Realism and World Politics

(Nora) #1

Notes


1 This chapter has been written as part of the author’s ESRC Professorial Fellowship and
he is indebted to the UK ESRC for its financial support. He also gratefully acknowledges
research assistance from Dr Rachel Owen.
2 See Tim Dunne, ‘Society and hierarchy in international relations’, International Relations,
17 (3), 2003, pp. 303–20.
3 David Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations’, International
Organization, 50 (1), 1996, p. 30.
4 David Lake, ‘Escape from the state of nature: authority and hierarchy in world politics’,
International Security, 32 (1), 2007, p. 48.
5 S. Brooks and W. Wohlforth, World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge
of American Primacy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008); I.W. Zartman (ed.),
Imbalance of Power: US Hegemony and International Order (Boulder, Col: Rienner, 2009).
6 There is considerable overlap of this distinction with that between archéand hegemoniain
Thucydides. See R. Ned Lebow, The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 314; R. Ned Lebow and R. Kelly,
‘Thucydides and hegemony: Athens and the United States’, Review of International Studies,
27 (4), 2001, p. 593.
7 Note the comment: ‘It is one of the great paradoxes of academic International Relations
that, because it so resolutely neglects the social dimension of power, realism is unable to
give a full or convincing account of its own proclaimed central category’. A. Hurrell, On
Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), p. 38.
8 Ian Clark, Legitimacy in International Society(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005),
ch. 12.
9 Adam Watson, ‘European international society and its expansion’, in Hedley Bull and
Adam Watson (eds), The Expansion of International Society(Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1984), p. 24; Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, ‘Introduction’ in Bull and Watson,
The Expansion, p. 6.
10 H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics(London: Macmillan,
1977).
11 Ian Clark, ‘Bringing hegemony back in: the United States and international order’,
International Affairs, 85 (1), 2009, pp. 23–36.
12 B.R. Posen, ‘Command of the commons: the military foundation of U.S. hegemony’,
International Security, 28 (1), 2003, p. 5.
13 C. Layne, ‘The unipolar illusion revisited: the coming end of the United States’ unipolar
moment’, International Security, 31 (2), 2006, p. 12.
14 C. Layne, ‘The unipolar illusion’, pp. 11–12.
15 John Mearsheimer, TheTragedy of Great Power Politics(New York: Norton, 2001), p. 40.
16 I. Hurd, ‘Breaking and making norms: American revisionism and crises of legitimacy’,
International Politics, 44 (2/3), 2007, p. 204.
17 G. Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal
Order(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 70.
18 Barry Buzan, The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First
Century(Cambridge: Polity, 2004), p. 148.
19 P.G. Cerny, ‘Dilemmas of operationalizing hegemony’, in M. Haugaard and H.H.
Lentner (eds), Hegemony and Power: Consensus and Coercion in Contemporary Politics
(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), p. 68.
20 Ian Clark, ‘Towards an English School theory of hegemony’, European Journal of
International Relations, 15 (2), 2009, pp. 203–28. This argument will be set out in greater
detail in Ian Clark, Hegemony in International Society(Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011). See also Bruce Cronin, ‘The paradox of hegemony: America’s ambiguous
relationship with the United Nations’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (1),
2001, pp. 103–30.


284 How hierarchical can international society be?

Free download pdf