lecture 3 - hierarchy Flashcards
international hierarchy + authority
- definition
international hierarchy = a distribution of authority that places actors in vertical relations of domination and subordination where some rule over others
- hierarchy can exist in relations between states, or involve non-state actors, groups and individuals
- some actors have a dominant position, others have a subordinate position
authority = the power and right to set rules and enforce obedience by others
conventional wisdom hierarchy in IR theory
traditional understanding = NO hierarchy in the international system, diff arguments why:
- realism = there is no world gov able to protect states or ensure rule compliance. states differ principally in their power resources (they differ in how much power they have, but no hierarchy)
- institutionalism = states bargain and adopt international institutions to achieve their joint interests, but no state has special rights or functions (states differ in their internal structure -> different external behavior)
- liberalism: states differ in internal structure/values/culture, which shapes their external interests and behaviour, but no state has special rights or functions
-> many IR scholars focus on the nature and implications of anarchy
Waltz about hierarchy
absence of hierarchy is the key to the distinction between domestic and international politics
- domestic systems are centralized and hierarchic
- international systems are decentralized and anarchic
new research agenda - hierarchy in world politics
no hierarchy? how can we explain: great powers, satellite states, empire, hegemon, sphere of influence, puppet state, colony, ‘leader of the free world’
maybe states are not all alike in their roles and functions
*In what ways do the authority, roles and functions of states differ?
*Where do hierarchies come from?
*How do various forms of hierarchy interact?
*How and under what conditions do hierarchies change?
*How do (changing) hierarchies affect actors’ choices, interests, identities, world-views… and policy outcomes?
*How do former hierarchies affect politics today?
*How are hierarchies challenged
sources of international hierarchy
- differences in coercive power
- differences in wealth and market power
- social constructions of identity and difference
source #1: differences in coercive power
= simplest way to understand international hierarchy
basic concept = states have diff roles and authority depending on their relative power to coerce, to force other to do as they want
-> powerful states are expected to lead, weaker states are expected to follow
- diff in coercive power -> difference in authority : coercive power leads to expectation to lead
- less coercive powers accept their subordinate power because they have no choice but to accept that actors with coercive power are dominant
emphasize power and coercion: less-powerful states accept differentiation of roles because they have no choice
effects: state action is shaped by differences in roles and authority based on differences in coercive power, regardless of actual interests or preferences
on hierarchy and informal empires
- source 1: diff in coercive power
Wendt and Friedheim: hierarchy under anarchy
within the anarchic system there can be hierarchies: informal empires
- focus on Soviet Union and its informal power (SU and east European states)
- logic also applies to e.g. position US in the international system (US and Caribbean states)
informal empire = by law (de jure) states are equal, but in practice (de facto) they are not equal: dominant states expect the subordinate states to follow their lead
- SU more coercive power than other states -> it could tell them what to do
diff in material power -> de facto international authority relationships -> interests and identities of states
informal empire = combine an egalitarian principle of de jure sovereignty with a hierarchical principle of de facto control.
- informal empire requires diff in military power that enable one state to intervene in and provide security to another state
- weaker state experiences a loss of autonomy and a loss of the right to autonomy
- form of informal empire is based on the ideas that motivate the more powerful state
- visible in social structures (treaties, norms, shared ideology) + behavior (regular consultations, threat or use of intervention)
international cooperation vs US informal empire
1945: US had 6% population, 50% world GDP, only global military
today: relative decline, but no other state can rival the global power of the US
- military: massive forces, incl. nuclear
- economic: dominant role of US dollar in international trade and finance + low dependence on imports and exports (bc continental domestic market)
- political/diplomatic: global alliance network, great voting power in many international organizations
- scientific/technological: unequaled global surveillance powers, leading uni’s, dominant tech firms
Leaders of UK, France, Germany, Japan meet with the US president in 2018
US president is sitting, the rest is standing (Trump did not feel the need to stand up, as an emperor that let the peasants come)
= informal empire
leaders of 49 African states plus the AU meet US officials in Washington DC 2022 = all are seated at same level = cooperation
source #2: diff in wealth and market position
economic posibilities and market positions
basic concept = states have diff roles and authority depending on their relative wealth and market power
- wealthy states are expected to lead, less wealthy states are expected to follow
emphasizes economic capabilities and market position: Less-wealthy states accept differentiation of roles because they have little economic power of their own
Effects: State action is shaped by differences in roles and authority based on differences in wealth and market power, regardless of actual interests or preferences.
benign/friendly view on source 2 (market position and wealth) = hegemonic stability theories
(Kindleberger study of the itnerwar period)
(Gilpin)
hegemon (state that controls the most wealth) is able to do useful things for the world bc they have eco resources
- it can do things for the world that small, weak, poor states can’t do
hierarchy based on eco = good for the world: it enables positive rule making
Kindleberger: eco crisis 30s was bc there was no hegemon (UK no longer had the resources + US had resources but was not willing)
slides:
- all states benefit from international order and cooperation, but hegemons benefit more than others
- only hegemons have the resources needed to maintain international order and cooperation
- hegemons are expected to provide the resources and leadership necessary for maintaining international order and cooperation (public goods), but they have to be willing to pay these costs
- without hegemony, international order and cooperation break down (e.g. absence hegemony 1920s-30s -> collapse of world trade and national economies)
critical view source 2 = the modern world system
Wallerstein = the modern world system
modern world system is based on a division of labour between core and periphery states, the division systematically benefits certain economies and states more than others
!this is bad: it produces and sustains inequality
- core = advanced technologies, strong states
- semi-periphery = middle tech, semi-strong states
- periphery = raw materials and old tech, weak states
example source #2: G7-G20
Lora Anne Viola : change G7->G20
key decisions on the global economy are made by states with the wealth and market power to affect the system, not by all states that are affected by it
since 1973 = G7 = US, Japan, Canada + UK, France, Germany and Italy = wealthy industrialized states
since 1999 policy coordination via the G20 composed of systematically significant states -> still little voice for states outside of the G20
example source #2: power of money in the UN
Graham:
UN charter: UN budget funded by mandatory contirbutions proportional to each member states GDP
reality: more and more agencies depend on voluntary contributions (from rich states)
-> increases ability of rich states to control the UN
source #3: social constructions of identity and difference
hierarchy due to social constructions of identity and difference
basic concept = deep structures of organised inequality develop over time and provide advantages to certain groups (of states or persons) over others
social structures are more important than agency: hierarchy functions through deeply rooted ways of thinking and social practices, not through actors’ choices
effects = hierarchies produce particular types of actors with uneven rights and powers
it works through how actors think and how practices are shaped bc of these ideas
examples: race and gender = both social constructions of identity and difference + produce inequalities (advantages for certain groups over others)
source 2: scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR (definition + 4 things to keep in mind)
race = a social category based on socially constructed differences among people
!not biological category
these diff are:
- typically linked to social rules, status and power
- may become common sense ways of understanding and acting in social settings (so familiar that people take them for granted)
- are often contested
- change over time
source 2: scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR (racial hierarchies reinforce distributions of wealth and power)
W.E.B. DuBois: worlds of color (1925)
“Colonialism is a global economic and political system based on racial (and racist) distinctions. These distinctions are evident in the minds of individuals, including Americans, Europeans, Africans and people of African heritage. These distinctions are reflected in the uneven distribution of economic and military power within states and between states.”
see also: Merze Tate = commenting about racial hierarchies in the world, how they shape the behavior and attitudes shape alliance behavior
source 2: scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR (racism and imperialism)
Rodney (1972): how Europe underdeveloped Africa
imperialism is an integrated global system in which wealthy capitalist states dominate and exploit less-powerful regions of the world
it was shaped by both economic rationality and racism:
“Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism. It was economics that determined that Europe should invest in Africa and control the continent’s raw materials and labor. It was racism which confirmed the decision that the form of control should be direct colonial rule.” (p.141)
idea that social identities and differences create hierarchies
source 2: scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR (racial hierarchy interacts with foreign policy and international order, sustains an unequal global system)
Freeman, Kim, Lake: race in IR beyond the norm against noticing
Some examples:
- The belief that non-White countries lack essential domestic or int’l capacities -> unevenness in the application of international law & justification for intervention or denial of self-determination.
- The belief that non-White countries are inherently aggressive and threatening -> decisions on national security and alliance formation
source 2: scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR (racial hierarchy is complex)
Carmina Yu Untalan: Japn and the problem of race in the non-West
in the early C20, Japan challenged racial hierarchies in IR (in the league of nations), but then reinforced them
(Japan recognized as civilized country, but rather late -> wants to end racial hierarchies in the international law)
- 1905: Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War broke widespread expectations regarding the military superiority of white, Western states (encouraged anti-colonial movements around the world)
- 1919: Japan proposed that the new League of Nations adopt a proposal on the abolition of racial discrimination, but said that it would apply only to members of the League
supported by China, rejected by UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand - 1920s and 1930s: Japan adopted own racial hierarchy to justify domination of East Asia
dynamics of international hierarchy (how it functions)
- hierarchy as voluntary contracts
- hierarchy as contested domination
dynamic: hierarchy as voluntary contracts
= inspired by rational choice, assumes that actors have their own will/interests
voluntary agreement that allows hierarchy under anarchy
States and other actors are understood as voluntaristic, purposeful agents in international life.
Hierarchies are legitimate orders of authority in which actors (rulers and ruled) agree on different roles and responsibilities in order to achieve material, functional and/or social interests.
These voluntary arrangements shape the behaviour of states and other actors.
dynamic: hierarchy as voluntary contracts (David A. Lake - focus)
Hierarchy in IR
International hierarchies are “bargains between ruler and ruled premised/based on the former’s provision of social order of value sufficient to offset the loss of freedom.”
- One state agrees to cede some authority (sovereignty) to another in exchange for security, economic, or political benefits
Hierarchies are an important part of governance in the absence of world government.
- Europe: US provides defense umbrella… expects political support.
- Caribbean: US maintains order & keeps outsiders out… expects political support & free trade.
these are voluntary: a bargain: we accept your protection in exchange for political influence
dynamic: hierarchy as voluntary contracts (David A. Lake - you can read if you want elaboration)
Hierarchy is closely related to authority, defined as rightful rule, and the legitimate exercise of power.
-“In an authority relationship, the subordinate state recognizes both that the dominant state has the right to issue certain commands and that it should, within the limits of its abilities, follow those commands or suffer appropriate consequences. In short, the subordinate accepts the dominant state’s commands as legitimate.” (51)
Authority is closely related to compliance and enforcement.
- “When political authority is exercised, the dominant state commands a subordinate state to alter its behavior, where command implies that the former has the right to order the latter to take certain actions. This right, in turn, implies a correlative obligation or duty by the subordinate state to comply, if possible, with the dominant state’s order… The subordinate state’s obligation implies a further correlative right by the dominant state to enforce its command in the event of noncompliance.” (50)
Hierarchy relies on contingent, relational authority, not coercion or formal-legal authority.
- “Obligation flows not from [the law or] the commands of the ruler, but from the consent of the ruled; a ruler does not possess authority unless her subordinates acknowledge an obligation to comply with her will.” (55)
dynamic #1: hierarchy as voluntary contracts - example of new NATO secretary-general
Brussels (AFP), 10 February 2022 –When outgoing NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg returns home to head Norway’s central bank later this year the western alliance will need a new champion, and for the first time she is expected to be a woman.
“The nomination process is opaque,” a European diplomat told AFP, insisting on the anonymity that shrouds the closed-door and highly political hiring process. “No one campaigns openly, but many names circulate among the allies.” While the secretary general has always been a European – just as the supreme allied military commander is always an American – none of the hopefuls will reveal their interest until they are sure of the backing of US President Joe Biden’s White House.This reflects the reality that, while 21 of the 30 NATO members are also members of the European Union, the United States is still the unquestioned leader of the alliance.
But one thing remains clear. “At the end of the day, it’s Washington that decides,” grumbled one European minister.
the chief civilian official always has to be a European, but always one that Washington approves of
dynamic #1: voluntarism
contractual hierarchy is not new… and not always dominated by Western states
Kang: East Asia Before the West: five centuries of trade and tribute
study of international relations in East Asia 1368-1841: from the Ming dynasty to the Opium Wars
there was a voluntary hierarchy: China dominant state + nr of subordinate states (Japan, Korea, etc.) that paid tribute (diplomatic and monetary) to China, China maintained (regional) order
- Confucian-inspired social order valued by Korea, Japan, Vietnam, who accepted the legitimacy of Chinese leadership and provide tribute to China
exchange of tribute and regulated trade -> trust, conflict resolution and few major wars
note: this analysis is controversial
dynamic 1 (voluntarism): Hierarchical contracts can be made by international society as a whole, not just by individual states.
Ian Clark, Mlada Bukovansky, and Robyn Eckersley (2012). Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power
Observation: Int’l society has consistently addressed major global problems by allocating differentiated responsibilities among sovereign states.
- Example: P-5 in UN Security Council
Explanation: This is more efficient than relying on sovereign equality or power competition. Special responsibilities give both rulers and ruled incentives to support the outcome that international society values
dynamic #2: hierarchy as contested domination
all forms of hierarchy are contested, more or less effectively, by subordinate actors
hierarchical domination, how does it get contested?
strategies of contestation
- contesting the ideas and discourses that sustain inequality
- challenging the formal institutions that sustain hierarchy
- accumulating greater material resources
examples of contesting hierarchical ideas and discourse
Robert Shilliam (2015). The Black Pacific: Anticolonial Struggles andOceanic Connections
- The political struggles of the African diaspora resonated with and influenced the strategies of South Pacific peoples because they also confronted an international hierarchy based on racial distinctions.
- people in the south pay attention to civil rights movement in the US (+EU to some extent) bc they are in similar international hierarchies, maybe they can do the same (also protest/confront)
Colin Chia (2022). Social Positioning and International Order Contestationin Early Modern Southeast Asia.International Organization 76(2), 305-336
- Response to Kang 2010
- In early modern Southeast Asia, both Siam/Thailand and Vietnam tried to assert their equality (and even superiority) to Chinese dynasties that challenged their sense of self.
- there was a power hierarchy, but the people did not support it, were contesting it (from below)
challenging formal institutions that support hierarchy
Matthew D. Stephen and Michael Zürn, eds. (2019). Contested World Orders: Rising Powers,Non-Governmental Organizations, and the Politics of Authority Beyond the Nation-State.
global south is challenging formal institutions that maintain hierarchical institutions (e.g. WTO, UNSC) that put western states in a dominant position
- International institutions are often blamed for creating, justifying, or otherwise maintaining international hierarchies.
- These institutions are increasingly challenged by rising powers dissatisfied with existing institutional inequalities, by NGOs worried about the direction of global governance, and even by established powers no longer content to lead the institutions they themselves created.
- In all issue-areas: security, economy, environment, human rights…
legal hierarchy intersecting with racial hierarchy (reading)
Oumar Ba (2023), Constructing an international legal order under the shadow of colonial domination.Journal of Human Rights 22(1), 4–15
how we got to having the ICC + why it looks the way it looks today: shows that the ICC could have looked different (he is denaturalizing an institution)
colonialism as international hierarchy: both racial and legal (international law sustained/enabled/justified colonialism)
decolonization-> formal legal equality -> discussion creating ICC
actors he looks at: African states (global justice, broad range of crimes (incl. e.g. apartheid) + independence of UNSC and powerful states) vs Western states (limited list of crimes + dependence on UNSC and powerful states)
decisions based on consensus -> western states: we will not accept broad range of crimes, independence of UNSC
story tells: colonialism racial hierarchy embedded in the international legal hierarchy, after decolinization African states attempt to create new international legal hierarchy, what it is now is not the vision they had BC hierarchy: western states had more power
After liberation from colonialism (racial hierarchy) justified by int’l law (legal hierarchy), African diplomats and lawyers attempted to create a new int’l legal order that would promote global justice.
- New crimes – broad definition of crimes against humanity incl. colonialism, apartheid…
- New court – independent of UNSC and powerful states
Western states had different priorities, resisted the African vision.
The jurisdiction of today’s International Criminal Court (new legal hierarchy) codifies a limited set of crimes, empowers the UNSC, and mostly protects powerful states.
accumulating greater material resources to rise in the hierarchy
if you can’t challenge the hierarchy, rise in the hierarchy
Philip S. Golub (2013). From the New International Economic Order to the G20:How the ‘global South’ is restructuring world capitalism from within.Third World Quarterly 34:6, 1000-1015
- In 1970s, poor countries challenged rules of the world economy, proposed a ‘New International Economic Order’ (NIEO)(within the UN) that would mandate redistribution from North to South
- They failed, due to resistance by North and divisions in South.
- Since 1990s, some states in Global South’ has used global capitalist system to gain wealth and influence, crossing the line between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.
G20 now as important as G7, but global inequality remains
NIEO failed
Golub observes that states that tried to change the hierarchy/game, they learned to play the game (Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea etc.) => got great resources
