My main difficulty is with Williams's criticism of realism. Undoubtedly, classical realism and even more so neorealism, as this book argues, has not taken ethnic nationalism seriously enough. Having been preoccupied with the state and/or the structure of the international system, both neglected the passion and the impetus of nationalism in the foreign policy of nations. The mere fact that when realists speak about the national interest they refer usually to raison d'état indicates a low assessment of this major force in human history. Hans Morgenthau, himself a victim of nationalism, surprisingly dedicated only several pages in his spacious and well-celebrated Politics Among Nations(1956) to this force. Similarly, when speaking of national power, Morgenthau essentially implied state power. As one who himself criticized realism and international relations theory for ignoring nationalism (“Ethnonationalism and the Foreign Policy of Nation-States,” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 1 [Summer 1995]: 250–69), I nevertheless think that the specific points of denunciation are inaccurate. Williams, while advancing her theoretical framework, which is interesting, disregarded or is unaware of certain themes in the basic literature of realism. Most bothering, however, is the statement that “[r]ealism does not differentiate between challenges (or threats) to the territorial status quo, instead treating them as generic” (p. 21). On the basis of this assumption she develops a theoretical framework that positions imperialism at the center of territorial revisionism, while the distinction between territorial status quo and imperialism is one of the basic themes in the literature of realism. Morgenthau, following a chapter on the policy of status quo, dedicates a whole chapter to imperialism (Politics Among Nations pp. 35–66). Moreover, Arnold Wolfers also differentiated between goals of national self-extension and goals of national self-preservation (Discord and Collaboration 1962, p. 91). In short, while the challenge to realism is in place, realist literature on imperialism and status quo is not wanting. Williams's critique on the lack of distinction between territorial status quo and imperialism may be more on target regarding neorealism, but then this should be made clear.

Realism, as I see it, indeed had the most influential impact on theory building of international relations, and it should be considered, despite its flaws, the only paradigm that ever emerged in this discipline. However, one cannot ignore the contributions of neoliberalism and constructivism to the development of theory in this discipline and the ongoing debate in international relations. Had the author included these theories in the criticism of IR theory in dealing with nationalism and particularly ethnonationalism, her theoretical chapters and contribution would have been more accurate and comprehensive.

The author selected four case studies for empirical evidence, extending from mid– nineteenth century-Europe (German unification) to twentieth-century Asia (Kashmir). Still, a comprehensive review should also cover other regions, such as the Middle East, Africa, and even the Americas. To dedicate two case studies out of four on the topic of nationalism to Yugoslavia, considering the well-recognized complexity of ethnic issues in the Balkans, and three out of four cases taking place in Europe, limits the scope of the theoretical implications of the study. It is interesting that the author, when calling for further research, identifies mostly European or North American cases. Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are much more fruitful areas of research, if we aim at a genuine world politics discipline.

Finally, however, and most importantly, none of the above criticisms should downgrade the contributions of Despite Nationalist Conflicts. The author draws our attention to a major shortcoming in international relations theory that despite recurrent efforts still has not been resolved. Territory, especially when attached to historical and national claims, has been ignored in IR theory. Our attentiveness to rational actor or bureaucratic models detracted us from basic impulses that move nations in international politics. The combination of theory and case studies, as demonstrated in this book, is a very productive approach to research. The book touches upon case studies that we know of in general but not in detail. I would thus urge Williams to continue and apply her theoretical framework in other regions and periods and enlighten us with her findings.