Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T03:23:56.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Beyond consent and coercion: using republican political theory to understand international hierarchies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2013

Alexander Lanoszka*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

Abstract

In categorizing international hierarchies, theorists often emphasize some balance between levels of consent and coercion. I show that emphasis on these terms is conceptually problematic. Borrowing insights from republican political theory, I argue that we can better distinguish hierarchies on the basis of whether they feature domination. Under domination the subordinate’s freedom of choice is contingent upon the predilections of the superordinate state, which can assert its supremacy whenever and possibly, however, it may please. Moreover, subordinate states cannot unilaterally and peacefully withdraw from the hierarchy. By contrast, in hierarchies of non-domination the superordinate state enjoys the ‘powers of attorney’ with which it might be permitted to practice coercion in order to advance an agreed-upon goal. The contract underpinning this type of hierarchy also allows for the unilateral and peaceful termination by the subordinate, either through withdrawal or expiry. I demonstrate the applicability of this conceptual framework by examining Soviet and American relations with Central-Eastern and Western Europe, respectively, during the Cold War.

Type
Original Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abernethy, David B. 2000. The Dynamics of Global Dynamics. Ithaca, NY: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1972. “On Violence.” In Crises of the Republic. New York, NY: Harvest Book.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. “Power in International Relations.” International Organization 59(1): 3975.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alastair, Siverson, Randolph M., and Morrow, James D.. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Faletto, Enzo. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Costigliola, Frank. 1984. “The Failed Design: Kennedy, de Gaulle, and the Struggle for Europe.” Diplomatic History 8(3): 227252.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1983. “Gramcsi, Hegemony, and International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12(2): 162175.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Norman Richard. 2003. White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War, 1919–1920. London, UK: Pimilco.Google Scholar
Deletant, Dennis. 2007. “‘Taunting the Bear’: Romania and the Warsaw Pact, 1963–89.” Cold War History 7(4): 495507.Google Scholar
Deudney, Daniel H. 2006. Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory From the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Flic, Dani. 2009. “Populism as Counter-Hegemony: The Israeli Case.” In Gramsci and Global Politics: Hegemony and Resistance, edited by Mark McNally and John Schwarzmantel. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franck, Thomas. 1988. “Legitimacy in the International System.” American Journal of International Law 82(4): 705759.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1982. Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallagher, John, and Robinson, Ronald. 1953. “The Imperialism of Free Trade.” Economic History Review 6(1): 115.Google Scholar
Gavin, Francis J. 2004. Gold, Dollars, and Power: Money, Security, and the Politics of the U.S. Balance of Payments, 1958–1971. Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sandcastles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen, and Law, David. 1989. “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital.” International Studies Quarterly 33(4): 475499.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 2002. “Domestic Politics and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter E. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and Beth A. Simmons. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1989. “Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods, and Small Groups: An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability Theory?World Politics 41(3): 307324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio. 2000. The Antonio Gramsci Reader. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Jan Tomasz. 1979. Polish Society under German Occupation: The Generalgouvernement, 1939–1944. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Lloyd. 2000. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H.. 2009. “Network Analysis for International Relations.” International Organization 63(3): 559592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Hope M. 2003. Driving the Soviets up the Wall: Soviet-East German Relations, 1953–1961. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Henke, Marina E. 2012. The International Security Cooperation Market: Coalition Building in Pursuit of Peace. PhD thesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization 53(2): 397408.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and The Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google 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, and Kupchan, Charles A.. 1990. “Socialization and Hegemonic Power.” International Organization 44(3): 283315.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 1990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert, Nau, Henry R., and Schweller, Randall L.. 2002. “Correspondence: Institutionalized Disagreement.” International Security 27(1): 174185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joll, James. 1977. Antonio Gramsci. New York, NY: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Judt, Tony. 2006. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kemp-Welch, Anthony. 2008. Poland Under Communism: A Cold War History. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S.. 1989. Power and Interdependence, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, Charles P. 1973. The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kunz, Diana B. 1991. The Economic Diplomacy of the Suez Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 1996. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations.” International Organization 50(1): 133.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey W., and Moravcsik, Andrew. 1999. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?International Security 24(2): 555.Google Scholar
Lovett, Frank. 2010. A General Theory of Domination and Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lundestad, Geir. 1986. “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952.” Journal of Peace Research 23(3): 263277.Google Scholar
Mastanduno, Michael, Lake, David A., and John Ikenberry, G.. 1989. “Toward a Realist Theory of State Action.” International Studies Quarterly 33(2): 457474.Google Scholar
McDermott, Kevin, and Stibbe, Matthew, eds. 2006. Revolution and Resistance in Eastern Europe: Challenges to Communist Rule. New York, NY: Berg.Google Scholar
Michnik, Adam. 2011. In Search of Lost Meaning: The New Eastern Europe. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J.. 2003. “Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform.” International Organization 57(2): 241276.Google Scholar
Pape, Robert A. 1996. Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2008. “Republican Liberty: Three Axioms, Four Theorems.” In Republicanism and Political Theory, edited by Cécile Laborde, and John Maynor, 102130. Oxford, UK: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2010a. “Legitimate International Institutions.” In Philosophy of International Law, edited by Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas. New York, NY and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2010b. “A Republican Law of Peoples.” European Journal of Political Theory 9(1): 7094.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 2001. “The Problem of International Order Revisited.” International Security 26(1): 161186.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1998. Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Tony. 1981. The Pattern of Imperialism: The United States, Great Britain, and the Late-Industrializing World Since 1815. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 1985. “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory.” International Organization 39(4): 579614.Google Scholar
Stein, Arthur A. 1984. “The Hegemon’s Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Order.” International Organization 39(4): 579614.Google Scholar
Stone, Randall W. 1996. Satellites and Commissars: Strategy and Conflict in the Politics of Soviet-Bloc Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 1999. A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2011. “Coercion and (Global) Justice.” American Political Science Review 105(1): 205220.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, and Friedheim, Daniel. 1995. “Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State.” International Organization 49(4): 689721.Google Scholar
Wightman, G., and Brown, A.H.. 1975. “Changes in the Levels of Membership and Social Composition of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, 1945–1973.” Soviet Studies 27(3): 396417.Google Scholar
Zubok, Vladislav Martinovich, and Pleshakov, Konstantin. 1996. Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar