Gulliver Unleashed? International Order, Restraint, and The Case of Ancient Athens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Reiter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Rent Seeking ◽  
International Order ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Significant Aspect ◽  
Ancient Athens ◽  
Snowball Effect

Abstract International relations often include orders of smaller powers led by major powers. Perhaps the most significant aspect of international order is whether the major power leader is restrained or nonrestrained. Restrained major powers respect smaller powers’ preferences, eschew wielding power to impose their preferences, and avoid violating the smaller powers’ sovereignties, often using binding institutions and rules. Nonrestrained major powers violate decision-making rules, seek to impose their preferences, and violate smaller powers’ sovereignties using coercion and force. This article asks, what causes an order to evolve from restrained to nonrestrained? It argues that when a major power grows in strength relative to smaller power order members, the major power becomes more likely to abandon restraint, using coercion and force to impose its preferences on the order. Further, there is a snowball effect, as initial acts of nonrestraint undermine the credibility of the major power's commitment to restraint, encouraging smaller powers to exit the order, fueling further major power nonrestraint. The theory is tested on the fifth-century BCE Athenian order. Athens’ transition from restraint to nonrestraint, what some call a transition from alliance to empire, supports the predictions of the theory. Neither ideology nor rent-seeking theories explain this transition.

scholarly journals From Universalism to Managerial Coordination: Major Power Regulation of the Use of Force

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Travlos
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Power Regulation

Cooperation among major powers in order to regulate an aspect of international relations has been central to questions of global governance. In peace science the focus has been on the efficacy of major power regulation of the use of force. However, fruitful study requires variables that can capture the quality of major power regulation of the use of force. To provide such an instrument I use Peter Wallensteen’s “universalism-particularism” variable-concept as the foundation. On it I built the concept of managerial coordination and the instrument that captures its quality, the scale of interstate managerial coordination (IMaC). Using IMaC, puzzling prior findings concerning major power regulation and minor power conflict are shown to be artifacts of operationalization.

The 1945 World Order – Process with «Open» Continuation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-79
Author(s):  
V. T. Yungblud
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Bipolar Structure ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
The World ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Cold War

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, established by culmination of World War II, was created to maintain the security and cooperation of states in the post-war world. Leaders of the Big Three, who ensured the Victory over the fascist-militarist bloc in 1945, made decisive contribution to its creation. This system cemented the world order during the Cold War years until the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the destruction of the bipolar structure of the organization of international relations. Post-Cold War changes stimulated the search for new structures of the international order. Article purpose is to characterize circumstances of foundations formation of postwar world and to show how the historical decisions made by the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition powers in 1945 are projected onto modern political processes. Study focuses on interrelated questions: what was the post-war world order and how integral it was? How did the political decisions of 1945 affect the origins of the Cold War? Does the American-centrist international order, that prevailed at the end of the 20th century, genetically linked to the Atlantic Charter and the goals of the anti- Hitler coalition in the war, have a future?Many elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations in the 1990s survived and proved their viability. The end of the Cold War and globalization created conditions for widespread democracy in the world. The liberal system of international relations, which expanded in the late XX - early XXI century, is currently experiencing a crisis. It will be necessary to strengthen existing international institutions that ensure stability and security, primarily to create barriers to the spread of national egoism, radicalism and international terrorism, for have a chance to continue the liberal principles based world order (not necessarily within a unipolar system). Prerequisite for promoting idea of a liberal system of international relations is the adjustment of liberalism as such, refusal to unilaterally impose its principles on peoples with a different set of values. This will also require that all main participants in modern in-ternational life be able to develop a unilateral agenda for common problems and interstate relations, interact in a dialogue mode, delving into the arguments of opponents and taking into account their vital interests.

Major powers and geopolitical transformations in the Middle East: competing visions for managing international and regional balances

2019 ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Marwan Awni Kamil
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
New Realism ◽  
Major Powers

This study attempts to give a description and analysis derived from the new realism school in the international relations of the visions of the great powers of the geopolitical changes witnessed in the Middle East after 2011 and the corresponding effects at the level of the international system. It also examines the alliances of the major powers in the region and its policies, with a fixed and variable statement to produce a reading that is based on a certain degree of comprehensiveness and objectivity.

The position of the State in the international system from the perspective of major schools of thought in international relations

2019 ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Status ◽  
Future Vision

The Study is based on the state as one of the main pillars in international politics. In additions, it tackles its position in the international order from the major schools perspectives in international relations, Especially, these schools differ in the status and priorities of the state according to its priorities, also, each scholar has a different point of view. The research is dedicated to providing a future vision of the state's position in the international order in which based on the vision of the major schools in international relations.

THE CONCEPT OF THE BALANCE OF FORCES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1835-1847
Author(s):  
Vladimir Tomashevic ◽  
Hatidza Berisha ◽  
Aleksandar Cirakovic
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Scientific Understanding ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Realistic Theory ◽  
World Power ◽  
History Of ◽  
Balance Of Forces ◽  
Single World

In this paper the authors proceed from defining the concept of balance of forces, theoretical understanding of the balance of forces from the aspect of the scientific understanding of the realistic theory of international relations with concrete examples from the history of international relations. However, the focus of the work is an analysis of the power between a single world power (USA) and major powers (Russia, China) in a possible balance of power.The aim of the paper is to try to point out, through a relatively brief review, the possibility of establishing a balance of forces in the 21st century.

scholarly journals Racism and Antiracism in the Liberal International Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Zoltán I. Búzás
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
Racial Diversity ◽  
International Order ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Racial Equality ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Current Regime ◽  
Novel Concept ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

Abstract Formal racial equality is a key aspect of the current Liberal International Order (LIO). It is subject to two main challenges: resurgent racial nationalism and substantive racial inequality. Combining work in International Relations with interdisciplinary studies on race, I submit that these challenges are the latest iteration of struggles between two transnational coalitions over the LIO's central racial provisions, which I call racial diversity regimes (RDRs). The traditional coalition has historically favored RDRs based on racial inequality and racial nationalism. The transformative coalition has favored RDRs based on racial equality and nonracial nationalism. I illustrate the argument by tracing the development of the liberal order's RDR as a function of intercoalitional struggles from one based on racial nationalism and inequality in 1919 to the current regime based on nonracial nationalism and limited equality. Today, racial nationalists belong to the traditional coalition and critics of racial inequality are part of the transformative coalition. The stakes of their struggles are high because they will determine whether we will live in a more racist or a more antiracist world. This article articulates a comprehensive framework that places race at the heart of the liberal order, offers the novel concept of “embedded racism” to capture how sovereignty shields domestic racism from foreign interference, and proposes an agenda for mainstream International Relations that takes race seriously.

The Justification of War and International Order

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Times

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. The book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present. It comprises contributions from International Law, History and International Relations and from Western and non-Western perspectives.

Minority Rights

2018 ◽  
pp. 165-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Kymlicka
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
International Order ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Level ◽  
International Political Theory ◽  
Rights Issues

It has often been noted that the political claims of minorities and indigenous peoples are marginalized within traditional state-centric international political theory; but perhaps more surprisingly, they are also marginalized within much contemporary cosmopolitan political theory. In this chapter, I will argue that neither cosmopolitanism nor statism as currently theorized is well equipped to evaluate the normative claims at stake in many minority rights issues. I begin by discussing how the “minority question” arose as an issue within international relations—that is, why minorities have been seen as a problem and a threat to international order—and how international actors have historically attempted to contain the problem, often in ways that were deeply unjust to minorities. I will then consider recent efforts to advance a pro-minority agenda at the international level, and how this agenda helps reveal some of the limits of both cosmopolitan and statist approaches to IPT.

Political Asylum in Germany: International Norms and Domestic Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-49
Author(s):  
John Bendix ◽  
Niklaus Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Political Asylum ◽  
German Politics

Although political asylum has been at the forefront of contemporaryGerman politics for over two decades, it has not been much discussedin political science. Studying asylum is important, however,because it challenges assertions in both comparative politics andinternational relations that national interest drives decision-making.Political parties use national interest arguments to justify claims thatonly their agenda is best for the country, and governments arguesimilarly when questions about corporatist bargaining practices arise.More theoretically, realists in international relations have positedthat because some values “are preferable to others … it is possible todiscover, cumulate, and objectify a single national interest.” Whileinitially associated with Hans Morgenthau’s equating of nationalinterest to power, particularly in foreign policy, this position hassince been extended to argue that states can be seen as unitary rationalactors who carefully calculate the costs of alternative courses ofaction in their efforts to maximize expected utility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document