| The fields of international relations theory and strategic studies often lack the historical perspective which would give a stronger basis to the different theories proposed. This thesis attempts to fill this gap by bringing Sir Michael Howard to the debate. It is shown that if Howard reinforces some of realism's core beliefs, concerning concepts such as anarchy, power, security, morality and the role of the state, he questions the proposed stabilizing effects of the balance of power mechanism. He also points to liberalism's inherent contradictions when it comes to defining peace but he somewhat agrees with the necessity for change. A comparative analysis of Aron's and Howard's views on Clausewitz also reveals how different conclusions can result from differing levels of concern for theory. Lastly, Howard's emphasis on the social dimension of strategy is shown to be his greatest contribution to the field of strategic studies. |
