Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 22
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Kennedy, Denis and Beaton, Brian 2016. Two Steps Forward? Assessing Latin American Regionalism Through CELAC. Latin American Policy, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 52.

    Mesquita, Rafael 2016. The hegemonichermano: South American collective identity and Brazilian regional strategy. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 215.

    Nelson, Michael Byron 2016. Africa’s Regional Powers and Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 110.

    Parlar Dal, Emel 2016. Conceptualising and testing the ‘emerging regional power’ of Turkey in the shifting ınternational order. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 37, Issue. 8, p. 1425.

    Wigell, Mikael 2016. Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. Asia Europe Journal, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 135.

    Bower, Adam 2015. Norms Without the Great Powers: International Law, Nested Social Structures, and the Ban on Antipersonnel Mines. International Studies Review, p. n/a.

    Burges, Sean W 2015. Revisiting consensual hegemony: Brazilian regional leadership in question. International Politics, Vol. 52, Issue. S2, p. 193.

    Al Tamamy, Saud Mousaed 2014. Regional Powers in the Middle East.

    De Lombaerde, Philippe 2014. Measuring and modeling regional power and leadership. Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 36, p. S1.

    Destradi, Sandra and Gundlach, Erich 2014. Modeling external constraints on the hegemonic strategies of regional powers. Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 36, p. S6.

    Garzón Pereira, Jorge F. 2014. Hierarchical regional orders: An analytical framework. Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 36, p. S26.

    Helms, Ludger 2014. Global political leadership in the twenty-first century: problems and prospects. Contemporary Politics, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 261.

    Helms, Ludger 2014. Politische Führung und Institutionen, oder: Was leistet eine institutionalistische Leadership-Forschung?. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 57.

    Kappel, Robert 2014. Regional Powers in the Middle East.

    Krapohl, Sebastian Meissner, Katharina L. and Muntschick, Johannes 2014. Regional Powers as Leaders or Rambos? The Ambivalent Behaviour of Brazil and South Africa in Regional Economic Integration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 52, Issue. 4, p. 879.

    Sandal, Nukhet A 2014. Middle powerhood as a legitimation strategy in the developing world: The cases of Brazil and Turkey. International Politics, Vol. 51, Issue. 6, p. 693.

    Kardaş, Şaban 2013. Turkey: A Regional Power Facing a Changing International System. Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, Issue. 4, p. 637.

    Oğuzlu, Tarık and Parlar Dal, Emel 2013. Decoding Turkey's Rise: An Introduction. Turkish Studies, Vol. 14, Issue. 4, p. 617.

    Al Tamamy, Saud Mousaed 2012. Saudi Arabia and the Arab Spring:Opportunities and Challenges of Security. Journal of Arabian Studies, Vol. 2, Issue. 2, p. 143.

    Park, Jinsoo 2012. Regional Leadership Dynamics and the Evolution of East Asian Regionalism. Pacific Focus, Vol. 27, Issue. 2, p. 290.


Regional powers and their strategies: empire, hegemony, and leadership


Regional powers are often conceived of as ‘regional leading powers’, states which adopt a cooperative and benevolent attitude in their international relations with their neighbours. The article argues that regional powers can follow a much wider range of foreign policy strategies in their region. Three ideal-typical regional strategies are identified: empire, hegemony, and leadership. The article is devoted to a theory-led distinction and clarification of these three terms, which are often used interchangeably in the field of International Relations. According to the goals pursued, to the means employed, and to other discriminating features such as the degree of legitimation and the type of self-representation by the dominant state, the article outlines the essential traits of imperial, hegemonic, and leading strategies and identifies sub-types for better classifying hegemony and leadership.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Andrew Hurrell , ‘Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be Great Powers?’, International Affairs, 82 (2006) pp. 119

Chris Alden and Marco Antonio Vieira , ‘The New Diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil, India and Trilateralism’, Third World Quarterly, 26 (2005) pp. 10771095

Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Mônica Hirst , ‘Brazil as an Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice and Responsibilities’, International Affairs, 82 (2006) pp. 2140

Fredrik Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw , Theories of New Regionalism (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2003)

Sean W. Burges , ‘Consensual Hegemony: Theorizing Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War’, International Relations, 22 (2008) pp. 6584

Stefan Schirm , ‘Leaders in Need of Followers: Emerging Powers in Global Governance’, European Journal of International Relations, 16 (2010) pp. 197221

Derrick Frazier and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll , ‘Regional Powers and Security: A Framework for Understanding Order within Regional Security Complexes’, European Journal of International Relations, OnlineFirst (21 April2010)

Raymond Hinnebusch , ‘The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19 (2006) pp. 451463

Joseph S. Nye Jr., ‘Recovering American Leadership’, Survival, 50 (2008) pp. 5568

David A. Lake , ‘Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?’, International Studies Quarterly, 37 (1993), p. 469

G. John Ikenberry , ‘Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order’, Foreign Affairs, 83 (2004), pp. 144154

International Studies Perspectives, 9 (2008) pp. 272330

David P. Rapkin , ‘Empire and its Discontents’, New Political Economy, 10 (2005), p. 393

Ian Clark , ‘Bringing Hegemony back in: The US and International Order’, International Affairs, 85 (2009) pp. 2336

Robert W. Cox , ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12 (1983), p. 164

Andrew Hurrell , ‘Pax Americana or the Empire of Insecurity?’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 5 (2005), p. 173

Bruce Cronin , ‘The Paradox of Hegemony: America's Ambiguous Relationship with the UN’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (2001), p. 105

Margit Bussmann and John R. Oneal , ‘Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods? A Test of Power-Transition Theory’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (2007), p. 89

George R. Goethals , Georgia J. Sorenson and MacGregor James Burns (eds), Encyclopedia of Leadership (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004)

Andrew Fenton Cooper , Richard A. Higgott and Kim Richard Nossal , ‘Bound to Follow? Leadership and Followership in the Gulf Conflict’, Political Science Quarterly, 106 (1991), p. 394

Jarrod Wiener , ‘Hegemonic Leadership: Naked Emperor or the Worship of False Gods?’ European Journal of International Relations, 1 (1995) pp. 219243

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Review of International Studies
  • ISSN: 0260-2105
  • EISSN: 1469-9044
  • URL: /core/journals/review-of-international-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *