Sharman, J.C. 2017. Myths of military revolution: European expansion and Eurocentrism. European Journal of International Relations, p. 135406611771999.
Phillips, Andrew 2016. Global IR Meets Global History: Sovereignty, Modernity, and the International System’s Expansion in the Indian Ocean Region. International Studies Review, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 62.
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.
Sharman, J.C. 2015. War, selection, and micro-states: Economic and sociological perspectives on the international system. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 194.
Gartzke, Erik and Rohner, Dominic 2011. The Political Economy of Imperialism, Decolonization and Development. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, Issue. 03, p. 525.
Coggins, Bridget 2011. Friends in High Places: International Politics and the Emergence of States from Secessionism. International Organization, Vol. 65, Issue. 03, p. 433.
Englehart, Neil A. 2010. Representing civilization: Solidarism, ornamentalism, and Siam’s entry into international society. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 417.
Somers, Margaret R. and Roberts, Christopher N.J. 2008. Toward a New Sociology of Rights: A Genealogy of “Buried Bodies” of Citizenship and Human Rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 385.
Sharman, J.C. 2008. Power and Discourse in Policy Diffusion: Anti-Money Laundering in Developing States. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 52, Issue. 3, p. 635.
Go, Julian 2008. Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires. Sociological Theory, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 201.
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, Vol. 61, Issue. 02,
Wimmer, Andreas and Min, Brian 2006. From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816–2001. American Sociological Review, Vol. 71, Issue. 6, p. 867.
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, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 63.
Fazal, Tanisha M. 2004. State Death in the International System. International Organization, Vol. 58, Issue. 02,
BRYSK, ALISON PARSONS, CRAIG and SANDHOLTZ, WAYNE 2002. After Empire: National Identity and Post-colonial Families of Nations. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8, Issue. 2, p. 267.
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn 2001. TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 391.
Ansell, Christopher K. and Weber, Steven 1999. Organizing International Politics: Sovereignty and Open Systems. International Political Science Review, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 73.
Finnemore, Martha 1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology's institutionalism. International Organization, Vol. 50, Issue. 02, p. 325.
The global expansion of the European state system suggests strong connections between political “life chances” and international status. Polities recognized as sovereign within the Western international community are much less likely than unrecognized polities to be colonized and are much less likely than dependencies to merge or dissolve. These variations in stability are difficult to understand through balance-of-power politics. They may be more plausibly explained through the institutional structure of the state system and, in particular, the organization of the system as a community of mutual recognition. Sovereign members of this community are treated in fundamentally different ways than are those seen as outside Western state society or as the dependent possessions of sovereign states.
I thank Ronald Jepperson, Stephen D. Krasner, John W. Meyer, Robin Stryker, Ann Swidler, and Nancy B. Tuma for comments on earlier versions of this article. The research was supported in part by a MacArthur Dissertation Grant under the auspices of the Stanford Center for International Security and Arms Control.
1. The classic account of European expansion from a Marxist perspective is Lenin's Vladimir Ilich Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (London: Martin Lawrence, 1933). For a periphery-based analysis, see Frank Andre Gunder, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” in Rhodes R., ed., Imperialism and Underdevelopment (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), pp. 4–17.
2. See Kratochwil Friedrich and Ruggie John G., “International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 27–52. For a variety of approaches to international regimes, see the contributions to Krasner Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)
3. See Carr E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Harper, 1964); Morgenthau Hans, Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1978); and Aron Raymond, Inter-national Relations: A Theory of Peace and War, 5th ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973). Among the major neorealist works are Waltz's Kenneth Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979) and Gilpin's Robert War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
4. For a view that casts classic realism much closer to the institutional perspective described in this article, see Ashley Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225–85.
5. A liberal view begins with the same premises but instead emphasizes the potential for cooperation. See, for example, Axelrod Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984); and Keohane Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984).
6. Grieco Joseph M., “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 498–99.
7. See Waltz, Theory of International Politics. For a decision-making rule that includes both realist and institutional elements, see Kaplan Morton, System and Process in International Politics (New York: Wiley, 1962).
8. Gulick Edward V., Europe's Classical Balance of Power (Binghamton, N.Y.: Vail-Baillou Press, 1955).
9. Keohane Robert O., “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (10 1988), pp. 379–96.
10. For institutional approaches stressing other processes, see March James G. and Olsen Johan P., “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in American Political Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (09 1984), pp. 734–49; Young Oran R., “International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions,” World Politics 39 (10 1986), pp. 104–22; and Krasner Stephen D., “Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective,” Comparative Political Studies 21 (Spring 1988), pp. 66–94. For a sociological view, see Meyer John W., Boli John, and Thomas George M., “Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account,” in Thomas George M. et al. , eds., Institutional Structure (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1987), pp. 12–37.
11. Young, “International Regimes,” p. 107.
12. See Rawls John, “Two Concepts of Rules,” Philosophical Reviews, vol. 64, 1955, pp. 3–32; and Keohane, “International Institutions.”
13. March and Olsen, “The New Institutionalism,” p. 741.
14. Keohane, “International Institutions,” p. 390.
15. Geertz Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
16. See Ruggie John Gerard, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” World Politics 36 (Spring 1983), pp. 261–85; Krasner, “Sovereignty”; and Keohane, “International Institutions.”
17. For conceptualizations of the state system as a society, see Bull Hedley, The Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977); and Wight Martin, Systems of States (Leicester, U.K.: Leicester University Press, 1977).
18. See Kratochwil Friedrich, “Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System,” World Politics 39 (10 1986), pp. 27–52. For a detailed account of a quite different conception of states and state systems, see Geertz Clifford, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980).
19. See Meyer John W., “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State,” in Bergeson A., ed., Studies of the Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1980), pp. 109–38; and Krasner Stephen D., Structural Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
20. This is most clear in nineteenth-century writings on international law. For example, as Hall argued in A Treatise on International Law, “It is scarcely necessary to point out that as international law is a product of the special civilisation of modern Europe, and forms a highly artificial system of which the principles cannot be supposed to be understood or recognized by countries differently civilised, such states only can be presumed to be subject to it as are inheritors of the civilisation.… But states outside European civilisation must formally enter into the circle of law-governed countries. They must do something with the acquiescence of the latter, or some of them, which amounts to an acceptance of the law in its entirety beyond all possibility of misconstruction.” See Hall W. E., A Treatise on International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), pp. 47–48; cited in Wight, Systems of States, p. 115.
21. Weber Max, Economy and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), p. 58.
22. James Alan, Sovereign Statehood (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986).
23. Oppenheim L. F. L., International Law, 8th ed. (New York: Longmans, Green, 1955), p. 125.
24. For descriptions of the ceremonies used to claim sovereignty, see Keller Arthur S., Lissitzyn Oliver J., and Mann Frederick J., Creation of Rights of Sovereignty Through Symbolic Acts, 1400–1800 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938). For the opposing argument that Western states implicitly recognized non-Western polities through treaty making, see Alexandrowicz Charles Henry, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies: Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967).
25. Lauterpacht Hersch, Recognition in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), p. 381.
26. See Pratt Julius W., America's Colonial Experiment (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1950).
27. See Henige David, Colonial Governors (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970); Banks Arthur S., ed., Political Handbook of the World, 1987 (Binghamton, N.Y.: CSA Publications, 1987); and Singer J. David and Small Melvin, Diplomatic Exchange Data, 1815–1970 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1985).
28. Jackson Robert and Rosberg Carl, “Why Africa's Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood,” World Politics 35 (10 1982), pp. 1–24.
29. Stinchcombe introduced the notion of the “liability of newness.” See Stinchcombe Arthur L., “Social Structure and Organizations,” in March James G., ed., Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 153–93. For empirical demonstrations, see Freeman John, Carroll Glenn R., and Hannan Michael T., “The Liabilty of Newness: Age Dependence in Organizational Death Rates,” American Sociological Review 48 (10 1983), pp. 692–710; and Singh Jitendra V., Tucker David J., and House Robert J., “Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (06 1986), pp. 171–93.
30. See Parry J. H., The Spanish Theory of Empire in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940).
31. My discussion of Katanga's attempted secession is based on the following accounts: Hoskyns Catherine, The Congo Since Independence (London: Oxford University Press, 1965); and Gerard-Libois Jules, Katanga Secession (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966).
32. Keltie J. Scott, ed., The Statesman's Year-Book, 1900 (London: Macmillan, 1900).
34. See Langer William L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism (New York: Knopf, 1935).
35. According to Tilly, there were on the order of five hundred European polities in the sixteenth century, while there are about twenty-five today. See Tilly Charles, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in Tilly Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 15.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.