1. For examples of historians’ definitions, implicit and explicit, see R Albrecht-Carrié, A Diplomatic History of Europe since the Congress of Vienna (New York, 1958); K. Bourne, The Foreign Policy of Victorian England, 1830–1902 (Oxford, 1970), 10, and Palmerston: The Early Tears 1784–1841 (New York, 1984), 627-31; A. Cobban, The Nation State and National Self-Determination, rev. edn. (New York, 1970), 287-90; G. Davies, “English Foreign Policy,” Huntington Library Quarterly, 5 (1942), 422–26
2. Andreas Hillgruber, “Politische Geschichte in Moderner Sicht,” Historische Zeitschrift, 226 (1973), 535–38
3. R. W. Seton-Watson, “The Foundations of British Policy,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 29 (1947), 61–2.
4. E. B. Haas, “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda,” World Politics, 5 (1953), 442–77
5. The best-known attempt is that of M. Kaplan, Systems and Process in International Politics (New York, 1957), 22-36, 52-53, and 125-27. For criticisms of Kaplan’s systems approach, see R. Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (Garden City, NY., 1966), 128-32, 146-47; A. L. Burns, Of Powers and Their Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1968), 112-15, 248-51; W. H. Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, 1962), 162-87; K. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1968), 136-40; M. Kaplan, A. L. Burns, and R. M. Quandt, “Theoretical Analysis of the ‘Balance of Power’,” Behavioral Science, 5 (1960), 240–52