MP

I took POLS 132 (International Relations) and my professor was John Rourke, the author of the book. He knows his stuff (he writes a new edition every year), but his lectures were horrible! Half of the students in lecture would never go, and the students who did attend class only went because he took attendence. He cannot teach. He rambles on and on in lecture and is frequently off-topic. This is reflected in his writing. Having the textbook as our only source was hard enough, not to mention having him as the professor for our class! Just save your time and money--stay away from this book. (And if you're a UConn student, don't take his classes.)

One of my classmates for our Poli Sci 100 Intro to World Politics class put it best, "...it's clearly biased and I don't learn anything from it." He was right, find another book or a class to take, but don't read this text. If this is your textbook hopefully your teacher can lecture well, because this textbook teaches nothing at all.

Good book for an introduction to International Relations couse in terms of topics covered - but the author's bias is clearly leaning toward that of an idealist/globalist. Make sure you get a balanced perspective from the other side of the coin before taking this text as gospel.

The idea behind writing this horribly amateuristic work was noble: to gather a large number of encyclopedic facts about the wars of Yugoslavian succession--something that would be useful to historians, journalists, politicians, and ordinary people.

Examples of gross errors and misrepresentations:

In one part of the book the main war protagonists are listed in the alphabetical order. Since one of the main characteristics of these wars has been their inhumanity, it is hard to believe that most of those currently or previously imprisoned at the Scheveningen prison (awaiting the trial at the Hague war crimes tribunal) are not listed. But those who are listed are sometimes listed on the wrong side, as is the case with Rasim Delic (Bosnian army), who is listed as "a veteran of the JNA Vukovar campaign." Vukovar was, of course, besieged by the Serbians, but the authors missed that one.

One of the most infamous Serbian warlords, Seselj, is listed as having been born in 1941 (false). The birth year is sometimes not even presented, as in the case of Blagoje Adzic, who was not even a teenager in 1941, so it's hard to believe that he was in the Partisans, as the authors claim.

The authors glorify Muhamed Filipovic, the former ambassador to London, to the point of making the reader think that Filipovic himself was the source of those entries. However, since there too are numerous errors present, it's probably the case that the authors themselves decided that "during 1992 MBO [Filipovic's Muslim Bosniak Organization] joined a small liberal party [headed by Kadic] and formed LBO, which to this day remains a true voice of non-secular Bosniaks." Considering that Kadic's liberals are still well and alive on the political spectrum of Bosnia, while LBO didn't even manage to gather sufficient votes to enter the Parliament the last time around, I wonder where and how the authors gathered their "encyclopedic" info.

The authors showcase their ignorance when they say that ex-Yugoslavian nations were shunned at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, where "Yugoslavian nations were suspended and barred from participating." So who was the audience at the opening ceremony so warmly greeting? Some impersonators posing for the Bosnian Olympic Committee and delegation? Also, the very real successes of the 1992 Croatian Olympic basketball team is also in the virtual realm. Hmmm...

The connection between Thessaloniki in Greece and the Serbian desire for access to the Adriatic is lost on all but the authors. If the Serbians wanted access to the sea through this Greek port, they would have surely not attacked Dubrovnik, and would have directed their mortars to Greece.

Even maps are sometimes inaccurate. On one of the maps Mostar is entirely within the Croatian territory and it doesn't even border the Bosnian territory, while it's totally emerged in the Bosnia entity on the next map.

It is a shame that this horrific book got a favorable review, if only because those reviewing it lack the background to verify the claims presented by the authors. If your interest is the break-up of Yugoslavia, there are much finer works out there.

First of all Lukavica isnt in the center of Sarajevo as this book says. Secondly, the procenteges used to describe population are reverted and incorrect.

Very purly and badly written book. It will just confuse you.

I was born in Sarajevo, and lived there until 1995 so i was 'living' situation this book tries to portrait and fails at evry aspect of it.