21 Dunne, ‘Society and hierarchy’, p. 304.
22 Dunne, ‘Society and hierarchy’, p. 304.
23 Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979),
p. 198.
24 Waltz, Theory, p. 198.
25 For my own extended argument to the contrary, see Clark, ‘Towards an English School
theory’.
26 Waltz, Theory, pp. 81, 88.
27 Waltz, Theory, p. 100.
28 J. Donnelly, ‘Rethinking political structures: from “ordering principles” to “vertical
differentiation” – and beyond’, International Theory, 1 (1), 2009, pp. 49–86.
29 Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy’, p. 7, fig. 1; Alexander Wendt and Daniel Friedheim,
‘Hierarchy under anarchy: informal empire and the East German state’, International
Organization, 49 (4), 1995, p. 696.
30 Ian Hurd, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 185–87; Bruce Cronin and Ian Hurd,
‘Introduction’, in Cronin and Hurd (eds), The UN Security Council and the Politics of
International Authority(London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 4–5, 25.
31 Waltz, Theory, pp. 114–16.
32 Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy’, p. 10.
33 Wendt and Friedheim, ‘Hierarchy under anarchy’, p. 689.
34 Jack Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power
and international society’, European Journal of International Relations, 12 (2), 2006,
p. 141.
35 John M. Hobson and J.C. Sharman, ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics:
tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International
Relations, 11 (1), 2005, p. 92.
36 Lake, ‘Escape from the state’, p. 54.
37 Wendt and Friedheim, ‘Hierarchy under anarchy’, p. 698.
38 Hobson and Sharman, ‘The enduring place’, p. 93.
39 Nicholas Onuf and F. F. Klink, ‘Anarchy, authority, rule’, International Studies Quarterly,
33 (2), 1989, pp. 159–65.
40 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities’, p. 154, fig 2.
41 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities’, p. 143, fig 1.
42 R.A. Pape, ‘Soft balancing against the United States’, International Security, 30 (1), 2005,
p. 12, fig 1.
43 Pape, ‘Soft balancing’, p. 13.
44 Donnelly, ‘Sovereign inequalities’, p.156; Pape, ‘Soft balancing’, p. 12.
45 Layne, ‘The unipolar illusion’, p. 4, refers to ‘structural change’ as one of the defining
attributes of hegemony, but his usage of ‘hegemony’ is otherwise what I would consider
‘primacy’.
46 L. Brilmayer, American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World(New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 19.
47 G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order
after Major Wars(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 26–27.
48 Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, ‘What’s at stake in the American empire debate’,
American Political Science Review, 101, 2007, p. 256.
49 Cronin and Hurd, ‘Introduction’, p. 4.
50 R. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), p. 78.
51 M. Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology(Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1968), vol. II, p. 31. See, generally, D. Beetham, The Legitimation of
Power(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991); M. Bukovansky, Legitimacy and Power Politics:The
American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture(Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2002); I. Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and authority in international politics’,
How hierarchical can international society be? 285