What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #164
International Relations: A Very Short Introduction
Covering topics such as foreign policy, the world economy, and globalization, this Very Short Introduction exemplifies the many disciplines that come together in the study of international events. Discussing not only the main academic theories, but also the practical problems and issues,
Wilkinson considers key normative questions, such as how the international state system might be reformed so that international relations are improved.
Wilkinson considers key normative questions, such as how the international state system might be reformed so that international relations are improved.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
102 people are currently reading
1731 people want to read
About the author
Paul Wilkinson
72 books9 followersPaul Wilkinson was a terrorism expert and an Emeritus Professor of International Relations and Director of the University of St Andrews Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV).
Dubbed "Britain's leading academic specialist in the study of terrorism", he was a frequent commentator in mainstream British media and an advisor to the UK government.
Dubbed "Britain's leading academic specialist in the study of terrorism", he was a frequent commentator in mainstream British media and an advisor to the UK government.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
October 30, 2025
الكتاب الذى يحاول ان يخبرك بكل شيء لن يخبرك بشىء على الإطلاق.
فعلا هى مقدمة قصيرة جدا لدرجة ان الكاتب لم يتطرق الى موضوع الكتاب و هو العلاقات الدولية و اقتصر فقط على التعريف بالدولة و المنظمات الدولية و شبه الدولية و غير الحكومية و الميليشيات و الجماعات فى تعريفات مختصرة جدا ايضا و لولا اقحام الكاتب لرأيه الشخصى فى بعض الأحداث لقل حجم الكتاب كثيرا و كان افضل منهجا و مقصدا.
المهم ان الكتاب لا يسمن و لا يغى من جوع و ان كان جيدا لمن يريد ان يبدأ القراءة السياسية او حتى يتابع نشرات الأخبار اليومية.
May 18, 2021
سلس وبسيط، يصلح كبداية مختصرة وقصيرة كما هو ظاهر من عنوان السلسلة..
لا يخلو من بعض انحياز عندما يعرض الكاتب وجهة نظره في بعض القضايا مثل قضية توفير مجلس الأمن لغطاء قانوني سمح بدخول الدول العربية الحرب على العراق في حرب الخليج الثانية.
Feb 8, 2021
لا يخلو من بعض انحياز عندما يعرض الكاتب وجهة نظره في بعض القضايا مثل قضية توفير مجلس الأمن لغطاء قانوني سمح بدخول الدول العربية الحرب على العراق في حرب الخليج الثانية.
Feb 8, 2021
November 10, 2013
Wilkinson has taken up a tough challenge with this VSI. It is too nebulous a topic and it is hard to tackle without either getting tangled up in the most intricate details or risking skimming over vital issues - easily drifting into bland nostrums in the process.
Wilkinson tries his best to make it interesting by adopting an innovative structure for the book - writing as if he were briefing the next Secretary of State (of Britain where they are not required to be experts, unlike in the US, and would be willing to read an introductory book) - and gives a quick tour of the major concerns and the major actors that the Secretary of State needs to be aware of.
Of course it would require a complete noob of a Secretary of State if the bar had to be set so low as a starting point for her training. Wilkinson gets a bit carried away by this play-act structure and indulges in elaborate proxy-conversations (in proper British style, no less) such as asking respectfully of the Secretary to keep close contact with the NATO and mischievously hinting to her that your eyes seem to glazing over at mention of the structures of the EU’s working, so we better pass over that etc.
The one section that was of interest was the one where Wilkinson was tutoring the Secretary about how US has been a right bully by refusing to play by the rules which it expects all other countries to play by - even in extremely serious cases such as those relating to CTBT and proliferation of weapons. He goes on to advice that Britain has to avoid this temptation and rely on soft power to ensure continued respect (even though Britain was, to an extent, complicit in these same acts) in the world stage.
All this over-smart play-acting gets tiresome after a while and leads to loosing touch with the reader, especially since it is not insight but only known facts which is being pushed down the poor Secretary’s throat.
October 15, 2011
Just as the previous Goodreads reviewers of this book have mentioned, either it is:
Too short to be significant, to have given you a proper width and depth to it,
And/or it's just very concise and just gives you a 'general' overview, giving you the proper context to understand The Economist.
Personally, I admit that I have already known a lot of the events described in the book by watching news.
The book, as its claimed many times, was written somewhere in the summer of 2006, and that's a fault right there. A lot of things happened then (also this was when I was following the news) until today.
All that I have learned are IGO's, and some key events/documents which were ONLY mentioned, bu not explained. It does not talk about IR from the Peace of Westphalia time, a key date and document in IR.
My professor told me that Paul Wilkinson, despite being a professor of IR at the University of Andrews, is not really the person to consult on IR matters. He is more profoundly known as a writer about terrorism. If you look at the book jacket, he has one professorship at IR, a million other positions about terrorism. Even the bibliography has his work put in...about terrorism that is, not IR.
Hence my professor told me this will "just" give me that extremely key ideas about IR, nothing more. A very severe introduction, that's it. The rest, I still have to consult the more dedicated IR textbooks.
And, just because this was published under the Oxford Publishing House, does not guarantee its quality, sadly so.
Too short to be significant, to have given you a proper width and depth to it,
And/or it's just very concise and just gives you a 'general' overview, giving you the proper context to understand The Economist.
Personally, I admit that I have already known a lot of the events described in the book by watching news.
The book, as its claimed many times, was written somewhere in the summer of 2006, and that's a fault right there. A lot of things happened then (also this was when I was following the news) until today.
All that I have learned are IGO's, and some key events/documents which were ONLY mentioned, bu not explained. It does not talk about IR from the Peace of Westphalia time, a key date and document in IR.
My professor told me that Paul Wilkinson, despite being a professor of IR at the University of Andrews, is not really the person to consult on IR matters. He is more profoundly known as a writer about terrorism. If you look at the book jacket, he has one professorship at IR, a million other positions about terrorism. Even the bibliography has his work put in...about terrorism that is, not IR.
Hence my professor told me this will "just" give me that extremely key ideas about IR, nothing more. A very severe introduction, that's it. The rest, I still have to consult the more dedicated IR textbooks.
And, just because this was published under the Oxford Publishing House, does not guarantee its quality, sadly so.
June 4, 2020
This book is not good. I have to agree with the other negative reviews, and say that it both does not cover much information, and that it contains mostly the author's own opinions and biases.
International relations covers many topics, including shipping and trade relations (along with related subjects such as economic sanctions, tariffs, trade deals, embargoes, and blockades), warfare and spycraft, international treaties and organizations for research and defense, the use of internal and external propaganda, foreign aid and ambassadors, puppet and buffer states, currency exchanges and the IMF, international courts, extradition and refugees, historical colonialism, the geographic availability of natural resources, debates over patents, the internet, and outer space, etc. This book covers none of these things, aside from a brief mention of the existence of a few organizations like NATO and the EU.
Then there's the issue with the author's own biases. For example, he repeatedly describes theories, organizations, rulers, and governing styles that he doesn't like as "silly", "so-called", "brutal", "humiliating", "irrational" etc. This kind of language has no place in what is supposed to be an academic piece of work. This is made worse by the fact that his assertions are usually very shallowly analyzed and not supported with evidence. For instance, look at his description of coercive states:
"What are the major features of the coercive state? It is not surprising to find that they are wholly incompatible with the key characteristics of liberal democratic states. Whereas the latter come to power by the consent of the governed, that is through regularly conducted free elections, the typical coercive regime achieves power as a result of a coup, a revolution, or a successful insurgency, often supported only by a small minority of the population, and frequently resorting to terror attacks against civilians as part of its tactics for seizing power. Once in power the typical coercive state almost instinctively employs extreme violence or terror to intimidate and suppress any threat to its power or even on the pretext of threats or dissent which are shown to be imagined rather than real."
First, this is reductive because most modern governments came into being via coups, revolutions, or successful insurgencies, with mixed degrees of community support. Examples include the United States, France, China, Afghanistan, El Salvador, etc. Clearly these countries run through a whole range of governing styles. Furthermore, the author asserts a connection between a state's governing structure and its degree of coerciveness without backing it up. It's well known that democracies can have problems with majority rule leading to violent suppression of economic or racial underclasses, with issues ranging from apartheid and unfair policing to civil war. This has been seen in the United States, South Africa, India, many Middle Eastern countries after the Arab Spring etc. If you're going to be making statements about liberal democracies and coercive states being incompatible, you have to at least try to explain your reasoning. In addition, from further discussion it is clear that the author uses "coercive state" as a purely political term to describe non-democratic states. For example, the author describes the use of military force on a state's own citizens as a feature of coercive states, describing it as "extreme violence or terror", but later in the book defends the use of military force on a liberal democracy's own citizens in instances of putting down "unrest" and "insurgencies". What then is the point of labelling a state as coercive? Not only is this essentially propaganda, but it also doesn't have much to do with international relations. This is just one example of why I feel this book is more opinion-based than fact-based.
(EDIT: I wrote this review a few weeks before the George Floyd protests, and had to come back and double underline this point about coercive states. This further demonstrates that the views expressed in this book are ideologically driven and not based on actual analysis.)
I think a good book on international relations should factually describe what states have done and continue to do, with a lot of examples. For example, I recently read a book on naval tactics that talked about the role of the military in protecting access to trade routes. This book talked about how countries structure water-based shipping routes, and discussed the relationship between a nation's economy and its access to water. It talked about how blockades are enacted, and how nations make defense pacts or perform military posturing in order to protect their own shipping interests. This book had a lot of historical and modern examples of naval use, and I learned a lot about how nations actually interact with each other in this realm. This kind of book is better, I think, because it describes how nations actually cooperate or fight with each other, how they have done so in the past, and why they continue to do so. Wilkinson's book, on the other hand, is very shallow and opinionated. A lot of it reads like "This state is good. This state is bad. The good states need to control the bad states", without really describing any details about how these states interact at all.
International relations covers many topics, including shipping and trade relations (along with related subjects such as economic sanctions, tariffs, trade deals, embargoes, and blockades), warfare and spycraft, international treaties and organizations for research and defense, the use of internal and external propaganda, foreign aid and ambassadors, puppet and buffer states, currency exchanges and the IMF, international courts, extradition and refugees, historical colonialism, the geographic availability of natural resources, debates over patents, the internet, and outer space, etc. This book covers none of these things, aside from a brief mention of the existence of a few organizations like NATO and the EU.
Then there's the issue with the author's own biases. For example, he repeatedly describes theories, organizations, rulers, and governing styles that he doesn't like as "silly", "so-called", "brutal", "humiliating", "irrational" etc. This kind of language has no place in what is supposed to be an academic piece of work. This is made worse by the fact that his assertions are usually very shallowly analyzed and not supported with evidence. For instance, look at his description of coercive states:
"What are the major features of the coercive state? It is not surprising to find that they are wholly incompatible with the key characteristics of liberal democratic states. Whereas the latter come to power by the consent of the governed, that is through regularly conducted free elections, the typical coercive regime achieves power as a result of a coup, a revolution, or a successful insurgency, often supported only by a small minority of the population, and frequently resorting to terror attacks against civilians as part of its tactics for seizing power. Once in power the typical coercive state almost instinctively employs extreme violence or terror to intimidate and suppress any threat to its power or even on the pretext of threats or dissent which are shown to be imagined rather than real."
First, this is reductive because most modern governments came into being via coups, revolutions, or successful insurgencies, with mixed degrees of community support. Examples include the United States, France, China, Afghanistan, El Salvador, etc. Clearly these countries run through a whole range of governing styles. Furthermore, the author asserts a connection between a state's governing structure and its degree of coerciveness without backing it up. It's well known that democracies can have problems with majority rule leading to violent suppression of economic or racial underclasses, with issues ranging from apartheid and unfair policing to civil war. This has been seen in the United States, South Africa, India, many Middle Eastern countries after the Arab Spring etc. If you're going to be making statements about liberal democracies and coercive states being incompatible, you have to at least try to explain your reasoning. In addition, from further discussion it is clear that the author uses "coercive state" as a purely political term to describe non-democratic states. For example, the author describes the use of military force on a state's own citizens as a feature of coercive states, describing it as "extreme violence or terror", but later in the book defends the use of military force on a liberal democracy's own citizens in instances of putting down "unrest" and "insurgencies". What then is the point of labelling a state as coercive? Not only is this essentially propaganda, but it also doesn't have much to do with international relations. This is just one example of why I feel this book is more opinion-based than fact-based.
(EDIT: I wrote this review a few weeks before the George Floyd protests, and had to come back and double underline this point about coercive states. This further demonstrates that the views expressed in this book are ideologically driven and not based on actual analysis.)
I think a good book on international relations should factually describe what states have done and continue to do, with a lot of examples. For example, I recently read a book on naval tactics that talked about the role of the military in protecting access to trade routes. This book talked about how countries structure water-based shipping routes, and discussed the relationship between a nation's economy and its access to water. It talked about how blockades are enacted, and how nations make defense pacts or perform military posturing in order to protect their own shipping interests. This book had a lot of historical and modern examples of naval use, and I learned a lot about how nations actually interact with each other in this realm. This kind of book is better, I think, because it describes how nations actually cooperate or fight with each other, how they have done so in the past, and why they continue to do so. Wilkinson's book, on the other hand, is very shallow and opinionated. A lot of it reads like "This state is good. This state is bad. The good states need to control the bad states", without really describing any details about how these states interact at all.
August 19, 2025
short and sweet, exactly what I was looking for!
August 3, 2020
highly recommend to everyone interested in how international cooperation ACTUALLY works and all the issues we face as an international community this was vvvv informative and i learned a lot. also explains the facts around issues such as nuclear weapons, genocide, international courts etc very well.
June 23, 2020
If you want to learn International Relations as an academic subject, this is NOT the book for you.
This book has touched few International Relations and weirdly few Political Science concepts. Mostly, book is filled with incidents of international importance written in a fiction like manner. This makes the book really readable.
Along with writing all the international incidents of importance, writer had made commentary on each event. This was really interesting to read.
This book has touched few International Relations and weirdly few Political Science concepts. Mostly, book is filled with incidents of international importance written in a fiction like manner. This makes the book really readable.
Along with writing all the international incidents of importance, writer had made commentary on each event. This was really interesting to read.
January 16, 2011
This book manages to cover such a massive subject rather well in so few pages.
September 26, 2017
A good overview and introduction, will be useful to keep as a reference guide. Exactly what it says on the tin.
February 18, 2014
تحميل هذا الكتاب مجانًا
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/93705863/
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/93705863/
April 23, 2024
كتاب رائع. وكما يدل على ذلك عنوانه، فهو "مقدمة قصيرة جدا" حول العلاقات الدولية، ويناقش فيه الكاتب: علاقات الدول ببعضها، علاقات الدول بالفاعلين المؤثرين من غير الدول (كالأديان، ممثّلةً بالكنائس أو المنظمات الدينية غير الحكومية، والقوميات والأعراق، ومنظمات الإغاثة، والشركات متعددة الجنسيات.. إلخ)، وعلاقات الدول بالمنظمات الدولية الحكومية، وأخيرا، فإنه يتناول التحديات المعاصرة والمستقبلية للعلاقات الدولية.
بطبيعة الحال، لم يتعمق الكاتب كثيرا في كل من هذه الموضوعات. ولكنه، مع ذلك، أحسن مناقشة موضوع الكتاب، وصياغته كمقدمة قصيرة جدا.
بطبيعة الحال، لم يتعمق الكاتب كثيرا في كل من هذه الموضوعات. ولكنه، مع ذلك، أحسن مناقشة موضوع الكتاب، وصياغته كمقدمة قصيرة جدا.
April 19, 2019
The best book in the series for me. A very comprehensive and fair account of all the topics. Absolutely enjoyed it. You know a book is great when you can't wait to read other books by the author. So sad that this was among his last books
July 4, 2019
Read this in one sitting as an assigned read for a course and, while I am very much an amateur in the area of international relations (I’m much more domestic politics oriented), I found the book informative as an introduction. It certainly lacks some of the nuance you may expect if you specialize in the field and in comparison to other “very short introduction” books, which is why I left off one star.
September 30, 2007
I read this to prepare for some classes on International Relations, and it gave me a really good background on all of the terminology, players, and issues in this field. It was also very readable! I would recommend it even to those who aren't planning on studying, but just want a better background for watching the news and reading the Economist.
January 30, 2011
It would be cruel to makes someone relive this book by reviewing it. By far the worst VSI I have read.
January 24, 2019
#مراجعة_كتاب
#Review_about_a_book
العلاقات الدولية: مقدمة قصيرة جدا
المؤلف: بول ويلكينسون ( استاذ العلاقات الدولية ورئيس المجلس الاستشاري لمركز دراسة الارهاب و العنف السياسي بجامعة سانت اندروز )
ان علم العلاقات الدولية علم مستقل حديث النشأة، يدرس العلاقات القائمة بين الدول بعضها ببعض و حتى علاقاتهم مع المنظمات الدولية باعتبارهم اشخاص لهم الشخصية المعنوية في المجتمع الدولي.
الكتاب و إن تحاشى المنهج الاكاديمي الصارم في تعامله مع هذه المادة التي تدرس في جامعات القانون و السياسة. باعتبار ان الكتاب هو مقدمة لهذا العلم موجهة بالخصوص للقارئ العادي او من يريد الالمام بموضوعات علم العلاقات الدولية.
بدأ كلامه باستعراض النظريات العامة التي تحكم العلاقات في المجتمع الدولي. كالنظرية الواقعية (التي ترى ان العلاقات بين الدول هي علاقة صراع و تنافس على القوة و السلطان و المكاسب، و السعي الى الحفاظ على المصلحة الوطنية عن طريف شتى الوسائل بالقوة الناعمة او العسكرية ان اقتضى الامر.. تجد النظرية مستقاة من فكر الفيلسوف الايطالي المشهور نيقولا ميكيافيلي صاحب كتاب الامير، و الفيلسوف السياسي الانجليزي توماس هوبز...
و ايضا النظرية الليبرالية حيث يرى اصحابها او معتنقيها في الحقل الدولي ان التعاملات بين الدول هي سلمية، و تدار وفق القانون الدولي و في اطار المصالح المشتركة.. مع سعيهم الدائم الى تقوية المنظمات الدولية و تصفية النزاعات ما امكن بالطرق السلمية و تعزيز مكانة الامم المتحدة.
ثم ينتقل في الفصل الاول يتكلم عن الدول كفاعل اساسي و محوري في العلاقات الدولية حول تاريخها و بزوغ الدول القومية بعد معاهدة ويستيفاليا و انواع الدول بين قمعية و ليبرالية، و تكلم عن سياسة الولايات المتحدة باعتبارها الدولة الاقوى و صاحبة الريادة في عصرنا الحالي، و مجموعة من المواضيع المتعلقة بالدول الشمولية و ضرورات استخدام القوة...
ثم في الفصل الثاني يتكلم عن الفاعلين من غير الدول ومدى تاثيرهم كالشركات المتعددة الجنسيات التي توازي ميزانياتها ميزانيات دول باكملها و حجم تاثيرها على الدول لفرض قراراتها و كذا الجماعات المسلحة و القومية و الاديان و المنظمات الانسانية.
اما الفصل الثالث فهو يتعلق بالمنظمات الحكومية كعصبة الامم و يستعرض الاسباب التي ادت الى فشلها و الامم المتحدة و المشاكل التي تعاني منها كسيطرة الدول الاقوى على المنظمة و احتكارها لحق الفيتو الشئ الذي يحول احيانا كثيرة دون تنفيذ القرارات التي تهدف لحماية الامن و السلم الدوليين لما فيها من تعارض مع مصالحها او نهجها. و كذا يتكلم عن مدى امكانية اصلاح الامم المتحدة.. و بعض المنظمات
اما الفصل الاخير يستعرض المشكلات و التهديدات التي تواجه المجتمع الدولي من مشاكل الاحتباس الحراري و الامن البيئي، و التسابق نحو السلاح النووي من طرف الدول و خطورة استخدام الاسلحة البيولوجية و الكيميائية
الخلاصة: كتاب ارى ان فيه افادة لكل من يريد الاطلاع بشكل عام عن حقل العلاقات الدولية و فهم الصراعات و المشاكل التي تهدد الأمن و السلم الدوليين
#Review_about_a_book
العلاقات الدولية: مقدمة قصيرة جدا
المؤلف: بول ويلكينسون ( استاذ العلاقات الدولية ورئيس المجلس الاستشاري لمركز دراسة الارهاب و العنف السياسي بجامعة سانت اندروز )
ان علم العلاقات الدولية علم مستقل حديث النشأة، يدرس العلاقات القائمة بين الدول بعضها ببعض و حتى علاقاتهم مع المنظمات الدولية باعتبارهم اشخاص لهم الشخصية المعنوية في المجتمع الدولي.
الكتاب و إن تحاشى المنهج الاكاديمي الصارم في تعامله مع هذه المادة التي تدرس في جامعات القانون و السياسة. باعتبار ان الكتاب هو مقدمة لهذا العلم موجهة بالخصوص للقارئ العادي او من يريد الالمام بموضوعات علم العلاقات الدولية.
بدأ كلامه باستعراض النظريات العامة التي تحكم العلاقات في المجتمع الدولي. كالنظرية الواقعية (التي ترى ان العلاقات بين الدول هي علاقة صراع و تنافس على القوة و السلطان و المكاسب، و السعي الى الحفاظ على المصلحة الوطنية عن طريف شتى الوسائل بالقوة الناعمة او العسكرية ان اقتضى الامر.. تجد النظرية مستقاة من فكر الفيلسوف الايطالي المشهور نيقولا ميكيافيلي صاحب كتاب الامير، و الفيلسوف السياسي الانجليزي توماس هوبز...
و ايضا النظرية الليبرالية حيث يرى اصحابها او معتنقيها في الحقل الدولي ان التعاملات بين الدول هي سلمية، و تدار وفق القانون الدولي و في اطار المصالح المشتركة.. مع سعيهم الدائم الى تقوية المنظمات الدولية و تصفية النزاعات ما امكن بالطرق السلمية و تعزيز مكانة الامم المتحدة.
ثم ينتقل في الفصل الاول يتكلم عن الدول كفاعل اساسي و محوري في العلاقات الدولية حول تاريخها و بزوغ الدول القومية بعد معاهدة ويستيفاليا و انواع الدول بين قمعية و ليبرالية، و تكلم عن سياسة الولايات المتحدة باعتبارها الدولة الاقوى و صاحبة الريادة في عصرنا الحالي، و مجموعة من المواضيع المتعلقة بالدول الشمولية و ضرورات استخدام القوة...
ثم في الفصل الثاني يتكلم عن الفاعلين من غير الدول ومدى تاثيرهم كالشركات المتعددة الجنسيات التي توازي ميزانياتها ميزانيات دول باكملها و حجم تاثيرها على الدول لفرض قراراتها و كذا الجماعات المسلحة و القومية و الاديان و المنظمات الانسانية.
اما الفصل الثالث فهو يتعلق بالمنظمات الحكومية كعصبة الامم و يستعرض الاسباب التي ادت الى فشلها و الامم المتحدة و المشاكل التي تعاني منها كسيطرة الدول الاقوى على المنظمة و احتكارها لحق الفيتو الشئ الذي يحول احيانا كثيرة دون تنفيذ القرارات التي تهدف لحماية الامن و السلم الدوليين لما فيها من تعارض مع مصالحها او نهجها. و كذا يتكلم عن مدى امكانية اصلاح الامم المتحدة.. و بعض المنظمات
اما الفصل الاخير يستعرض المشكلات و التهديدات التي تواجه المجتمع الدولي من مشاكل الاحتباس الحراري و الامن البيئي، و التسابق نحو السلاح النووي من طرف الدول و خطورة استخدام الاسلحة البيولوجية و الكيميائية
الخلاصة: كتاب ارى ان فيه افادة لكل من يريد الاطلاع بشكل عام عن حقل العلاقات الدولية و فهم الصراعات و المشاكل التي تهدد الأمن و السلم الدوليين
September 6, 2017
Disappointing. I read this for work because I will be teaching an adjacent subject soon. I was immediately struck by the extreme degree of bias. I really hoped for a more objective tone, but the language choice was very heavily biased to Wilkinson's own perspective and not to a more neutral examination of the facts. This was a commentary more than an introduction.
One key problem from the start was Wilkinson's absurd caricature of postmodernism. He presented a strawman of a particularly ludicrous version of PM, which he then used to entirely dismiss the entire field, all in a single paragraph. (Yes, there are some who take PM to a truly nonsensical extreme, but that does not mean there are no relevant or useful ideas anywhere in PM.) One of the few places where PM can actually be relevant is IR, precisely because IR is, as the author notes, not science. PM at its best is simply thinking critically about things that humans have completely made up (like art, and IR).
While I may hold the same opinion about most of the issues as the author, I did not need such a one-sided angle on international relations. I thought the point of this book was to introduce IR, not just lambast specific decisions the author didn't like. It also failed as an introduction. There is a huge body of knowledge that is assumed every reader has. While I did have most of this knowledge, it presented a fatal flaw. If one already knew about the examples Wilkinson alluded to, that one would learn nothing because Wilkinson failed to connect those examples to broader concepts. If one did not have the prior knowledge, the examples were not explained enough to illustrate whatever point the author was trying to make.
Many of the examples serve only to illustrate the author's personal opinions rather than demonstrate how certain concepts can be applied to the real world, effectively and not. They did not teach me about any key ideas in IR, which is why I read this book to begin with. I came away feeling like I had learned nothing.
It was also extremely UK/US-centric. I understand that the author comes from that culture, but for this kind of topic it would have been much more useful to compare pros and cons (for instance) of the EU and ASEAN rather than explaining the former in isolation over 8 pages and barely mentioning the latter in just a single paragraph. For a book on international relations, it wasn't all that international.
One key problem from the start was Wilkinson's absurd caricature of postmodernism. He presented a strawman of a particularly ludicrous version of PM, which he then used to entirely dismiss the entire field, all in a single paragraph. (Yes, there are some who take PM to a truly nonsensical extreme, but that does not mean there are no relevant or useful ideas anywhere in PM.) One of the few places where PM can actually be relevant is IR, precisely because IR is, as the author notes, not science. PM at its best is simply thinking critically about things that humans have completely made up (like art, and IR).
While I may hold the same opinion about most of the issues as the author, I did not need such a one-sided angle on international relations. I thought the point of this book was to introduce IR, not just lambast specific decisions the author didn't like. It also failed as an introduction. There is a huge body of knowledge that is assumed every reader has. While I did have most of this knowledge, it presented a fatal flaw. If one already knew about the examples Wilkinson alluded to, that one would learn nothing because Wilkinson failed to connect those examples to broader concepts. If one did not have the prior knowledge, the examples were not explained enough to illustrate whatever point the author was trying to make.
Many of the examples serve only to illustrate the author's personal opinions rather than demonstrate how certain concepts can be applied to the real world, effectively and not. They did not teach me about any key ideas in IR, which is why I read this book to begin with. I came away feeling like I had learned nothing.
It was also extremely UK/US-centric. I understand that the author comes from that culture, but for this kind of topic it would have been much more useful to compare pros and cons (for instance) of the EU and ASEAN rather than explaining the former in isolation over 8 pages and barely mentioning the latter in just a single paragraph. For a book on international relations, it wasn't all that international.
May 24, 2023
As a brief introductory book on the field of study of international relations, I would not recommend this book to be read as an initial introduction for those who wish to understand international relations. In general, the weakness of this book lies in too much reductionism about international relations.
As a field of study that is widely taught in universities, international relations studies interactions between international actors, both state actors and non-state actors, and these interactions occur in various fields such as politics, economics, security, environment, to education and culture. With various paradigms and theories that influence the assessment and decision-making of actors in international relations.
This book reduces too many things and subjectively provides too many portions for a number of things which are indeed one of the discussions in international relations but are not the most important or the only discussion. There are indeed limitations due to the limited number of pages, but even with the limited number of pages the author should be able to write more in a balanced way about matters that are generally discussed in international relations, instead of only emphasizing the discussion on a few subjects. As someone who has studied international relations at university, I do not recommend reading this book as an initial introduction, there are still many books besides this book that are better read for those who are lay or who just want to learn about international relations.
As a field of study that is widely taught in universities, international relations studies interactions between international actors, both state actors and non-state actors, and these interactions occur in various fields such as politics, economics, security, environment, to education and culture. With various paradigms and theories that influence the assessment and decision-making of actors in international relations.
This book reduces too many things and subjectively provides too many portions for a number of things which are indeed one of the discussions in international relations but are not the most important or the only discussion. There are indeed limitations due to the limited number of pages, but even with the limited number of pages the author should be able to write more in a balanced way about matters that are generally discussed in international relations, instead of only emphasizing the discussion on a few subjects. As someone who has studied international relations at university, I do not recommend reading this book as an initial introduction, there are still many books besides this book that are better read for those who are lay or who just want to learn about international relations.
October 17, 2025
Not really what I expected from the reviews on the back calling it ‘accessible’ and ‘readable’. I liked the chapters and subheadings which the book was broken down into, and particularly found the last one the most engaging, but felt the whole book suffered from superfluous embellished language, far too much to be the simplified digestible introduction I was looking for. I much appreciated the use of real world examples to ground theory into reality, but also felt it was underpinned by a kind of colonial/nationalistic undercurrent and an undoubtedly western viewpoint - which is perhaps unsurprising since learning the author Paul Wilkinson was British and born in 1937 (worth noting I read a copy published in 2007). This was somewhat explained when he outed himself as an advisor on one of The Commonwealth’s major projects and exclaimed rather generously that the Commonwealth is about ‘people power’ and a ‘desire to maintain this voluntary link with Britain’ when of course even I know that the commonwealth is actually the British Empire’s 21st century rebrand. Overall slightly disappointed but I do still feel I know more than before, and did manage to finish the book in 3 days which is not bad going for a heavily theoretical text of big words. Valuable but perhaps take with a pinch of salt or choose an A Level textbook as an entry point instead.
August 18, 2020
This short introduction book by Prof Paul Wilkinson is a broad introduction to the field of international relations. As a field of study, international relations focuses on the political, military, economic, and cultural interaction of state and non-state actors at the global level.
The book covers a diverse array of topics, from the causes of war to the politics of development, from international institutions to the environment. By the end of this short introductory book, you will be able to have broad ideas on the following thematic areas:
1. Have a broad understanding of some of the most important ideas, issues and events in international relations particularly in the period since World War 1;
2. Have an enhanced appreciation of the contemporary international relations agenda;
3. Be able to comprehend better and articulate their thoughts on issues of major current significance;
It is a read I would recommend for someone who is trying to have an overview of what international relation is all about and, above all, the book has a catalytic effect on the reader to delve further into the subject area.
The book covers a diverse array of topics, from the causes of war to the politics of development, from international institutions to the environment. By the end of this short introductory book, you will be able to have broad ideas on the following thematic areas:
1. Have a broad understanding of some of the most important ideas, issues and events in international relations particularly in the period since World War 1;
2. Have an enhanced appreciation of the contemporary international relations agenda;
3. Be able to comprehend better and articulate their thoughts on issues of major current significance;
It is a read I would recommend for someone who is trying to have an overview of what international relation is all about and, above all, the book has a catalytic effect on the reader to delve further into the subject area.
September 16, 2020
This is a book that does exactly what it says on the tin—albeit a tin that has been hiding at the back of a cupboard since 2006.
As an introduction to some key theories, concepts, actors, and problems in IR, it is really very good. Its scope is obviously impressive, and I would say there were only one or two paragraphs that strayed into the realms of too much or too little detail.
The author’s liberal democratic leanings are both undisguised and undogmatic, meaning it is possible to enjoy a distinct (albeit popular) perspective without feeling lectured or misled.
Unfortunately, where the text may struggle to convince the modern reader is its failure to comprehend the world after its publication.
Much has changed since 2006, and consequently there are several sections of analysis (especially on topics such as nationalism, the global economy, the climate, the EU, and the role of the United States) that seem almost desperately naive.
All in all, a very useful insight into international relations pre-2008, but rather outdated as an introduction today.
As an introduction to some key theories, concepts, actors, and problems in IR, it is really very good. Its scope is obviously impressive, and I would say there were only one or two paragraphs that strayed into the realms of too much or too little detail.
The author’s liberal democratic leanings are both undisguised and undogmatic, meaning it is possible to enjoy a distinct (albeit popular) perspective without feeling lectured or misled.
Unfortunately, where the text may struggle to convince the modern reader is its failure to comprehend the world after its publication.
Much has changed since 2006, and consequently there are several sections of analysis (especially on topics such as nationalism, the global economy, the climate, the EU, and the role of the United States) that seem almost desperately naive.
All in all, a very useful insight into international relations pre-2008, but rather outdated as an introduction today.
January 9, 2018
I wanted to like this brief book on International relations, but although it mentions theory very briefly it goes ahead not to use it. Instead the author abuses of the 'so-called' term to dismiss theory every time it is mentioned across the book. The Author deals with the peace of Westphalia in three paragraphs. That's absolutely not enough for any book on International relations.
The author goes on to speak of the US and the limits of her power and other states, the UN and non-states and ONGs and so on in a simpler language, that makes this book accessible for people who don't understand International relations. However, his chosen language doesn't really accounts for the reasoning of his choice of the international problem he seeks to address, and thus this becomes a book very encyclopaedic and descriptive indeed.
I give it two stars, but I do think 1. 5 stars would be a better fit.
The author goes on to speak of the US and the limits of her power and other states, the UN and non-states and ONGs and so on in a simpler language, that makes this book accessible for people who don't understand International relations. However, his chosen language doesn't really accounts for the reasoning of his choice of the international problem he seeks to address, and thus this becomes a book very encyclopaedic and descriptive indeed.
I give it two stars, but I do think 1. 5 stars would be a better fit.
May 8, 2024
3.5/5 stars, rounding down for Goodreads.
It's fine. Mainly covers the different groups that affect are involved in international politics - states (democracies, dictatorships, failed states), non-state forces and groups (insurgencies, terrorists, international businesses, religions and different nationalisms), and finally inter-state groups like the EU or UN. There's a brief section on the various challenges in todays world.
Most of the general theory stuff is decent and easy to understand. Due to the age of the book a lot of the specific examples are 2000-2010 based -Al Qaeda, Bush and Blair, Saddam Hussein etc. That's the only problem I had with the book.
I got the book for £1 from a charity shop and for that, I'm happy with it. These Very Short Introduction books vary a lot in quality and this was one of the better ones I've read.
It's fine. Mainly covers the different groups that affect are involved in international politics - states (democracies, dictatorships, failed states), non-state forces and groups (insurgencies, terrorists, international businesses, religions and different nationalisms), and finally inter-state groups like the EU or UN. There's a brief section on the various challenges in todays world.
Most of the general theory stuff is decent and easy to understand. Due to the age of the book a lot of the specific examples are 2000-2010 based -Al Qaeda, Bush and Blair, Saddam Hussein etc. That's the only problem I had with the book.
I got the book for £1 from a charity shop and for that, I'm happy with it. These Very Short Introduction books vary a lot in quality and this was one of the better ones I've read.
December 2, 2017
Just finished reading this informative and analytical introduction of international relations by Paul Wilkinson. The series of many short introductions by Oxford University Press is quite useful and easy way to look upon various topics which we need to deal in our current educational careers.
These books are very short and one can read it in a single sit.
I do recommend this introduction to international relations students as well as those who are interested to know the basics about the current affairs.
These books are very short and one can read it in a single sit.
I do recommend this introduction to international relations students as well as those who are interested to know the basics about the current affairs.
August 28, 2019
ขาดการตอบโจทย์ความเป็น ความรู้ฉบับพกพา เนท่องจากเต็มไปด้วยกรณีศึกษา แทนที่จะปูพื้นความเข้าใจเกี่ยวกับความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างประเทศ ทำให้เห็นแต่ภาพของเหตุการณ์แต่มองไม่เห็นกระบวนการ ปัจจัยในการตัดสินใจ หรือกระทั่งการชี้ชัดให้เห็นถึงความแตกต่างระหว่างทฤษฎี หนังสือเน้นหนักไปที่ตัวแสดงจนขาดมิติของบริบทสังคมที่ส่งผลสำคัญต่อการตัดสินใจดำเนินความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างประเทศ
สำหรับคนที่ไม่รู้เรื่องความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างประเทศหนังสือเล่มนี้อาจตอบโจทย์ได้อย่างพื้นๆ แต่ถ้าคนที่พอจะมีความรู้ด้านนี้หนังสือเล่มนี้ จะไม่สามารถช่วยคุณทบทวนสิ่งที่รู้มาได้เลย
สำหรับคนที่ไม่รู้เรื่องความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างประเทศหนังสือเล่มนี้อาจตอบโจทย์ได้อย่างพื้นๆ แต่ถ้าคนที่พอจะมีความรู้ด้านนี้หนังสือเล่มนี้ จะไม่สามารถช่วยคุณทบทวนสิ่งที่รู้มาได้เลย
May 20, 2020
Giving a sufficient overview of the entirety of international relations is a tough job. I would say that it does give as good an overview as possible within the constraints of the page limit. I also like it's references to other important international relations literature which gives the reader a way to gain more insight into the topic beyond this book if they don't know where to start. Don't expect every detail of international relations to be covered but if you are new to the topic or want to revisit the fundamentals then this a suitable book.
November 4, 2021
تحدث بول ويلكينسون في كتابه هذا، عن بعض الأطراف الفاعلة في العلاقات الدولية، من الدول وغير الدول، وكذلك المنظمات الحكومية الدولية، مع طرح بعض الإشكالات والتحديات، في محاولة لإيجاد حلول قبل إنهاء الكتاب، لكن الملفت للنظر أن الكاتب لم يتطرق لموضوع الكتاب وهو التعريف بحقل العلاقات الدولية كتفاعل معقد أو كعلم، بل هي مجرد كتابات أشبه بمقالات صحفية، تحاول تحليل بعض الأزمات والحروب. مع حلول جد مثالية، مقارنة مع الواقع الدولي الحالي. وقد قال في مقدمة الكاتب ذلك في مقدمته، أنه كثيرا ما يتعرض للنقد بسبب توجهه الليبرالي نظرا لكونه لا يخلو من طوباوية ومثالية
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 25, 2022
I would style this as a very basic introduction, not short. Theories of international relations are widely absent, and the author writes from a decidedly liberal / ideal framework. Additionally the use of a framing device, an experienced under-secretary briefing a greenhorn international minister, is an interesting idea but it isn't integrated well and feels out of place. There is a focus more on who the actors on the international stage than how we view it theoretically. I like using these books as a jumping off point, but this one left quite a bit to be desired.
May 2, 2020
مع اتساع مفهوم العلاقات الدولية إلا أنه يتم اقترانه في جامعات كثيرة بمنهج العلوم السياسية، وقد يُعد هذا نوعًا من الاحتكار على مادة العلاقات الدولية؛ فالدارس الجاد للعلاقات الدولية يجب أن يكتسب بعض المعرفة بالتاريخ والقانون والاقتصاد الدوليين، وأيضًا السياسة الخارجية والدولية، ومن هنا يتطرق الكاتب لمجموعة متنوعة من القضايا المحورية لفهم العلاقات الدولية؛ بدءًا من السياسة ومرورًا بالقضايا المتعلقة بالسلاح والإرهاب، وتأثير المنظمات الكبرى كالأمم المتحدة والحركات الدينية والعرقية في أنحاء العالم.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews