International Hierarchy Analysis PDF

Analysing International Relations 3 – International Hierarchy Prof. dr. Daniel Thomas  The international system: A set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the behaviour of actors in international pol...

Analysing International Relations 3 – International Hierarchy Prof. dr. Daniel Thomas  The international system: A set of incentives and expectations that shape the identities and the behaviour of actors in international politics. 4 concepts/faces: Step 1: Think about each face separately. Anarchy (5 Nov) Step 2: Compare various conceptions of Hierarchy (7 Nov) each face. Interdependence (12 Nov) Step 3: Think about how the various faces Capitalism (14 Nov) connect and interact.  Today Introduction to international hierachy Definition Conventional wisdom New agenda Sources of international hierarchy Coercive power Wealth and market power Social constructions of identity and difference Dynamics of international hierarchy Voluntary contracts Contested domination  Introduction to international hierarchy International hierarchy = A distribution of authority that places actors in vertical relations of domination and subordination where some rule over others. Authority = the power and right to set rules and enforce obedience by others. Hierarchy can exist in relations between states, or involve non-state actors, groups and individuals.  Conventional wisdom in IR theory: No hierarchy in the international system. Realism: There’s no world government able to protect states or ensure rule compliance. States differ principally in their power resources. Institutionalism: States bargain and adopt international institutions to achieve their joint interests, but no state has special rights or functions. Liberalism: States differ in internal structure/values/culture, Waltz 1979: The absence of hierarchy is key to the distinction between domestic and international politics. “Domestic systems are centralized and hierarchic.” “International systems are decentralized and anarchic.”  Many IR scholars focus on the nature and implications of anarchy. (ex. debate Waltz vs Mearsheimer vs Wendt)  But what about all this? Great power Satellite state Empire Middle power ‘Permanent 5’ ‘Leader of the free world’ Hegemon Colony Sphere of influence Puppet state ‘Civilised  Maybe states are not all alike in their roles and functions! New research agenda: hierarchy in world politics In what ways do the authority, roles and functions of states differ? Where do hierarchies come from? How do various forms of hierarchy interact? How and under what conditions do hierarchies change? How do (changing) hierarchies affect actors’ choices, interests, identities, world-views… and policy outcomes? How do former hierarchies affect politics today? How are hierarchies challenged? See: Ayşe Zarakol, ed. (2017). Hierarchies in World Politics.  Sources of international hierarchy 1. Differences in coercive power 2. Differences in wealth and market position 3. Social constructions of identity and difference  Source #1: Differences in coercive power Basic concept: States have different roles and authority depending on their relative power to coerce, to force others to do as they want. -- powerful states are expected to lead, weaker states are expected to follow. Emphasizes power and coercion: Less-powerful states accept differentiation of roles because they have no choice. Effects: State action is shaped by differences in roles and authority based on differences in coercive power, regardless of actual interests or preferences.  On hierarchy and informal empires Alexander Wendt and Daniel Friedheim (1995). Hierarchy under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State. International Organization 49(4), 689–721 International hierarchy Int’l system combines formal equality (under int’l law) and informal inequalities (in practice) Differences in material power  de facto transnational authority relationships  interests and identities of states. One form of hierarchy: informal empire “combine an egalitarian principle of de jure sovereignty with a hierarchical principle of de facto control.” (695) Requires differences in military power that enable one state to intervene in and provide security to another state. Weaker state experiences a loss of autonomy and a loss of the right to autonomy. Form of informal empire is based on the ideas that motivate the more powerful state. Visible in social structures (treaties, norms, shared ideology) and behaviour (regular consultations; threat or use of intervention). Examples: Soviet Union and east European states (until Gorbachev renounced intervention) US and Caribbean states  America’s informal empire? 1945: US had 6% of world’s population, 50% of world’s GDP, and the only global military TODAY: Despite relative decline, no other state can rival the global power of the US. Military: massive ground, sea, air and space forces, deployed world-wide (750 bases in 80 countries, 170,000 soldiers deployed in 150 countries, navy in every ocean); advanced nuclear forces Economic: dominant role of US dollar in int’l trade & finance; continental domestic market so low dependence on imports & exports; sanctions with global reach Political/Diplomatic: global alliance network; great voting power in many int’l orgs Scientific/Technological: unequaled global surveillance powers; leading universities; dominant tech firms, incl. internet, AI, biotech Are these images of international cooperation or US empire? Leaders of UK, France, Germany, Japan Leaders of 49 African states plus the AU, meet with the US president, 2018 meet US officials in Washington DC, 2022  “unremarkable daily instances of humdrum imperial activity” “The reach of the contemporary US is so great that it tends to blend into the background of daily events. In January 2019, the US demanded that Germany ban the Iranian airline Mahan Air from landing on its territory. In September 2020, it sanctioned the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court for refusing to drop investigations into American citizens. In February 2022, at US request, Japan agreed to redirect liquefied fossil gas, which is critical to Japanese industry, to Europe in the event of a conflict with Russia over Ukraine. At the height of that conflict, the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, found the time to visit Algiers to negotiate the reopening of a gas pipeline to Spain via Morocco. These were all quotidian events, unremarkable daily instances of humdrum imperial activity.” Underlining added. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/30/americas-undying-empire-why-the-decline-of-us-power-has-been-greatly-exagge rated  Questions for reflection Is this simply a story of raw power, or does this power give the US a special role or authority in the int’l system? Do (some) states expect that the US will act differently from others? Do they accept this as normal (maybe even desirable), or do they reject and contest it?  Source #2: Differences in wealth & market position Basic concept: States have different roles and authority depending on their relative wealth and market power. -- Wealthy states are expected to lead, less wealthy states are expected to follow. Emphasizes economic capabilities & market position: Less- wealthy states accept differentiation of roles because they have little economic power of their own. Effects: State action is shaped by differences in roles and authority based on differences in wealth and market power, regardless of actual interests or preferences.  Benign view: Hegemonic stability theory Charles Kindleberger (1973). The World in Depression, 1929-1939 Robert Gilpin (1981). War and Change in World Politics All states benefit from int’l order and cooperation, but hegemons benefit more than others. Only hegemons have the resources needed to maintain int’l order and cooperation. Hegemons are expected to provide the resources and leadership necessary for maintaining int’l order and cooperation (public goods). But they have to be willing to pay these costs. Without hegemony, int’l order and cooperation break down. Illustration: Absence of hegemony in 1920s-1930s  collapse of world trade & national economies. UK was willing to lead and pay the costs, but no longer had the necessary resources. US had the resources to lead, but wasn’t willing to pay the costs.  Critical view: The ‘modern world system’ Immanuel Wallerstein. The Modern World-System (4 volumes, 1974-2011) The ‘modern world system’ (since 16th century) is based on a division of labour that systematically benefits certain economies and states more than others. Core: advanced technologies, strong states Semi-periphery: middle tech, semi-strong states Periphery: raw materials & old tech, weak states Economic exchange on unequal terms  concentration of wealth in ‘core’ economies  uneven political development  reproduction of inequality. For more detail, see ‘Capitalism’ lecture on 14 Nov.  Example: Special roles for rich states Lora Anne Viola (2020). “Systemically Significant States”: Tracing the G20’s Membership Category as a New Logic of Stratification in the International System. Global Society 34(3), 335-352 Key decisions on the global economy are made by states with the wealth and market power to affect the system… not by all states that are affected by it. Since 1973: policy coordination via G-7 composed of wealthy industrialized states -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US (now also the EU) Since 1999: policy coordination via G-20 composed of ‘systemically significant states’ Little voice for other states.  Example: The power of money in the UN Erin R. Graham (2015). Money and Multilateralism: How Funding Rules Constitute IO Governance. International Theory 7(1): 162-194 UN Charter: UN’s core budget is funded by mandatory contributions proportional to each member state’s GDP. Reality: UN is increasingly dependent on restricted, voluntary contributions by member states, especially for peacekeeping and economic development. This increases the ability of rich states to control the UN. Source #3: Social constructions of identity and difference Basic concept: Deep structures of organised inequality develop over time and provide advantages to certain groups (of states or persons) over others. Social structures are more important than agency: Hierarchy functions through deeply rooted ways of thinking and social practices, not through actors’ choices. Effects: Hierarchies produce particular types of actors with uneven rights and powers. Examples: race, gender…  Scholarship on race and hierarchy in IR But first, some definitions on race… A social category – not biological – based on socially constructed differences among people. These differences… are typically linked to social roles, status and power; may become ‘common sense’ ways of understanding and acting in social settings; are often contested; change over time.  Racial hierarchies (in ways of thinking) reinforce distributions of wealth and power W.E.B. DuBois (1925). Worlds of Color. Foreign Affairs “Colonialism is a global economic and political system based on racial (and racist) distinctions. These distinctions are evident in the minds of individuals, including Americans, Europeans, Africans and people of African heritage. These distinctions are reflected in the uneven distribution of economic and military power within states and between states.” See also: Merze Tate (1943). The War Aims of World War I and World War II and Their Relation to the Darker Peoples of the World. Journal of Negro Education 12(3), 521-32  Racism and imperialism Walter Rodney (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa Imperialism is an integrated global system in which wealthy capitalist states dominate and exploit less-powerful regions of the world. It was shaped by both economic rationality and racism: “Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism. It was economics that determined that Europe should invest in Africa and control the continent’s raw materials and labor. It was racism which confirmed the decision that the form of control should be direct colonial rule.” (p.141)  Racial hierarchy interacts with foreign policy and international order, sustains an unequal global system. Bianca Freeman, D.G. Kim, David A. Lake (2022). Race in International Relations: Beyond the “Norm Against Noticing.” Annual Review of Political Science 25(1), 175-196 Some examples: The belief that non-White countries lack essential domestic or int’l capacities  unevenness in the application of international law & justification for intervention or denial of self-determination. The belief that non-White countries are inherently aggressive and threatening  decisions on national security and alliance formation. Further sources: Alexander D. Barder (2021). Global Race War: International Politics and Racial Hierarchy Owen R. Brown (2024). The Underside of Order: Race in the Constitution of International Order. International Organization. 78(1):38-66  But note… racial hierarchy is complex. Carmina Yu Untalan (2023). Perforating colour lines: Japan and the problem of race in the ‘non-West’. Review of International Studies In the early 20th century, Japan challenged racial hierarchies in IR… and then reinforced them! 1905: Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War broke widespread expectations regarding the military superiority of white, Western states. This encouraged anti-colonial movements around the world. 1919: Japan proposed that the new League of Nations adopt a proposal on the abolition of racial discrimination, but said that it would apply only to members of the League, not to all peoples worldwide. Proposal supported by China; rejected by US, UK, British dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand). 1920s & 1930s: Japan adopted its own racialised hierarchy to justify its domination of East Asia. Break time  Dynamics of international hierarchy 1. Hierarchy as voluntary contracts 2. Hierarchy as contested domination Dynamic #1: Hierarchy as voluntary contracts States and other actors are understood as voluntaristic, purposeful agents in international life. Hierarchies are legitimate orders of authority in which actors (rulers and ruled) agree on different roles and responsibilities in order to achieve material, functional and/or social interests. These voluntary arrangements shape the behaviour of states and other actors.  David A. Lake (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations International hierarchies are “bargains between ruler and ruled premised on the former’s provision of social order of value sufficient to offset the loss of freedom.” One state agrees to cede some authority (sovereignty) to another in exchange for security, economic, or political benefits. Hierarchies are an important part of governance in the absence of world government. Europe: US provides defense umbrella… expects political support. Caribbean: US maintains order & keeps outsiders out… expects political support & free trade.  David A. Lake (2007). Escape from the State of Nature. International Security 32(1), 47-79 Hierarchy is closely related to authority, defined as rightful rule, and the legitimate exercise of power. “In an authority relationship, the subordinate state recognizes both that the dominant state has the right to issue certain commands and that it should, within the limits of its abilities, follow those commands or suffer appropriate consequences. In short, the subordinate accepts the dominant state’s commands as legitimate.” (51) Authority is closely related to compliance and enforcement. “When political authority is exercised, the dominant state commands a subordinate state to alter its behavior, where command implies that the former has the right to order the latter to take certain actions. This right, in turn, implies a correlative obligation or duty by the subordinate state to comply, if possible, with the dominant state’s order… The subordinate state’s obligation implies a further correlative right by the dominant state to enforce its command in the event of noncompliance.” (50) Hierarchy relies on contingent, relational authority, not coercion or formal-legal authority. “Obligation flows not from [the law or] the commands of the ruler, but from the consent of the ruled; a ruler does not possess authority unless her subordinates acknowledge an obligation to comply with her will.” (55)  Example: selection of new NATO Secretary- General Brussels (AFP), 10 February 2022 – When outgoing NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg returns home to head Norway's central bank later this year the western alliance will need a new champion, and for the first time she is expected to be a woman. "The nomination process is opaque," a European diplomat told AFP, insisting on the anonymity that shrouds the closed-door and highly political hiring process. "No one campaigns openly, but many names circulate among the allies.” While the secretary general has always been a European -- just as the supreme allied military commander is always an American -- none of the hopefuls will reveal their interest until they are sure of the backing of US President Joe Biden's White House. This reflects the reality that, while 21 of the 30 NATO members are also members of the European Union, the United States is still the unquestioned leader of the alliance. But one thing remains clear. "At the end of the day, it's Washington that decides," grumbled one European minister. Source: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220210-nato-seeks-new-chief-and-women-top-candidates-list  Contractual hierarchy is not new... and not always dominated by Western states David C. Kang (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Study of international relations in East Asia 1368-1841 – from the Ming dynasty to the Opium Wars. China ensured a Confucian-inspired social order valued by Korea, Japan, Vietnam, who accepted the legitimacy of Chinese leadership and provided tribute to China. Exchange of tribute & regulated trade -> trust, conflict resolution, few major wars. Note: This analysis is controversial -- see critique by Chia 2022  Hierarchical contracts can be made by international society as a whole, not just by individual states. Ian Clark, Mlada Bukovansky, and Robyn Eckersley (2012). Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power Observation: Int’l society has consistently addressed major global problems by allocating differentiated responsibilities among sovereign states. Example: P-5 in UN Security Council Explanation: This is more efficient than relying on sovereign equality or power competition. Special responsibilities give both rulers and ruled incentives to support the outcome that international society values.  Dynamic #2: Hierarchy as contested domination All forms of hierarchy are contested -- more or less effectively -- by subordinate actors. Strategies of contestation: Contesting the ideas and discourses that sustain inequality. Challenging the formal institutions that sustain hierarchy. Accumulating greater material resources.  Examples of contesting hierarchical ideas and discourse Robert Shilliam (2015). The Black Pacific: Anticolonial Struggles and Oceanic Connections The political struggles of the African diaspora resonated with and influenced the strategies of South Pacific peoples because they also confronted an international hierarchy based on racial distinctions. Colin Chia (2022). Social Positioning and International Order Contestation in Early Modern Southeast Asia. International Organization 76(2), 305-336 Response to Kang 2010 In early modern Southeast Asia, both Siam and Vietnam tried to assert their equality (and even superiority) to Chinese dynasties that challenged their sense of self.  Challenging formal institutions that support hierarchy Matthew D. Stephen and Michael Zürn, eds. (2019). Contested World Orders: Rising Powers, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the Politics of Authority Beyond the Nation-State. International institutions are often blamed for creating, justifying, or otherwise maintaining international hierarchies. These institutions are increasingly challenged by rising powers dissatisfied with existing institutional inequalities, by NGOs worried about the direction of global governance, and even by established powers no longer content to lead the institutions they themselves created. In all issue-areas: security, economy, environment, human rights…  Legal hierarchy intersecting with racial hierarchy Oumar Ba (2023). Constructing an international legal order under the shadow of colonial domination. Journal of Human Rights 22(1), 4–15 After liberation from colonialism (racial hierarchy) justified by int’l law (legal hierachy), African diplomats and lawyers attempted to create a new int’l legal order that would promote global justice. New crimes -- broad definition of crimes against humanity incl. colonialism, apartheid… New court -- independent of UNSC and powerful states Western states had different priorities, resisted the African vision. The jurisdiction of today’s International Criminal Court (new legal hierarchy) codifies a limited set of crimes, empowers the UNSC, and mostly protects powerful states.  Or, if you can’t change the structure… then rise in the hierarchy by accumulating resources! Philip S. Golub (2013). From the New International Economic Order to the G20: How the ‘global South’ is restructuring world capitalism from within. Third World Quarterly 34:6, 1000-1015 In 1970s, poor countries challenged rules of the world economy, proposed a ‘New International Economic Order’ (NIEO) that would mandate redistribution from North to South. They failed, due to resistance by North and divisions in South. Since 1990s, some states in Global South’ has used global capitalist system to gain wealth and influence, crossing the line between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. G20 now as important as G7, but global inequality remains.  Qs for reflection What are the strengths and limitations of these conceptions of the sources and the dynamics of hierarchy? To what extent does hierarchy depend upon ‘the ruled’ cooperating willingly with ‘the rulers’? Do states freely choose to enter into hierarchical relationships? Can subordinate actors in an international hierarchy exit if hierarchy is not (or no longer) beneficial to them? At what cost? Do narrow hierarchies (contracts) rest upon deeper structures? Under what conditions are challenges to hierarchy most likely to succeed?  The End Next class: Interdependence