It advocates the traditional point of view with much greater philosophic depth than does Hedley Bull's now classic article) Although it covers fewer authors, and from a different perspective than does Kenneth Waltz's wellreceived criticism of the literature from a scientific perspective, 2 it centers its attention on the crucial issues, both scientific and philosophical, and discusses them in greater philosophical depth and with more careful attention to text and authority than does Waltz. Even so, for reasons that will become apparent quickly, Spegele's defense of traditionalism and his attack on the modern scientific approach to international politics, and in particular to my version of it, break down nearly as quickly as other attacks; for his objections both to its logic and to its philosophical underpinnings also rest on misreadings and ultimately faulty philosophical claims. And not all the king's men can put back together the traditional case.
I. THEORY AND VALUES
Prof. Spegele, who generously argues that my writings are the most philosophically significant of the scientific approaches to international theory, states that one of his most important goals is to show that intemational studies are "more felicitiously construed as imbedded in moral concerns, (so that) students of international relations need no longer be terrorized by any self-imposed invidious distinction between it and, say, theoretical physics". For some reason Spegele has not seen fit to mention that Part III of System and Process in International Politics is labelled 'On Values' or to ask what is the relationship between this section and Chapter 2 of that book, in which the theoretical models are introduced. Nor does he mention that Justice, Human Nature and Political Obligation attempts to deal with moral Theory and Decision 14 (1982) 275-291 0040-5833/82/0143-0275501.70.