Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-55wx7 Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2021-02-27T06:51:14.279Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Hierarchies in World Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2016

Get access

Abstract

Hierarchy-centered approaches to IR promise to deliver what anarchy-centered approaches have not: a framework for theorizing and empirically analyzing world politics as a global system rather than just an international one. At the core of this proposition are three features of hierarchical systems as they are represented across the growing IR literature on the topic. First, the structures of differentiation at the core of hierarchical systems are deeply implicated with power. Hierarchical systems are thus intrinsically political. Second, in world politics, hierarchies stratify, rank, and organize the relations not only among states but also other kinds of actors as well, and often even a mix of different actors within a single structure of differentiation. Third, there are many different kinds of hierarchical relations in world politics, each of which generate different “logics” influencing social, moral, and behavioral outcomes. Hierarchy has been understood in the IR literature in two ways: narrowly, as a relationship of legitimate authority; and broadly, as intersubjective manifestations of organized inequality. Hierarchy operates in a variety of different ways that range from ordering solutions to deep structures. We identify three such “logics” that have been fruitfully explored in IR scholarship and that can form the basis of a future research agenda: hierarchy as an institutionalized functional bargain between actors (a logic of trade-offs); hierarchy as differentiated social and political roles shaping behavior (a logic of positionality); and hierarchy as a productive political space or structure (a logic of productivity).

Type
Review Essay
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society. International Organization 68 (1):143–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2015. Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Pram Gad, Ulrik. 2012. European Integration and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games: The EU Overseas Countries and Territories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna, and Ling, Lily. 2004. Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11. International Studies Quarterly 48 (3):517–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Mathias, Cederman, Lars-Erik, and Wendt, Alexander. 2010. New Systems Theories of World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillian.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. 1988. Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17 (2):227–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoob, Mohammed. 2002. Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism. International Studies Review 4 (3):2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barder, Alexander. 2015. Empire Within: International Hierarchy and Its Imperial Laboratories of Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barkawi, Tarak, and Laffey, Mark. 1999. The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization. European Journal of International Relations 5 (4):403–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael N. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59 (1):3975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelson, Jens. 2009. Visions of World Community. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice. 2001. The Power Politics of Identity. European Journal of International Relations 7 (3):349–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice. 2005a. Why “Soft Power” Isn't So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33 (3):583612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice. 2005b. Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice. 2011. A Practice Theory of Emotion for International Relations. In International Practices, edited by Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, 6386. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, Jordan. 2011. Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change. International Organization 65:136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C.. 2008. World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukovansky, Mlada, Clark, Ian, Eckersley, Robyn, Price, Richard MacKay, Reus-Smit, Christian, and Wheeler, Nicholas J.. 2012. Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cooley, Alexander. 2003. Thinking Rationally About Hierarchy and Global Governance. Review of International Political Economy 10 (4):672–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Alexander. 2005. Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Deudney, Daniel. 2007. Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2006. Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society. European Journal of International Relations 12 (2):139–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2009. Rethinking Political Structures: From “Ordering Principles” to “Vertical Differentiation”—and Beyond. International Theory 1 (1):4986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2015. The Discourse of Anarchy in IR. International Theory 7 (3):393425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, Michael. 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Dunne, Tim. 1998. Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edkins, Jenny, Pin-Fat, Veronique, and Shapiro, Michael J.. 2004. Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2014. The Postcolonial Perspective: An Introduction. International Theory 6 (2):294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Yale H., and Mansbach, Richard W.. 2008. A World of Polities: Essays on Global Politics. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2009. Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be. World Politics 61 (1):5885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Julia. 2014. Chopping the World into Bits: Africa, the World Bank, and the Good Governance Norm. International Theory 6 (2):332–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Xavier. 2002. Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31 (1):126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Michael, and Negri, Antonio. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651[1946]. Leviathan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2013. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M., and Sharman, J.C.. 2005. The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change. European Journal of International Relations 11 (1):6398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2004. American Hegemony and East Asian Order. Australian Journal of International Affairs 58 (3):353–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2012. The Rise of China, the United States, and the Future of Liberal International Order. In Tangled Titans: The United States and China, edited by Shambaugh, David, 5374. New York: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John, and Kupchan, Charles A.. 1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization 44 (3):283315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabri, Vivienne. 2012. The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jabri, Vivienne. 2014. Disarming Norms: Postcolonial Agency and the Constitution of the International. International Theory 6 (2):372–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick. 2006. Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, David C. 2010. Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: The Tribute System in Early Modern East Asia. Security Studies 19 (4):591622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayaoğlu, Turan. 2010. Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review 12 (2):196215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keene, Edward. 2007. A Case Study of the Construction of International Hierarchy: British Treaty-Making Against the Slave Trade in the Early Nineteenth Century. International Organization 61 (2):311–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keene, Edward. 2013. Social Status, Social Closure and the Idea of Europe as a “Normative Power.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (4):939–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2005. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kosebalaban, Hasan. 2008. Torn Identities and Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey and Japan. Insight Turkey 10 (1):530.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2007. Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics. International Security 32 (1):4779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009a. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009b. Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order. Review of International Studies 35 (S1):3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2010. Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance. International Studies Quarterly 54 (3):587613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanoszka, Alexander. 2013. Beyond Consent and Coercion: Using Republican Political Theory to Understand International Hierarchies. International Theory 5 (3):382413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch, and Shevchenko, Alexei. 2014. Managing Rising Powers: The Role of Status Concerns. In Status in World Politics, edited by Paul, T.V., Larson, Deborah Welch, and Wohlforth, William, 3357. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2008. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Daniel J. 2012. Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Paul, and Lake, David A.. 2008. Correspondence: The Role of Hierarchy in International Politics. International Security 32 (4):171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen M.. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad for IR. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3):427–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. The Study of Discourse in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 5 (2):225–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique. Review of International Studies 17:6785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morozov, Viacheslav. 2013. Subaltern Empire? Toward a Postcolonial Approach to Russian Foreign Policy. Problems of Post-Communism 60 (6):1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morozov, Viacheslav. 2015. Russia's Postcolonial Identity: A Subaltern Empire in a Eurocentric World. New York: Palgrave MacMillian.Google Scholar
Muppidi, Himadeep. 2012. The Colonial Signs of International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver B. 1995. Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver B. 1998. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Iver B., and Sending, Ole Jacob. 2010. Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H. 2007. Discussion: American Empire and Civilizational Practice. In Civilizational Identity: The Production and Reproduction of “Civilizations” in International Relations, edited by Hall, Martin and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, 109–18. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H., and Wright, Thomas. 2007. What's at Stake in the American Empire Debate. American Political Science Review 101 (2):253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Joseph. 2002. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 2013a. Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 2013b. Recognition and the Constitution of Epochal Change. International Relations 27 (2):121–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 2014. Rule and Rules in International Relations. Lecture at the Cluster of Excellence: The Formation of Normative Orders, Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, 5 February.Google Scholar
Organski, A.F.K., and Kugler, Jacek. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Paul, T.V., Larson, Deborah Welch, and Wohlforth, William C.. 2014. Status in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2010. International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pumain, Denise. 2006. Introduction. In Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences, edited by Pumain, Denise, 112. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 1996. On the Ontological Status of the State. European Journal of International Relations 2 (4):429–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James. 1997. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1):139–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelili, Bahar. 2003. Liminality and Perpetuation of Conflicts: Turkish-Greek Relations in the Context of Community-Building by the EU. European Journal of International Relations 9 (2):213–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelili, Bahar. 2004. Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU's Mode of Differentiation. Review of International Studies 30 (1):2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatzki, Theodore R., Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and von Savigny, Eike. 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Brian. 1998. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Seth, Sanjay. 2011. Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (1):167–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharman, Jason. 2013. International Hierarchy and Contemporary Imperial Governance: A Tale of Three Kingdoms. European Journal of International Relations 19:189207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. 2014. “Open the Gates Mek We Repatriate”: Caribbean Slavery, Constructivism, and Hermeneutic Tensions. International Theory 6 (2):349–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Gerry. 2004. Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2012. Gender Hierarchy, International Structure, and the Causes of War. International Theory 4 (1):138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotic, Jelena, and Zarakol, Ayşe. 2013. Cultural Intimacy in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (4):915–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Shogo. 2005. Japan's Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society. European Journal of International Relations 11 (1):137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Shogo. 2009. Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with the European International Society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine, et al. 2011. The Forum: Emotion and the Feminist IR Researcher. International Studies Review 13 (4):687708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, Arlene. 2003. Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32 (2):295324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towns, Ann E. 2010. Women and States: Norms and Hierarchies in International Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towns, Ann E. 2012. Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion “from Below.” International Organization 66 (2):179209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdier, Nicholas. 2006. A Short History of Hierarchy. In Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences, edited by Pumain, Denise, 1339. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitalis, Robert. 2006. Birth of a Discipline. In Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, edited by Long, David and Schmidt, Brian C., 159–82. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Vitalis, Robert. 2010. The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development. Comparative Studies in Society and History 52 (4):909–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitalis, Robert. 2015. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Volgy, Thomas J., Corbetta, Renato, Rhamey, J. Patrick Jr., Baird, Ryan G., and Grant, Keith A.. 2014. Status Considerations in International Politics and the Rise of Regional Powers. In Status in World Politics, edited by Paul, T.V., Larson, Deborah Welch, and Wohlforth, William, 5884. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rob B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rob B. J. 2006. The Double Outside of the Modern International. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 6 (1):5669.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1984. The Politics of World Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2011. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century, with a New Prologue. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979 [2010]. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 1995. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Katja. 2000. Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: Transaction Costs and Institutional Choice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Weldes, Jutta, Laffey, Mark, Gusterson, Hugh, and Duvall, Raymond. 1999. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, and Barnett, Michael. 1993. Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization. Review of International Studies 19 (4):321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, and Friedheim, Daniel. 1995. Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State. International Organization 49 (4):689721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Wendy. 2012. Internal Affairs: How the Structure of NGOs Transforms Human Rights. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2010. Ontological Insecurity and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations 24 (1):323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2011. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2013. Revisiting Second Image Reversed: Lessons from Turkey and Thailand. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1):150–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2014. What Made the Modern World Hang Together: Socialisation or Stigmatisation? International Theory 6 (2):311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias. 2012. International Authority and Its Politicization. International Theory 4 (1):69106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 346
Total number of PDF views: 4218 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Hierarchies in World Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Hierarchies in World Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Hierarchies in World Politics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *