Title from title page of PDF (University of Missouri--St. Louis, viewed February 16, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 49-50).

International politics has always been characterised by conflict. This has been true regardless of the political systems in place or of any specific time in the history of humanity. Inter-state conflict exists today despite the fact that the vast majority of the states of the world are members of the United Nations and signatories to various treaties aimed at removing conflict as a means of state action. The realist school of thought argues that the international system is characterised by continual state conflict, caused by competition over scarce resources. The propensity towards conflict is argued to be an essential characteristic of human nature and, as such, human nature is considered to be aggressive and conflictual. Thus, for the realist, inter-state competition, coupled with aggressive human nature, constitutes the primary cause of interstate conflict. This thesis aims to examine two criticisms of the realist position in depth. The first concerns the attribution of human nature to states. This logical progression is problematic because it creates a type of „state-nature‟ that cannot be defended without providing a logical link between the individual, the group and the state. It is therefore an aim of this thesis to provide this link, using methodological individualism, in order to provide a basis for the attribution of human nature to states. The second aim of this thesis is to examine the notion of human nature that is offered by the realists. It is not enough to claim that human nature is aggressive and conflictual merely because conflict has characterised international relations throughout history. Rather, one should examine the individual‟s psychological development, in order to gain an understanding of aggressive instincts apparent in human nature. The thesis therefore examines psychoanalysis in order to attempt an understanding both of human nature, and of the conditions under which human nature may manifest itself in an aggressive, conflictual manner. The intention of this thesis, then, is to provide a defence of political realism, highlighting the shortcomings of the two criticisms outlined above.

D.Litt. et Phil. / The aim of this investigation is to provide support to the growing evidence that people's paradigms directly influence the way differences are managed. Adherence to the old or Newtonian model has seemingly led to a restricted ability to deal with differences. Adherence to the new or quantum model, on the other hand, appears to facilitate not only the understanding of why there are so many differences and why they should be "celebrated" (topic of the American Counselling Association's 1995 Conference, Denver), but also encourages people to freely and nonjudgementally acknowledge, explore and integrate these differences. As a first step toward achieving this aim, a review of the literature regarding the existence of differences, the perceived causes of differences, and the perceived ways of managing differences in interpersonal relationship up to the present time will be provided. Secondly, the importance of paradigms in general, and of the natural scientific paradigms in particular, will be illustrated. Concepts of Newtonian and quantum physics that are considered relevant to the investigation will be described under this heading. Thirdly, the rationale of the exploratory, or qualitative study will be outlined. Fourthly, a chapter linking the natural scientific paradigms . to the discipline of psychology will be presented. Psychological analogies of Newtonian and quantum concepts will be put forward as well as examples of Newtonian and quantum psychology. Finally, implications of the described and discussed findings of Newtonian and quantum physics on the management of psychological differences will be explored, so that the 'celebration' and integration of differences can, indeed, be promoted.