1. For traditions and their legitimacy, see Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 216–31.
2. “Analytical eclecticism” means borrowing explanatory variables and causal logic from two or more distinct traditions or approaches in order to gain greater purchase on the cases or issue areas that scholars want to analyze. For this approach, see Peter J. Katzenstein and Rudra Sil, “Rethinking Asian Security: A Case for Analytical Eclecticism,” in Rethinking Security in East Asia, ed. J. J. Suh, Peter J. Katzenstein, and Allen Carlson (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 1–33; John A. Hall and T. V. Paul, “Preconditions for Prudence: A Sociological Synthesis of Realism and Liberalism,” in International Order and the Future of World Politics, ed. T. V. Paul and John A. Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 67–77; and T. V. Paul, Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons (Montreal: McGillQueen's University Press, 2000), ch. 2. Scholars in International Relations increasingly favor eclectic approaches. For instance, see Jeffrey W. Legro, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005); and Norrin M. Ripsman, “Two Stages of Transition From a Region of War to a Region of Peace: Realist Transition and Liberal Endurance,” International Studies Quarterly 49, no. 4 (December 2005): 669–93. On how moral norms and power considerations intersect, see Ward Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).
3. For the distinction and interaction between the logic of consequences and logic of appropriateness, see James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn 1998): 943–69.