of technical changes in weaponry
and defensive structures', 'the role of re-
ligion', 'the social, cultural, and economic
consequences of military defeat', and 'trans-
formations of national images'. Wette
(1990, pp. 23-41), on the other hand,
emphasizes the importance of studying the
causes of war, peace movements, socialist
382 KimSalomon
workers movements and armament and dis-
armament in history.
It is important to identify the main areas
which relate to the field of peace studies,
and both Wette's and Boulding's sugges-
tions are highly relevant. I find it, however,
more important to discuss in what way
history as a discipline can make contribu-
tions to the study of international affairs,
that is, the various ways in which it is poss-
ible to use history or a historical method as
an analytical tool.
First, history, or rather historical
methods, can be used to establish historical
facts per se. Second, history can be used to
make syntheses or to trace long lines of de-
velopment to show change or continuity.
The third potential use of history is to
analyse how a phenomenon is established,
institutionalized and cemented. The fourth
possible use of history is as an analytical tool
for establishing general links, that is, to gen-
eralize, or, more precisely, to develop and
test theories about such links. The fifth
potential use of history is more traditional,
to find the origin of an event or a phenom-
enon. Finally, there is also the historiogra-
phical approach, that is, the study of how
history is used and interpreted.
These six headings are not mutually ex-
clusive, but it may be analytically fruitful to
distinguish them, since they represent
different angles of approach and different
ways to use history in analysing inter-
national relations. In a sense, the first point
has traditionally been considered by his-
torians as the most fundamental task, and it
brings into focus the use of historical
methods. The four subsequent points refer
to history as an analytical tool. Point six
refers to history as a cultural construction,
and as such the object of analysis. What
follows is a discussion of these six headings.
It makes no claim to be comprehensive but
it is undertaken in the belief that it will func-
tion as a starting-point for a debate about
the way history can be useful in studying
international affairs. I find it particularly
fruitful to show the usefulness of history in
order to grasp the major issues which we
will bring with us, for better or worse, into
the 21st century; issues such as what will
follow after the end of the Cold War, poten-
tials of crisis management, how to solve the
problems of migration, famine and the en-
vironment, and the problems of the devel-
opment of nationalism and ethnic identity.
The first way I shall discuss in which
history or rather historical methods can be
used is to establish historical facts per se,
that is, what can be ascertained about events
and people in the past by using various his-
torical methods.
The ambition to establish facts per se has
often been considered important in tra-
ditional studies of foreign policy. The focus
has been on the unique. It goes without say-
ing that these studies have produced inter-
esting findings. Ascertaining historical facts
per se can be an important task for a his-
torian. In Eastern Europe, where historical
research has distorted or suppressed a
number of historical facts for a long time, it
is felt to be very important today to establish
that certain things actually did happen. It
was not very long ago, for example, that
there officially were no secret protocols to
the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in the Soviet
Union.
The end of the Cold War points to
questions such as: What now? What do we
get instead? Will the world be more peace-
ful? In order to deal with these questions it
is necessary to study the past and above all
discuss why the Cold War ended. Was it
because democracy defeated dictatorship,
as claimed by politicians in the West?
In dealing with these questions, scholars
have now got new possibilities with the
opening of the archives in Russia and the
Eastern European countries. It will be a
major challenge for historians to study, for
example, how totalitarian states functioned
and why they for decades succeeded in
oppressing the people. Knowledge about
these conditions will have to be established
on the basis of thorough studies of archives,
and ascertainment of facts per se. The work
will then, put into a broader context, make
it possible to understand the preconditions
for the development of a totalitarian state
such as the Soviet Union, a development
which included giving priority to national
security and the occupation of adjacent

states. Even though historical facts are, as in
this case, incorporated in a broader analysis,
the importance of establishing historical
facts per se should not be underestimated.
The second way in which history can be
used is to make syntheses or to trace long
lines of development to show change or con-
tinuity in society, in other words, to describe
a development from one stage to another.
This long perspective makes it possible to
focus on people's conceptions, values and
aspirations, that is, culture, which has very
often been neglected in social science. The
concentration of peace research on pro-
cesses and structures, arms systems and re-
armament, has often entailed a lack of
interest in the long temporal perspective.
As Kalevi Holsti (1985, p. 131) maintains,
there is a tendency among social scientists in
the field of international politics to develop
theoretical innovations on the basis of
recent diplomatic developments. Central
concepts in the field of international re-
lations, such as bipolarity and deterrence,
were mainly developed to describe a world
separated into two blocks, led by the Soviet
Union and the USA respectively.
Russia/USSR and the USA, however,
never fought a war. In fact twice this century
they were allies. The Cold War, therefore,
must be considered an anomaly. More often
than not the two states have lived together
in uneasy amity. These facts point to the
perils of an ahistorical perspective which
takes the present as the normal state of
affairs. If we strive for generalizations we
ought to reconsider studies based on a
longer period than a couple of decades. The
tendency to construct theories predicated on
the permanence of the Cold War has left
scholars unprepared for today's develop-
ments (Jonsson, 1992, p. 11; Lukacs, 1992,
p. 64). On the whole, bringing the long lines
and continuity into focus is also a precon-
dition for studying ethnic conflicts, another
of the major urgent problems in today's
Europe.
As Hakan Wiberg (1991) has remarked,
ethnic conflict has not attracted sufficient
attention in peace research. The point, how-
ever, is that, in order to understand how
ethnic conflict can arise and develop, and
What Is the Use of International History? 383
how national identities can lie dormant
during decades of repression, it is necessary
to adopt a long time perspective.
The changes in ethnic identity are con-
sidered to be a part of very 'slow-moving
processes which may be difficult to grasp
using the current methods of social science'
(Tagil, 1984, p. 42). Using a longer perspec-
tive, it is therefore possible not just to con-
centrate on quick political changes or on the
superficial political power game, but also to
analyse continuity, which in this case is rep-
resented by people's linguistic and cultural
affinities.
The third potential use of history is to
analyse how a phenomenon is established,
institutionalized and cemented. In the for-
mative phase we can clearly see the contours
of a new phenomenon. This formative per-
spective is not the same as the classic search
for origins in an evolutionist spirit (Lofgren,
1990, pp. 20-21).
This perspective may, for example, be
useful in analysing and making understand-
able the international refugee policy. The
Western world of today has to take the diffi-
cult and conflict-strewn path to a compre-
hensive policy on refugees, immigration and
integration. There are at present some 18
million people who have fled their homes
and are now living in exile.
Focusing on the formative phase of inter-
national refugee relief efforts in the years
immediately after the end of World War II
will make it possible to explain and provide
a basis for understanding how the policies
upon which the efforts are based were estab-
lished and institutionalized. This perspec-
tive is also essential for understanding the
reasons why today's international refugee
policies are deficient, which in turn is
necessary for being able to improve these
policies (Salomon, 1991a, pp. 13-17).
The fourth possible use of history is as an
analytical tool for establishing general links,
or, more precisely, to test and develop
theories about such links, that is, to general-
ize. The aim is not just to explain a unique
situation but also to compare a number of
similar events or phenomena. The fact that
the general scope of historical analyses very
often is limited chronologically and covers
384 Kim Salomon
only certain aspects of human behaviour
may be a problem but it also gives the theor-
ies a certain empirical content.
One important field in which historians
can contribute to develop generalizations
and theories concerns the preconditions for
international cooperation. Today it is most
urgent to improve international cooperation
to solve problems such as famine and the
environment, and to ensure lasting peace.
International cooperation at government
level took a more permanent form with the
founding of the League of Nations during
the peace negotiations at the end of World
War I. The aim was to find solutions to
ensure lasting peace, which is still one of the
major goals in international cooperation on
governmental level. A relevant task for his-
torians would therefore be to compare vari-
ous actions - or lack of action - within the
framework of the League of Nations and in
particular the United Nations, taken to
solve conflicts or to develop peace-keeping
operations. This task may enable historians
to make some generalizations concerning
preconditions for the management of con-
flicts. The analyses do not necessarily have
to be of a quantitative nature; see, for
example Brecher & Wilkenfeld (1989).
Instead of carrying out analyses which
embrace a great number of conflicts, it
might be more useful to focus on a few
thoroughly analysed conflicts. International
activities to help starving people or to solve
global environmental problems may be
studied in a similar way.
At the same time, it is important to
underline that we have to be humble in our
efforts to generalize and develop theories.
The less ambitious goal of identifying
certain variables of importance and influ-
ence could be as useful. To identify a
number of causal factors will also be rele-
vant for understanding the past and present
(Nj0lstad, 1990, p. 243).
Another less ambitious goal is to reveal
similarities and differences by comparing
phenomena in the past with each other or
with the present. This in turn will make it
possible to discuss what is genuinely unique
in our times and what is a general feature.
In the Danish-Swedish wars of the 15th
and 16th centuries, when the southernmost
provinces of present-day Sweden were a
central area in the Danish kingdom, the
population in the border zones suffered
more than anyone else. Ravages, reprisals,
billeting of soldiers and exploitation were
everyday realities. The peasants on either
side of the border therefore concluded
regional agreements not to take part in the
wars of their respective kings. At the start of
the 17th century too, there were several
examples of peasants fighting against the
soldiers of both kings. The local population
refused to follow directives from Copen-
hagen or Stockholm.
Sixteenth-century peasants have little in
common with the nationalized, urbanized
and secularized citizens of today's welfare
state. Yet the difference is evidently not as
great as it might appear at first sight. Even
in the unique there can be general features,
in this case the horror with which people
react to the devastations of war. This applies
as much to the people of the 16th century as
it does to today's citizens.
A special form of comparison is the use of
the past as a contrast to a contemporary
phenomenon with the purpose of problem-
atizing this phenomenon or seeing it in a
new light. This analytical approach, which
may be called the contrapuntal technique, is
used, for example, by anthropologists to
construct an exotic 'otherness' as a chrono-
logical or geographical reference point. It is
used to provide perspective, as a way to pro-
'blematize the present and make it visible
(Lofgren, 1990, p. 21).
The fifth potential use of history is more
traditional. The aim is to find the origin of
an event or a phenomenon. This perspec-
tive, to trace a line going back in time, is, for
example, used when explaining the causes
of war. The aim is often to be able to point
out one or more factors that explain why a
particular war broke out.
Naturally, it is important when studying
wars like World War I and World War II to
focus on what is unique, that is, to explain
the causes of each war. But it is at least as
important to consider the shared features so
as to be able to say something general about
why wars start. Yet we should be aware that

we must know about what is unique if we
are to perceive what is general, just as we
must know about general and repetitive
features of development if we are to dis-
tinguish what is unique. Of course, one can
also maintain that general theories about
the causes of conflicts can help to give better
explanations of the causes of World War I
and World War II, at the same time as one
can test the explanatory value of these
theories using specific empirical material.
The sixth way to use history is to study
how history is used and interpreted. It can
be said to be a matter of studying history in
the present, that is, trying to capture the
result of historical processes in contempor-
ary life. Ethnologists, for example, talk
about the culturally created picture of the
past. The past becomes interesting as a cul-
tural construction, and in this sense it often
says much more about the present-day cul-
tural frame of reference than it does about
the past (Lindqvist, 1992, pp. 7-8).
In this research field there are different
categories of study. One important category
is the study of textbooks and schoolbooks,
where the purpose is to discuss the meaning
of the picture of history and show how it is a
product of its times. Another important cat-
egory comprises studies of the importance
which the actors' pictures of the past have
for their political action in the present.
Their pictures of the past are an important
frame of reference for the way they think
and act.
Actors' pictures of the past can be uncon-
scious, a part of the cultural heritage, as is
maintained, for example, in an analysis of
Soviet foreign policy. In this analysis the
foreign policy of the USSR is seen as a con-
tinuation of the traditional expansionist
policies of the Russian tsars. The aim of the
study is not to identify direct causes of be-
haviour but rather to establish a historically
derived world-view which dominates the
attitudes of the decision-makers (Gerner,
1980).
The actors' pictures of the past can also
depend on their own conscious interpre-
tations. This is asserted in a study of US
foreign policy during the Cold War. It is
claimed, for example, that the policy of
What Is the Use of International History? 385
appeasement during the Munich discussions
in 1938 was used by the US politicians as a
deterrent example when they formed their
own doctrines about policy towards the
Soviet Union. Munich symbolized an acqui-
escence which the US decision-makers did
not want to repeat. Historical examples and
analogies are usually invoked for rhetorical
purposes, to defend or support official
policy. Yet the historical conceptions about
Munich held by the US decision-makers
should not be seen just as rhetoric but also
as an expression of fundamental values
which dominated their psychological world
(Rystad, 1982, pp. 9, 71).
More often than not, different ap-
proaches are used in the same study or
analysis. In order to develop theories it
may, for example, be necessary to establish
facts which are going to be incorporated in
the analysis, or to find the origin of an event
or a phenomenon. Which approach is
central depends on the purpose of the study.
Even though the various approaches are
not mutually exclusive, some of them are -
in particular in the light of current events in
world history - more useful than others.
Above all, I believe that the long lines of
development showing change and continuity
must be a top priority for the coming gener-
ations of historians. It is in this particular
approach that I think the centre of gravity of
activities should be in international history
in the coming period.
If, for example, we want to study the up-
heavals in Eastern Europe since 1989, we
must use a historical perspective which is
broad enough so that we can identify both
change and continuity. The rapid changes of
political systems are not necessarily fol-
lowed by equally rapid changes in people's
norms and values.
People's conceptions, values and aspir-
ations often represent historical continui-
ties. Everyday routines and rituals are not
dissolved as quickly as new governments are
formed. If we confine ourselves to snap-
shots, we do not see anything remarkable
about people living in a world where change
and continuity are interwoven (Osterberg,
1992).
A top priority for the coming generation
386 Kim Salomon
of historians should also be the study of
history as a cultural construction, in general
an underestimated approach. History in
today's world is abused to serve national
and ethnic purposes, and has been so in par-
ticular during the Cold War in order to
throw suspicion on the opponents.
Studies of the way history is used and
interpreted in various contexts make it poss-
ible to reveal indoctrination, political propa-
ganda and the abuse of history generally.
Such studies can give us a general vigilance
against distortions of fact in the service of
political propaganda and rhetoric, and, for
example, elucidate the political culture of
the Cold War.
The traditional historical craft of estab-
lishing facts per se will also be useful in a
period when several old and new states have
opened or are going to open their national
archives. Historical methods have to be
applied when using documents from these
archives to uncover, for example, the
oppressive powers of the communist parties
in the East European countries. I believe
that we may even have to instruct historians
from some of these countries in historical
craftsmanship.
7. Why Use History?
Using these various approaches and
methods makes it possible to shed light on
aspects which are not normally considered
in, for example, peace research and political
science, but which can help to increase our
understanding of international relations not
only in the past but also in the present.
Historical research is traditionally associ-
ated with the hope that we can learn from
the past. It is argued that we can make fore-
casts of future issues based on trends and
changes over past decades. The study of in-
ternational relations in a historical pers-
pective, for example, is said to be able to
lead to increased rationality in political
decisions.
It is, however, not an easy task to learn
from history. As Alexander L. George
(1979, p. 44) states, 'the lesson drawn from
a particular case may be contradicted by the
lesson that springs from another case'. What
the historians can do, according to George,
is to provide reminders that the lessons of
history are not always clear and that review-
ing the current situation as analogous to an
earlier historical case may be misleading.
According to Samuel Wells (1979, pp.
271-275), the value of history for policy-
makers can increase if the scholars are
prepared to provide studies designed and
tailored to meet the needs of the politicians.
Although historians are flattered by being
advisers to policy-makers instead of
observers, playing the part of Machiavelli or
Kissinger, this role does not enable them
to draw more precise lessons from history
and convert them into instructions. The
tendency of the past cannot be uncritically
extended into the future. We cannot
produce guidelines for policy or provide
prescripts for actions. But what then can we
do? Will, for example, the study of war con-
tribute to the prevention of war?
As historians we have in one sense to be
modest. Karl W. Deutsch formulated the
basic idea simply but clearly in a foreword:
'War, to be abolished, must be understood.
To be understood, it must be studied'
(Wright, 1969, p. xii). Through studies of
prior cases of comparable nature, I believe
that historians can improve our understand-
ing of contemporary issues, which in turn
gives a basis of knowledge for identifying
major issues of importance in the future and
for discussing alternative developments.
History is ever-present in our age, which
makes it possible to identify historical pro-
cesses that are significant for future develop-
ment.
Historians are trained in analysing change
and continuity over time. They can provide
questions that help to analyse and explain
certain kinds of phenomena. They should
naturally be able to help policy-makers see
their problems in a more complete and less
parochial context. But as mentioned above,
the primary purpose should not be to serve
policy-makers or government officials, but
rather to initiate a debate about the future
or contribute to it.
The past is both constructive and poten-
tially destructive, it not only creates solidar-
ity but also justifies war. The destructive

potential can be seen, for example, in Eur-
ope during World War II. The Nazis used
historical arguments to support their ideals
about a master race and to demand new ter-
ritory (Kristiansen, 1989). A central task of
historical research in the study of inter-
national relations is therefore to expose the
destructive tendencies in the past and to
assert the constructive ones.
8. Epilogue
Historical studies of international relations
have in recent decades not received atten-
tion from social scientists. Although these
conditions are changing, I still think, in a
sense, that historians could be more active
in their efforts to show the relevance of the
historical dimension and historical methods.
I believe that international history as a
discipline is badly in need of a debate about
central issues in world politics which points
to the historical dimension. In a way, the
discussion about the causes of World War I
and World War II functioned as such. Even
though many of these studies were nat-
ionally or politically biased, the debate as
such pointed to the importance of the his-
torical dimension for understanding con-
temporary issues.
The historians therefore ought to identify
some central issues and research areas in the
effort to bring the historical dimension into
focus. At this critical juncture of world
history, there are several such issues, for
example, the end of the Cold War and its
aftermath.
A discussion of the importance of history
could also be initiated by producing syn-
theses. Paul Kennedy (1987) argues, for
example, that great powers will decline
when their economic bases no longer can
sustain global political and military commit-
ments, and that the USA will meet the same
destiny. This thesis has been criticized by
scholars who claim that the USA is 'bound
to lead'. Joseph Nye (1990) argues, for
example, that no other great power than the
USA is willing to and able to assure a global
leadership role in today's world. Uncer-
tainty about the USA's future role has re-
percussions in the political arena, and
What Is the Use of International History? 387
affects not only US international political
scholars, according to Christer Jonsson
(1992), but also policy-makers. Kennedy's
thesis has thereby not only given a new per-
spective on the future role of the USA but
also highlighted the importance of the his-
torical dimension and affected the general
political debate.
Debates among the historians about
central issues, and the possibilities of
making better use of history in analysing
these issues, will not only be inspiring for
the historical research milieu, but above all
will bring the historical dimension into focus
and thereby contribute to a better under-
standing of contemporary issues. In this
debate it is not only necessary to emphasize
the importance of an emancipatory stance as
a guidance in the research process but also
to highlight the potentials of the discipline
to illuminate aspects of today's international
situation where other disciplines lack the
necessary analytical tools.
NOTE
1. The great interest in diplomatic history in the USA
can be explained in part by the leading role of that
country in world history. 'Diplomatic history' is the
standard US term for the study of various aspects of
the USA's relations to other countries. Other,
broader terms are 'the history of foreign relations',
'the history of international relations', or 'inter-
national history'. The last two terms are fairly
common in Europe.
REFERENCES
Alker, Hayward, R., Jr, 1988. 'Emancipatory Empiri-
cism. Toward the Renewal of Empirical Peace
Research', pp. 219-241 in Peter Wallensteen, ed.,
Peace Research. Achievements and Challenges.
Boulder, CO & London: Westview.
Bergstrom, Lars, 1972. Objektivitet. En undersokning
av inneborden, mnojlighetenoch onskvcrdheten av
objektivitet i samhcillsvetenskapen [Objectivity. A
Study of the Significance, Potential, and Desirability
of Objectivity in the Social Sciencesi. Stockholm:
Prisma.
Boulding, Kenneth E., 1989. 'A Proposal for a
Research Program in the History of Peace', Peace
and Change, vol. 14, no. 4, October, pp. 461-469.
Brecher, Michael & Jonathan Wilkenfeld, 1989. Crisis,
Conflict and Instability. Oxford & New York: Perga-
mon.
Floto, Inga, 1985. Historie. Nyere og nyeste tid
[History. Modern and Recent Timesi. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal.
388 Kim Salomon
Gaddis, John Lewis, 1987. 'Expanding the Data Base.
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Enrichment
of Security Studies', International Security, vol. 12,
no. 1, Summer, pp. 3-21.
Gaddis, John Lewis, 1990. 'New Conceptual Ap-
proaches to the Study of American Foreign Re-
lations. Interdisciplinary Perspectives', Diplomatic
History, vol. 14, no. 3, Summer, pp. 405-423.
Galtung, Johan, 1985. 'Twenty-five Years of Peace
Research. Ten Challenges and Some Responses',
Journal of Peace Research, vol. 22, no. 2, June, pp.
141-158. Also pp. 213-243 in Johan Galtung, Trans-
armament and the Cold War. Peace Research and the
Peace Movement. Essays in Peace Research. Volume
Six. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Gardiner, Juliet, ed., 1988. What is History Today . . . ?
London: Macmillan.
George, Alexander L., 1979. 'Case Studies and Theory
Development. The Method of Structured, Focused
Comparison', pp. 43-68 in Paul Lauren, ed., Diplo-
macy. New Approaches in History, Theory and
Policy. New York: Free Press.
Gerner, Kristian, 1980. 'Kazan and Manchu. Cultural
Roots of Soviet Foreign Relations', Cooperation and
Conflict, vol. 15, no. 2, June, pp. 57-7().
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, 1986. 'Fredsforskning og poli-
tikk' [Peace Research and Politics], Politica, vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 252-262.
Habermas, Jurgen, 1986. Autonomy and Solidarity.
Interviews. Edited and Introduced by Peter Dews,
London: Verso.
Holsti, Kalevi J., 1985. The Dividing Discipline.
Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory.
Boston, MA & London: Allen & Unwin.
Hunt, Michael H., 1992. 'Historiography: The Long
Crisis in US Diplomatic History. Coming to Clos-
ure', Diplomatic History, vol. 16, no. 1, Winter, pp.
115-140.
Jonsson, Christer, 1992. 'International Politics. Scandi-
navian Identity or American Hegemony?' Paper
prepared for conference 'Political Science in Scandi-
navia - Trends and Challenges', Oslo, May.
Kennedy, Paul, 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great
Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict
from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
Kristiansen, Kristian, 1989. '"Fortids Kraft og
Kaempestyrke". Om national og politisk brug af forti-
den' ['Ancient Might and Giant Strength'. On the
National and Political Use of the Past], pp. 187-218
in Lotte Hedeager & Karen Schousboe, eds, Brugte
historier. Ti essays om brug og misbrug af historien
tUsed History. Ten Essays on the Use and Abuse of
History]. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Lauren, Paul, Gordon, 1979. 'Diplomacy. History,
Theory, and Policy', pp. 3-18 in Paul Gordon
Lauren, ed-, Diplomacy. New Approaches in
History, Theory and Policy. New York: Free Press.
Lindqvist, Mats, 1992. 'Between Realism and Relati-
vism. A Consideration of History in Modern Eth-
nology', Ethnologia Scandinavica, vol. 22, pp. 3-16.
Lukacs, John, 1992. 'America and Russia, Americans
and Russians', American Heritage, vol. 43, no. 1,
February/March, pp. 64-73.
Lofgren, Orvar, 1990. 'Huvudentreer och koksingan-
gar i kulturstudiet' [Main Entrances and Back Doors
in the Study of Culture], pp. 9-33 in Henrik
Horstb0ll & Henrik Kaare Nielsen, eds, Delkulturer.
Arhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
McCormick, Thomas J., 1990. 'Something Old, Some-
thing New. John Lewis Gaddis's "New Conceptual
Approaches"', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 3,
Summer, pp. 425-432.
McMahon, Robert, 1990, 'The Study of American
Foreign Relations. National History or International
History?', Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 4, Fall,
pp. 554-5(64.
Nj0lstad, Olav, 1990. 'Learning from History? Case
Studies and the Limits to Theory-Building', pp. 220-
246 in Nils Petter Gleditsch & Olav Nj0lstad, eds,
Arms Races. Technological and Political Dynamics.
London & Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nybom, Thorsten, 1991. 'Fragor kring kulturforsknin-
gens karaktar, bestamningar och nytta. Vetenskaps-
ideologi, forskningspolitik och forskningsorganisa-
tion i Sverige efter 1945. En preliminar diskussion'
[Questions about the Character, Determinants, and
Usefulness of Cultural Research. Scientific Ideology,
Research Policy, and Research Organization in
Sweden since 1945. A Preliminary Discussion], pp.
16-28 in Christian Kvium, ed., Historien og historik-
erne i Norden efter 1965 [History and Historians in
Scandinavia since 1965]. Arhus: Aarhus Universi-
tetsforlag.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr, 1990. Bound to Lead. The Changing
Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
Olson, William & Nicholas Onuf, 1985. 'The Growth of
a Discipline: Reviewed', pp. 1-28 in Steve Smith,
ed., International Relations. British and A merican
Perspectives. Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell.
Paterson, Thomas G., 1990. 'Defining and Doing the
History of American Foreign Relations. A Primer',
Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 4, Fall, pp. 584-601.
Rystad, Goran, 1982. Prisoners of the Past? The
Munich Syndrome and Makers of American Foreign
Policy in the Cold War Era. Lund: Gleerup.
Salomon, Kim, 1991a. Refugees in the Cold War. To-
ward a New International Refugee Regime in the
Early Postwar Era. Lund: Lund University Press.
Salomon, Kim, 1991b. 'Varfor skall vi studera interna-
tionell samtidshistoria' [Why Should We Study Con-
temporary International History?], Historisk Tid-
skrift, no. 3, pp. 340-355.
Salomon, Kim, 1992. 'En pladoaje for emancipatorisk
historieundervisning' [A Plea for Emancipatory
History Teaching], pp. 121-137 in Lars Edgren &
Eva Osterberg, eds, Ut med historien [Disseminating
History]. Lund: Lund University Press.
Tagil, Sven, 1976. 'Empirisk konfliktforskning - en
programforklaring' [Empirical Conflict Research - a
Policy Statement], Humanistisk forskning, no. 1, pp.
32-36.
Tagil, Sven, 1984. 'Ethno-Regionalism as a Problem of
Conflict Theory', pp. 13-43 in Sven Tagil, ed.,
Regions in Upheaval: Ethnic Conflict and Political
Mobilization. Stockholm: Esselte.
Wells, Samuel F., Jr, 1979. 'History and Policy', pp.

269-277 in Paul Lauren, ed., Diplomacy. New Ap-
proaches in History, Theory and Policy. New York:
Free Press.
Wette, Wolfram, 1990. 'Geschichte und Frieden. Auf-
gaben historischer Friedensforschung', pp. 14-60 in
Reiner Steinweg, ed., Lehren aus der Geschichte?
Historische Friedensforschung. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Wiberg, Hakan, 1990. 'Nye udfordringer til freds-
forskningen' [New Challenges for Peace Researchl.
Working Paper no. 9, Centre for Peace and Conflict
Research, Copenhagen.
Wiberg, Hakan, 1991. 'Focus On: States and Nations as
Challenges to Peace Research', Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 28, no. 4, November, pp. 337-343.
Wittner, Lawrence S., 1987. 'Peace Movements and
Foreign Policy. The Challenge to Diplomatic His-
torians', Diplomatic History, vol. 11, no. 4, Fall, pp.
355-370.
KIM SALOMON, b. 1948, PhD in History (Lund University, 1980); Associate Professor of History,
Lund University, Sweden. Most recent book: Refugees in the Cold War (Lund University Press,
1991).
What Is the Use of International History? 389
Wright, Quincy, 1969. A Study of War. Chicago, IL &
London: University of Chicago Press.
Osterberg, Eva, 1990. 'Etik-ihistorisk forskning. Strunt
- eller rosor i ett sprucket krus?' [Ethics in Historical
Researchi, Historisk Tidskrift, no. 1, pp. 2-20.
Osterberg, Eva, 1992. 'Graset och historien. De langa
linjernas strategi' [The Grass and History. The Strat-
egy of the Long Lines], Kulturrddet, nos. 1-2, pp.
30-41.
0sterud, 0yvind, 1984. 'Forskning om krig og fred. En
innledning' [Research on War and Peace. An Intro-
duction], pp. 9-21 in 0yvind 0sterud, ed., Den
truede freden. Krig og fred under forskernes lupe
[The Threatened Peace. War and Peace under the
Researchers' Magnifying Glass]. Oslo: Norwegian
University Press.