Supplying Compliance with Trade Rules: Explaining the EU’s Responses to Adverse WTO Rulings. By Alasdair R. Young. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. 256p. $100.00 cloth.

correctly, that too much focus has been on the AngloAmerican roots of the discipline as well as on published English-language sources. He corrects this by including the work of individuals living in Europe and consults a variety of sources written in German, French, and other European languages. He is also critical of the almost exclusive attention that has been placed on professors and universities for explaining the history of the discipline. To correct this shortcoming, Stöckmann greatly expands the range of actors included in the category “architects of IR.” He also provides an abundance of information on a plethora of institutions that he argues made the study of IR possible after the outbreak of World War I. To provide a perspicuous history of IR, Stöckmann argues that it is necessary to focus on the role of specific individuals and institutions, which he claims the existing literature has not adequately addressed. But even more importantly, he argues that this focus is necessary to recognize that the architects of IR were primarily concerned with both democratizing and rationalizing the practice of international politics, with the aim of changing the world. Almost all the architects of IR, Stöckmann argues, were engaged in the practical activity of reforming international politics and eradicating war. Stöckman informs the reader that the “the relationship between the study and practice of international politics” is the subject of the book (p. 18). All six chapters in the book seek to demonstrate that people, rather than ideas or theory, were at the forefront of IR. Moreover, the architects of the discipline, Stöckmann argues, were primarily dedicated to establishing a peaceful international order. With this focus, combined with extensive archival research on forgotten individuals and institutions in numerous countries, Stöckmann’s new history of IR makes five significant contributions. First, he challenges the conventional date of 1919 for the birth of IR and argues that the discipline began five years earlier in 1914. Rather than the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 being the impetus for the study of IR, Stöckmann argues that it was the outbreak World War I. Second, instead of concentrating on the Anglo-American history, Stöckmann provides a global, or at least a European, history of IR. By doing so, he argues that the people involved in the study of international politics believed that a global perspective, even a global discipline, could be realized. Third, like the revisionists, Stöckmann is determined to recover the marginalized and forgotten voices from the past. Much of his recovery work is directed toward the roles that women, who have traditionally not been included in the story, performed in the early formation of IR. This is an important contribution to the existing literature. Fourth, as previously mentioned, the “book shows how IR pioneers combined the study and practice of international politics” (p. 21). According to Stöckmann, the division of labor between academics and practitioners was practically nonexistent during the interwar period. Finally, and contrary to what he argues the field’s new disciplinary historians have done, Stöckmann goes to great lengths to highlight how practical motives, such as democratizing and rationalizing foreign policy making, rather than developing sophisticated theories, was the foremost concern of the architects of IR. There is no doubt that Stöckmann has made an important contribution to helping us understand the convoluted history of IR. But a key element missing from this study is a clear definition of what is meant by the “discipline of IR.” By making the key object of analysis amorphous, Stöckmann is able to include a wide array of actors, institutions, and people across the globe, or at least Europe, as its architects. Thus, it is no surprise that Stöckmann’s history of IR is very different from those who conceptualize it as a subfield of political science (e.g., see Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy, 1998). Although Stöckmann attempts to distance himself from the field’s new revisionist historians, many will appreciate his attempt to dismantle the founding myth of 1919. However, pushing the birthdate back five years to 1914 is not without problems. First, it reinforces the conventional wisdom that events in international politics, like world wars, can largely explain developments in IR as an academic enterprise. Second, by makingWorldWar I the impetus of IR, it becomes almost natural to view that enterprise’s sole purpose as finding a cure for the disease of war. Yet, it is evident that this was not the case. Third, despite Stöckmann’s attempt to refute the claim that the interwar scholars were idealists, his description of the ambitions and goals of those studying international politics after 1914 makes it difficult not to conclude that idealism was prevalent. Finally, while Stöckmann is very successful in recovering the missing voices of women in IR, he is basically silent about those working on colonialism, empire, and race. This is one of the consequences of beginning the history in 1914 rather than 1900. However, at this stage of research on the history of IR, we can certainly agree with Stöckmann that “no book can tell the entire story” (p. 24). Nonetheless, he has told important and long-submerged aspects of that story.