Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2015
Recently, the field of International Relations has seen increased interest in international hierarchy, and also an upswing in the analytical study of imperial logics of rule. Nonetheless, existing structural models of empire focus on core-periphery dynamics, and so cannot explain polities that display elements of both core and periphery. Therefore, I offer the new concept of ‘semi-cores’. Semi-cores are a specific form of historical political associations whereby certain imperial provinces are different from the others in terms of the close relationships it maintains with the imperial metropolis. Semi-cores are different by virtue of being relatively similar. The conceptualisation of semi-cores is followed by a section illustrating its logic, examining the relatively unfamiliar cases of Scotland and Norway and their position within the Danish and British empires, respectively. Although being separate imperial provinces, these were tightly connected to an imperial core. This concept helps us better understand imperial logics, and in the process shows how cultural factors can be formalised into accounts of structural logics of rule, impacting our understanding of both historical and contemporary hierarchical international affairs.
The author would like to thank Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Bård Frydenlund, Rasmus Glenthøj, Susan Høivik, Halvard Leira, Iver B. Neumann, Dan Nexon, Bo Stråth, Ann Towns, panel participants at the 2012 ISA Annual Convention, as well as the editors and anonymous reviewers of the RIS for providing very helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this article. Funding was provided by the Norwegian Research Council.
1 Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick, Empires in World History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, p. 3; Parker, Noel, ‘Introduction’, in Noel Parker (ed.), Empire and International Order (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 1–18Google Scholar; MacDonald, Paul K., ‘Those who forget historiography are doomed to republish it: Empire, imperialism and contemporary debates about American power’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009), pp. 45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Cf. McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, Sidney, Tilly, and Charles, Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nexon, Dan, ‘Zeitgeist? The new idealism in the study of international change’, Review of International Political Economy, 12:4 (2005), pp. 700–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Weber, Max, ‘Objectivity in social science and social policy’, quoted in Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar, p. 143.
5 Ibid., pp. 142–6.
6 Paul Musgrave and Daniel Nexon, ‘American liberalism and the imperial temptation’, in Parker, Empire; cf. Ikenberry, John, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Ikenberry, John, Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition: American Power and International Order (Polity Press, 2005)Google Scholar.
7 Musgrave and Nexon, ‘American liberalism’.
8 But with accommodation through ‘local ownership’.
9 Cases in point: diplomatic history, classical realism, the English School, and dependency theories.
10 Donnelly, Jack, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:2 (2006), pp. 139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wendt, Alexander and Friedheim, Daniel, ‘Hierarchy under anarchy: Informal empire and the East German state’, International Organization, 49:4 (1995), pp. 689–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Lake, David A., ‘Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations’, International Organization, 50:01 (1996), pp. 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, ‘The imperial peace: Democracy, force and globalization’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:4 (1999), pp. 403–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lake, David A., ‘The new sovereignty in international relations’, International Studies Review, 5:3 (2003), pp. 303–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keene, Edward, ‘A case study of the construction of international hierarchy: British treaty-making against the slave trade in the early nineteenth century’, International Organization, 61:02 (2007), pp. 311–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Towns, Ann, ‘The status of women as a standard of “civilization”’, European Journal of International Relations, 15:4 (2009), pp. 681–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Carvalho, Benjamin and Neumann, Iver B. (eds), Small State Status Seeking; Norway’s Quest for International Standing (London: Routledge, 2014)Google Scholar.
12 Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy’.
13 Ivan D. Chase, ‘Social process and hierarchy formation in small groups: A comparative perspective, American Sociological Review, 45:6 (1980), pp. 905–24.
14 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities’.
17 Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (New York: Penguin, 2004)Google Scholar, p. 8.
18 Eland, Ivan, The Empire Strikes Out: The ‘New Imperialism’ and its Fatal Flaws (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1992)Google Scholar.
20 Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy’; John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, ‘The imperialism of free trade’, Economic History Review, 6:1 (1953), pp. 1–15
22 Ibid., p. 2.
23 Ibid., p. 7.
24 Motyl, Alexander J., Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.
26 Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., The Political System of Empires (New York: Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Tilly, Charles, ‘How empires end’, in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen (eds), After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997), pp. 1–11Google Scholar; Motyl, Imperial Ends; Alexander Cooley, Logics of Hierarchy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005); Nexon and Wright, ‘What’s at stake’; Nexon, Daniel, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.
28 Tilly, , ‘How empires end’, p. 3Google Scholar; see also Nexon and Wright, ‘What’s at stake’; Motyl, Imperial Ends.
34 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939)Google Scholar; Stinchcombe, Arthur L., ‘On the virtues of the old institutionalism’, Annual Review of Sociology, 23 (1997), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 5).
36 Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian, ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83:2 (1977), pp. 340–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abernethy, David B., The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415–1980 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press)Google Scholar, p. 15.
37 Stinchcombe, ‘On the virtues’; Burt, Ronald S., Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy (New York: Academic Press, 1983)Google Scholar.
38 Eisenstadt, The Political System, pp. lvi, 300–9.
40 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities’.
41 Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy’; Rokkan, Stein and Urwin, Derek W., ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’, in Stein Rokkan and Derek W. Urwin (eds), The Politics of Territorial Identity (London: Sage, 1982)Google Scholar, p. 4.
42 Nexon and Wright, ‘What’s at stake’, pp. 255–6.
43 Kristin Haugevik, ‘Empire, specialness: Exploring the intersections between imperial and special relationships’, in Parker, Empire and International Order, pp. 95–112.
44 Wilhelmsen, Julie, ‘How war becomes acceptable: Russian re-phrasing of Chechnya’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oslo, 2014)Google Scholar.
46 Andrey Makarychev, ‘Imperial discourse in a post-imperial Russia: Where will it float to?’, in Parker, Empire and International Order, pp. 113–30.
47 Richards, J. F., ‘The formulation of imperial authority under Akbar and Jahangir’, in J. F. Richards (ed.), Kingship and Authority in South Asia (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 285–332Google Scholar; Siegler, Norman P., ‘Some notes on Rajput loyalties during the Mughal period’, in Muzaffar Alam and Sanjay Subrahmanyam (eds), The Mughal State 1526–1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 168–212Google Scholar.
48 See Lintott, Andrew, Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 31–32Google Scholar.
50 Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, p. 100.
51 Elazar, Daniel J., Constitutionalizing Globalization: The Postmodern Revival of Confederal Arrangements (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998)Google Scholar.
52 Forsyth, Murray G., Unions of States: The Theory and Practice of Confederation (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Urwin, Rokkan and, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’, pp. 1–17Google Scholar. Historical examples include the Swiss Confederation, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, the German Bund, and the American Confederation.
54 Rokkan and Urwin, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’.
55 Daniel Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).
56 Ronald L. Watts, Comparing Federal Systems (Montreal: McGill University Press), p. 9.
57 Rokkan and Urwin, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’.
60 Rokkan and Urwin, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’.
64 Burgess, Michael, Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar, p. 213.
65 Watts, Ronald L., ‘A comparative perspective on asymmetry in federations’, Asymmetry Series, 4 (2005)Google Scholar.
66 Rokkan and Urwin, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’; Watts, ‘A comparative perspective’.
67 Nexon and Wright, ‘What’s at stake’.
69 See, for example, Devine, T. M. and Rössner, Philipp R., ‘Scots in the Atlantic economy, 1600–1800’, in John M. MacKenzie and T. M. Devine (eds), Scotland and the British Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 30–53Google Scholar.
70 See, for example, Mackillop, A. and Murdoch, Steve, Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers c. 1600–1800: A Study of Scotland and Empires (Leiden: Brill, 2003)Google Scholar.
71 Robertson, John (ed.), A Union for Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.
73 Correspondingly, and similar to Norwegian debates, there is a Triumphalist version of the history, with Scotland as a central part of the British Empire, and another story depicting Scots as victims of colonialism
76 Palmer, R.R., Colton, Joel, and Kramer, Lloyd, A History of the Modern World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002)Google Scholar, p. 165.
82 MacKenzie and Devine, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1, 14, 25.
83 Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the first (Oxford: Clarendon Press, M.DCC.LXV/1765), pp. 98–9.
85 Urwin and Rokkan, ‘Introduction: Centres and peripheries in Western Europe’, p. 3.
86 Urwin, Derek W., ‘Territorial structures and political developments in the United Kingdom’, in Rokkan and Urwin (eds), Territorial Identity, pp. 19–73Google Scholar (p. 65).
92 Furthermore, if one examines, for example, English school books from the period, the focus was on the story of English state development and expansion. While the Scots saw the Union as the start of a common, imperial effort between equal partners, ‘the English view was that the incorporation of Scotland was the beginning of the “expansion” of England’. Finlay, ‘National identity’, pp. 285–6.
93 Finlay, ‘National identity’, pp. 287–8.
94 Ibid., p. 290; Glenthøj, Rasmus, Skilsmissen: Dansk og Norsk identitet før og efter 1814 (Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2012)Google Scholar.
97 Smout, T. C., A History of the Scottish People 1560–1830 (London: Fontana, 1998)Google Scholar, p. 147.
98 Ibid., p. 204.
103 Chambers, Robert, History of the Rebellion of 1745–6 (7th edn, London: W&R Chambers, 1869), pp. 484–485Google Scholar.
106 Ståle Dyrvik and Ole Feldbæk, Mellom Brødre 1780-1830, volume 7 in Aschehougs Norgeshistorie (Oslo: Aschehoug, 2005), p. 12.
107 Bregnsbo, Michael and Jensen, Kurt Villads, Det danske imperium. Storhed og fald (Copenhagen: Aschehoug, 2004), pp. 93–94Google Scholar.
108 In official documents, Canute (c. 985–1035) referred to himself as Keiser, named by the King of Kings, Jesus Christ.
109 Actually, titling the ruler as ‘king of kings’ is fairly common in empires: šar šarrāni in Akkadian; shāhānshāh in Persian; malik al-amlāk in Arabic.
110 Bregnsbo and Jensen, Det Danske Imperium.
111 Rian, Øystein, Embetsstanden i dansketida (Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget, 2003)Google Scholar, p. 16.
113 Ibid., pp. 385–7.
116 ‘Forordning om infødsret for embedsmænd’, 15 Jan. 1776.
119 Neumann, Iver B., Norge – en kritikk. Begrepsmakt i Europa-debatten (Oslo: Pax, 2001)Google Scholar, p. 56.
121 Neumann, Iver B., ‘This little piggy stayed at home: Why Norway is not a member of the EU’, in Lene Hansen and Ole Wæver (eds), European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 88–129Google Scholar.
123 Jensen, Johan S., ‘Danmark–Norges etablering og tidlige ekspansjon i India’, Internasjonal Politikk, 67:01 (2009), pp. 7–27Google Scholar; see also entry for ‘Peter Anker’ in Norsk biografisk leksikon (Oslo: SNL).
124 Neumann, ‘This little piggy’.
125 Hagen, Rune, ‘At the edge of civilisation: John Cunningham, Lensmann of Finnmark, 1619–51’, in A. Mackillop and Steve Murdoch (eds), Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers c. 1600–1800. A Study of Scotland and Empires (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 29–51Google Scholar; Gustafsson, Harald, Political Interaction in the Old Regime: Central Power and Local Society in the Eighteenth-Century Nordic States (Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt, 1994)Google Scholar, p. 93.
126 Aubert, Vilhelm, Continuity and Development in Law and Society (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, p. 168.
127 Sejersted, Francis, Demokrati og rettsstat (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1984)Google Scholar, p. 38.
128 See Seip, Jens Arup, Fra embedsmannsstat til ettpartistat og andre essays (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1963)Google Scholar.
129 Musgrave and Nexon, American Liberalism.
130 Ikenberry, After Victory; Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition.