This comment suggests that Cohen's account of the history and present approaches to IPE as divided into an American and a British school is unduly narrow. It excludes not only Europe and the rest of the world but more centrally lines of lines of theorizing that have shaped and can continue to shape IPE (also within the Anglo-Saxon world). It proceeds to argue that embracing a broader view of IPE is important. It ensures for the quality, relevance and vitality of the field. The comment concludes that although a de-coupling of Cohen's version of IPE and the rest would seem tempting and logical it is unlikely to happen for reasons of politics, academic and international.