Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 26
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Biccum, April R. 2016. Whatmightcelebrity humanitarianism have to do with empire?. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 37, Issue. 6, p. 998.


    Goddard, Stacie E and Nexon, Daniel H. 2016. The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, p. 4.


    Polansky, David 2016. Drawing Out the Leviathan: Kenneth Waltz, Hobbes, and the Neorealist Theory of the State. International Studies Review, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 268.


    Phillips, Andrew and Sharman, J. C. 2015. Explaining Durable Diversity in International Systems: State, Company, and Empire in the Indian Ocean. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 436.


    Alessio, Dominic and Renfro, Wesley B. 2014. The Voldemort of Imperial History: Rethinking Empire and US History. International Studies Perspectives, p. n/a.


    Fattor, Eric M. 2014. American Empire and the Arsenal of Entertainment.


    Kettell, Steven and Sutton, Alex 2013. New Imperialism: Toward a Holistic Approach. International Studies Review, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 243.


    Lake, David A. 2013. Legitimating Power: The Domestic Politics of U.S. International Hierarchy. International Security, Vol. 38, Issue. 2, p. 74.


    Stroschein, Sherrill 2013. Discourse in Bosnia and Macedonia on the Independence of Kosovo: When and What is a Precedent?. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 65, Issue. 5, p. 874.


    Gravier, Magali 2011. Empire vs federation: which path for Europe?. Journal of Political Power, Vol. 4, Issue. 3, p. 413.


    Heumann, Stefan 2011. State, nation, and empire: the formation of the US. Journal of Political Power, Vol. 4, Issue. 3, p. 375.


    Reus-Smit, Christian 2011. Struggles for Individual Rights and the Expansion of the International System. International Organization, Vol. 65, Issue. 02, p. 207.


    Stroschein, Sherrill 2011. Microdynamics of Bilateral Ethnic Mobilization. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Vucetic, Srdjan 2011. What is so American about the American empire?. International Politics, Vol. 48, Issue. 2-3, p. 251.


    Barkawi, Tarak 2010. On the limits of new foundations: a commentary on R. Harrison Wagner, War and the State. International Theory, Vol. 2, Issue. 02, p. 317.


    Hom, Andrew R. and Steele, Brent J. 2010. Open Horizons: The Temporal Visions of Reflexive Realism. International Studies Review, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 271.


    Vucetic, Srdjan 2010. Anglobal governance?. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 455.


    Donnelly, Jack 2009. Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond. International Theory, Vol. 1, Issue. 01, p. 49.


    Goddard, Stacie E. 2009. Brokering change: networks and entrepreneurs in international politics. International Theory, Vol. 1, Issue. 02, p. 249.


    Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. Kahler, Miles and Montgomery, Alexander H. 2009. Network Analysis for International Relations. International Organization, Vol. 63, Issue. 03, p. 559.


    ×

What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate

  • DANIEL H. NEXON (a1) and THOMAS WRIGHT (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070220
  • Published online: 01 May 2007
Abstract

Scholars of world politics enjoy well-developed theories of the consequences of unipolarity or hegemony, but have little to say about what happens when a state's foreign relations take on imperial properties. Empires, we argue, are characterized by rule through intermediaries and the existence of distinctive contractual relations between cores and their peripheries. These features endow them with a distinctive network-structure from those associated with unipolar and hegemonic orders. The existence of imperial relations alters the dynamics of international politics: processes of divide and rule supplant the balance-of-power mechanism; the major axis of relations shift from interstate to those among imperial authorities, local intermediaries, and other peripheral actors; and preeminent powers face special problems of legitimating their bargains across heterogeneous audiences. We conclude with some observations about the American empire debate, including that the United States is, overall, less of an imperial power than it was during the Cold War.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Daniel H. Nexon is Assistant Professor, Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, 669 Intercultural Center, Washington, DC 20057 (dhn2@georgetown.edu).
Thomas Wright is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, Washington DC 20057, and a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston, MA 02138.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×