16

HOWHIERARCHICAL CAN

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY BE?

Ian Clark^1

Both Waltzian neorealism and international-society approaches appear equally com-
mitted to anarchy as the starting point for theories of International Relations (IR).
Both also have problems in dealing with unusual concentrations of power. The
reason is that, if a concentration of power were to become a source of authoritative
decision-making, this might herald an incipient hierarchy. This, in turn, could
undermine the anarchical nature of the system or society. This chapter asks how far
international society can travel down the road of hierarchy, while still remaining
basically anarchical.^2 We had already been encouraged to reclaim ‘hierarchy as an
interesting and variable characteristic of international relations’.^3 What made it seem
so specifically was the onset of unipolarity, as a result of which, we were told,
‘international hierarchy is once again in the news’.^4
For this reason, the chapter investigates the contemporary distribution of power,
and its capacity to support practices of international legitimacy. What are we to do
in a world that is ‘out of balance’?^5 This draws attention to hegemony as one
potential such practice, given the prevailing condition of US primacy. It seeks to
enhance IR theory with respect to understanding concentrations of power. With
the exception of hegemonic stability theory (HST) – which suffers from its own
problems – IR theory has so far not actively engaged with this problem. In fact, it
is striking that both Waltzian neorealism and international-society approaches have
been equally evasive on this issue. To both, concentrations of power are something
to be avoided, and, were they to occur, would represent an unnatural condition, a
‘system’ or a ‘society’ failure. Neither manages to say anything very interesting about
how best to deal with such a concentration, were one to eventuate. Each offers a
theory for avoiding such concentration; neither develops a theory of hegemonic
management, should one occur. This is a major gap.
The argument will be presented principally through a structured opposition
between primacy and hegemony.^6 It registers the complaint that IR thinking about