Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-jsbx8 Total loading time: 0.359 Render date: 2021-04-18T19:05:01.931Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

Get access

Abstract

A principal theme of international relations scholarship following the Cold War was the apparent erosion of state sovereignty caused by globalization's integrative effects and the proliferation of international institutions and networks. In recent years, however, scholars have noted a reverse trend: the reassertion of traditional, or Westphalian, state sovereignty. By contrast, I highlight another recent trend that has gone largely overlooked: the reaffirmation of older “extralegal” and “organic” versions of sovereignty by three of the world's most powerful states—Russia, China, and the United States. After tracing the genealogy of these older concepts, I consider how and why they have gained prominence in the official discourse of all three countries. I also explore the implications of this shift, which not only illustrates the importance of “norm retrieval” in international affairs, but also raises questions about the foundations of international order. Contrary to Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes the legal equality of states and the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, the extralegal and organic versions offer few constraints on state action. If anything, they appear to license powerful states to dominate others.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2020

Access options

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

References

Arase, David. 2016. The Question for Regional Order in East Asia. In China's Rise and Changing Order in East Asia, edited by Arase, David, 334. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Stefan. 2015. Carl Schmitt in the Kremlin: The Ukraine Crisis and the Return of Geopolitics. International Affairs 91 (5):953–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkin, J. Samuel, and Cronin, Bruce. 1994. The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations. International Organization 48 (1):107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, Christopher. 2012. Rousseau's Legacy in Two Conceptions of the General Will: Democratic and Transcendent. Review of Politics 74 (3):403–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Wilfred, and Tarnai, Christian. 1999. Content Analysis in Empirical Social Research. International Journal of Educational Research 31 (8):659–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukovansky, Mlada, Clark, Ian, Eckersley, Robyn, Price, Richard, Reus-Smit, Christian, and Wheeler, Nicholas. 2012. Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, William A. 2016. China's Belt and Road Initiative and the New Eurasian Order. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Policy Brief No. 22. Available at <http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2401876>..>Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas. 2016. Closing Space for International Democracy and Human Rights Support. Journal of Human Rights Practice 8 (3):358–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, Abram, and Chayes, Antionia Handler. 1995. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
I. Bernard, Cohen. 1997. The Body Politic Before and After the Scientific Revolution. In Experiencing Nature: Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Allen G. Debus, edited by Theerman, Paul H. and Parshall, Karen Hunger, 144. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robert. 1996. The Post-modern State and the World Order. Demos.Google Scholar
Cox, Michael. 2017. The Rise of Populism and the Crisis of Globalisation: Brexit, Trump and Beyond. Irish Studies in International Affairs 28:917.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Zimmermann, Lisbeth. 2019. Norms under Challenge: Unpacking the Dynamics of Norm Robustness. Journal of Global Security Studies 4 (1):217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegeleire, De, Stephan, Clarissa Skinner, and Sweijs, Tim. 2017. The Rise of Populist Sovereignism. Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
Deyermond, Ruth. 2016. The Uses of Sovereignty in Twenty-first Century Russian Foreign Policy. Europe-Asia Studies 68 (6):957–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dian, Matteo, and Menegazzi, Silvia. 2018. New Regional Initiatives in China's Foreign Policy: The Incoming Pluralism of Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downe-Wamboldt, Barbara. 1992. Content Analysis: Method, Applications, and Issues. Health Care for Women International 13 (3):313–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dragneva, Rilka, and Wolczuk, Kataryna. 2017. The Eurasian Economic Union Deals, Rules and the Exercise of Power. Chatham House, 2 May. Available at <https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/eurasian-economic-union-deals-rules-and-exercise-power> .+.>Google Scholar
Dreyer, June Teufel. 2015. The “Tianxia Trope”: Will China Change the International System? Journal of Contemporary China 24 (96):1015–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Kevin C. 2008. Discourse Analysis. In Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, edited by Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa, 7992. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Economy, Elizabeth C. 2017. History with Chinese Characteristics. Foreign Affairs 96 (4):141–48.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2019. Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion. International Security 44 (1):4279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferdinand, Peter. 2016. Westward Ho—The China Dream and “One Belt, One Road.” International Affairs 92 (4):941–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Evgeny, and Brudny, Yitzhak M.. 2012. Russia and the Colour Revolutions. Democratization 19 (1):1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Cornell University Press.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
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, M. Steven. 2018. What Has Russia Become? Comparative Politics 50 (3):327–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, John. 2018. China in Xi's “New Era”: Overstepping Down Under. Journal of Democracy 29 (2):5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Christopher A. 2010. The Mind of Empire: China's History and Modern Foreign Relations. University Press of Kentucky.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fravel, M. Taylor. 2009. Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
French, Howard W. 2017. Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power. Knopf.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack. 2000. Review: Sovereignty, International Relations Theory, and International Law. Stanford Law Review 52 (4):95–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Garrit W. 1984. The Standard of Civilization in International Society. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Vincente, Ruben. 2017. The Empire Strikes Back? China's New Racial Sovereignty. Political Geography 59:139–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Thomas D. 2015. Annexation of Crimea. American Journal of International Law 109 (1):6895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunitsky, Seva. 2016. Great Powers and Norm Cascades in Global Politics. Working paper, University of Toronto (September).Google Scholar
Hassner, Ron E., and Wittenberg, Jason. 2015. Barriers to Entry: Who Builds Fortified Boundaries and Why? International Security 40 (1):157–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headley, James. 2015. Russia's Complex Engagement with European Union Norms: Sovereign Democracy Versus Post-Westphalianism? In Importing EU Norms: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings, edited by Björkdahl, Annika, Chaban, Natalia, Leslie, John, and Masselot, Annick, 211–29. Springer.Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1942. Philosophy of Right, translated by Knox, T.M.. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Held, David. 2002. Law of States, Law of Peoples: Three Models of Sovereignty. Legal Theory 8 (1):144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Ruth Ilsley. 1963. The Body Political and the Body Ecclesiastical. Journal of Bible and Religion 31 (1):2935.Google Scholar
Hill, Fiona, and Gaddy, Clifford G.. 2013. Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hinsley, F.H. 1986. Sovereignty. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 2004. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill. Barnes and Noble Books.Google Scholar
Hopgood, Stephen. 2013. The Endtimes of Human Rights. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Wayne. 2008. Fables of Sovereignty. In Re-envisioning Sovereignty: The End of Westphalia? edited by Jacobsen, Trudy, 1931. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 2013. Effective Multilateralism and Global Order. In Effective Multilateralism: Through the Looking Glass of East Asia, edited by Prantl, Jochen, 2142. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, Pasi. 2009. Towards an Immortal Political Body: The State Machine in Eighteenth-Century English Political Discourse. Contributions to the History of Concepts 5 (1):447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, John G. 2011. Liberal Leviathan. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ingerbritsen, Christine. 2002. Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia's Role in World Politics. Cooperation and Conflict 37 (1):1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert. 1999. Introduction: Sovereignty at the Millennium. Political Studies 47 (3):423–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert. 2007. Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
John of Salisbury. 1990. Policraticus: Of the Frivolities of Courtiers and the Footprints of Philosophers, edited and translated by Nederman, C.J.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kallis, Aristotle. 2018. Populism, Sovereigntism, and the Unlikely Re-Emergence of the Territorial Nation-State. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11 (3):285302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2000. Hegemonic Sovereignty: Carl Schmitt, Antonio Gramsci and the Constituent Prince. Journal of Political Ideologies 5 (3):343–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Chaim D., and Pape, Robert A.. 1999. Explaining Costly International Moral Action: Britain's Sixty-Year Campaign Against the Atlantic Slave Trade. International Organization 53 (4):631–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Samuel S. 1979. China, the United Nations and World Order. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, Benedict. 1998. Sovereignty and Inequality. European Journal of International Law 9 (4):599625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. 2014. World Order. Penguin.Google Scholar
Klotz, Audie. 1995. Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Koh, Harold Hongju. 2019. Is Trump's Assault on International Law Working? Oxford University Press blog, 11 March. Available at <https://blog.oup.com/2019/03/trumps-international-law>..>Google Scholar
Kolin, Andrew. 2017. Politics Above Law: How Trump Channels Far Right Icon Carl Schmitt Without Knowing It. Informed Content blog, 5 September. Available at <https://www.juancole.com/2017/09/politics-channels-schmitt.html>..>Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2017. Domination, Authority, and the Forms of Chinese Power. Chinese Journal of International Politics 10 (4):357–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langdon, Kate C., and Tismaneanu, Vladimir. 2019. Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Laruelle, Marlene. 2015. The “Russian World”: Russia's Soft Power and Geopolitical Imagination. Center on Global Interests.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 2017. Carl Schmitt in Moscow: Counter-Revolutionary Ideology and the Putinist State. Russian Analytical Digest 211:1315.Google Scholar
Lin, Shaun, Sidaway, James D., and Woon, Chih Yuan. 2019. Reordering China, Respacing the World: Belt and Road Initiative as an Emergent Geopolitical Culture. The Professional Geographer 71 (3):507–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Hong, and van Dongen, Els. 2016. China's Diaspora Policies as a New Mode of Transnational Governance. Journal of Contemporary China 25 (102):805–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWilliams, Matthew C. 2016. Who Decides When the Party Doesn't? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump. PS: Political Science and Politics 49 (4):716–21.Google Scholar
Mattern, Janice Bially, and Zarakol, Ayşe. 2016. Hierarchies in World Politics. International Organization 70 (3):623–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, Walter Russell. 1999. The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy. The National Interest 58:529.Google Scholar
Mead, Walter Russell. 2017. The Jacksonian Revolt. Foreign Affairs 96 (2):27.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19 (3):549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2018. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, C.E. Jr. 2001. History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau. Batoche Books.Google Scholar
Miller, Fred D. Jr. 2011. Aristotle's Political Naturalism. Apeiron 22 (4):195218.Google Scholar
Miskimmon, Alister, O'Loughlin, Ben, and Roselle, Laura. 2017. Introduction. In Forging the World: Strategic Narratives and International Relations, edited by Miskimmon, Alister, O'Loughlin, Ben, and Roselle, Laura, 122. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, Feisal G. 2018. “I Alone Can Solve”: Carl Schmitt on Sovereignty and Nationhood Under Trump. In Trump and Political Philosophy: Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, and Civic Virtue, edited by Sable, Marc Benjamin and Torres, Angel Jaramillo, 293309. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P. Sean. 2018. Russian Discourses on International Law: Sociological and Philosophical Phenomenon. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diane C. 2018. Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (19):E4330–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neu, Jerome. 1971. Plato's Analogy of State and Individual: The Republic and the Organic Theory of the State. Philosophy 46 (177):238–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nymalm, Nicola, and Plagemann, Johannes. 2019. Comparative Exceptionalism: Universality and Particularity in Foreign Policy Discourses. International Studies Review 21 (1):1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osiander, Andreas. 2001. Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization 55 (2):251–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, John M. IV, and Inboden, William. 2015. Putin, Ukraine, and the Question of Realism. The Hedgehog Review 17 (1):8796.Google Scholar
Paltiel, Jeremy T. 2007. The Empire's New Clothes: Cultural Particularism and Universal Value in China's Quest for Global Status. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, Keith. 1988. Law, Legislative Authority, and Theories of Government, 1150–1300. In The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350—c.1450, edited by Burns, J., 424–53. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, Keith. 2007. Politics in Western Jurisprudence. In The Jurists’ Philosophy of Law from Rome to the Seventeenth Century, edited by Padovani, A. and Stein, P.G., 157211. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2005. Liberty and Leviathan. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (1):131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2011. War, Religion and Empire: The Transformation of International Orders. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 1995. Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History. Journal of International Affairs 48 (2):353–68.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001a. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001b. Usurping the Sovereignty of Sovereignty? World Politics 53 (2):297324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 2017. Civil Wars and the Structure of World Power. Daedalus 146 (4):167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 2018. The Rise of Illiberal Hegemony: Trump's Surprising Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs 97 (2):2027.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. 2017. Liberal Internationalism and the Populist Backlash. Arizona State Law Journal 49 (Special Issue):795819.Google Scholar
Prakash, Saikrishna B., and Ramsey, Michael D.. 2001. The Executive Power Over Foreign Affairs. Yale Law Journal 111 (2):231356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranen, Matti. 2020. A Non-World: Chinese Perceptions of the Western International Order. In Contestations of Liberal Order: The West in Crisis? edited by Lehti, Marko, Pennanen, Henna-Riikka, and Jouhki, Jukka, 315–41. Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putin, Vladimir. 1999. The Modern Russia: Economic and Social Problems, 31 December. Reprinted in Vital Speeches of the Day 66 (8):231–36.Google Scholar
Ramos, Jennifer M. 2013. Changing Norms Through Actions: The Evolution of Sovereignty. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, Jeffrey. 2018. Imperialism and the Middle Kingdom: The Xi Jinping Administration's Peripheral Diplomacy with Developing States. Third World Quarterly 39 (5):976–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerald. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1):139–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutzen, Douglas. 2015. Authoritarianism Goes Global (II): Civil Society Under Assault. Journal of Democracy 26 (4):2839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55 (1):4780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, translated by George Schwab. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sharafutdinova, Gulnaz. 2017. Managing National Ressentiment: Morality Politics in Putin's Russia. In Vocabularies of International Relations after the Crisis in Ukraine, edited by Makarychev, Andrey and Yatsyk, Alexandra, 130–51. Routledge.Google Scholar
Shirk, Susan L. 2018. The Return to Personalist Rule. Journal of Democracy 29 (2):2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Stephen N. 2019. Harmonizing the Periphery: China's Neighborhood Strategy Under Xi Jinping. Pacific Review. Available at <https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1651383>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Snow, David A., Burke Rochford, E. Jr., Worden, Steven K., and Benford, Robert D.. 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4):464–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, Georg. 1999. Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution. Political Studies 47 (3):590604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, Peter J. 2019. Trump v. Hawaii. American Journal of International Law 113 (1):109–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Surkov, Vladislav. 2014. Russian Political Culture: The View From Utopia. Russian Politics and Law 46 (5):8197.Google Scholar
Swidler, Anne. 1986. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review 51 (2): 273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsygankov, Andrei. 2016. Crafting the State-Civilization: Vladimir Putin's Turn to Distinct Values. Problems of Post-Communism 63 (3):146–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thunø, Mette. 2017. China's New Global Position: Changing Policies Toward the Chinese Diaspora in the Twenty-First Century. In China's Rise and the Chinese Overseas, edited by Wong, Bernard and Tan, Chee-Beng, 184208. Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Creveld, Martin L. 1999. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veg, Sebastian. 2019. The Rise of China's Statist Intellectuals: Law, Sovereignty, and “Repoliticization.” The China Journal 82:2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Adam. 1987. Hedley Bull, States Systems and International Societies. Review of International Studies 13 (2):147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, Marc. 2010. Iraq and the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilks, Michael. 1963. The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages: The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jeanne L. 2017. The Russian Pursuit of Regional Hegemony. Rising Powers Quarterly 2 (1):725.Google Scholar
Wilson, William A. 1973. Herder, Folklore and Romantic Nationalism. Journal of Popular Culture 6 (4):819–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Bob. 2018. Fear: Trump in the White House. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Jinping, Xi. 2012. Achieving Rejuvenation Is the Dream of the Chinese People (29 November), reproduced in Xi Jinping, The Governance of China, vol. 1, 2014, 3739. Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
Jinping, Xi. 2014. The Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation Is a Dream Shared by All Chinese, 6 June. Reproduced in Xi Jinping, The Governance of China, vol. 1, 69–17. Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Jilin. 2015. The New Tianxia: Rebuilding China's Internal and External Order, translated by Mark McConaghy, Tang Xiaobing, and David Ownby. Reading the Chinese Dream blog, 15 October, <https://www.readingthechinadream.com/xu-jilin-the-new-tianxia.html>..>Google Scholar
Zhang, Yongjin, and Buzan, Barry. 2012. The Tributary System as International Society in Theory and Practice. Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (1):336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Yongjin. 2008. Ambivalent Sovereignty: China and Re-Imagining the Westphalian Ideal. In Re-Envisioning Sovereignty: The End of Westphalia? edited by Jacobsen, Trudy, Sampford, Charles, and Thakur, Ramesh, 101–15. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Charles E. 2012. Conceptualizing Sovereignty in Russian Foreign Policy: Realist and Constructivist Perspectives. International Politics 49 (4):400–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Tingyang. 2006. Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept “All-under-Heaven” (Tian-xia). Social Identities 12 (1):2941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Tingyang. 2019. Redefining a Philosophy for World Governance, translated by Tao, Liqing. Palgrave Macmillan.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: 978
Total number of PDF views: 3512 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 23rd March 2020 - 18th April 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.

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order
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.

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order
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.

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *