A War for Civilization

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-77
Author(s):  
Cees Heere
Keyword(s):  
International System ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Global History ◽  
Sudden Rise ◽  
System P

The Russo-Japanese War (1904–5) marked a watershed in global history. Victory over Russia secured Japan’s position as the first Asian ‘great power’. But it also raised an acute debate over the meaning and implications of its sudden rise. Some praised the Japanese victory as the triumph of ‘civilization’ over Russian barbarism; others pointed ominously to the effect that the destruction of a ‘white power’ would have on the collective European colonial project in Asia. Policymakers, both in London and its self-governing colonies, were forced to reckon with the implications of Japan’s bid for equality. In the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War, Britain, Canada, and Australia all took symbolic steps to demonstrate their willingness to recognize Japan as a co-equal member of the international system.

Aftershocks

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seva Gunitsky
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Regime Change ◽  
International System ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Past Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Sudden Rise ◽  
The World ◽  
National Borders

Over the past century, democracy spread around the world in turbulent bursts of change, sweeping across national borders in dramatic cascades of revolution and reform. This book offers a new global-oriented explanation for this wavelike spread and retreat—not only of democracy but also of its twentieth-century rivals, fascism, and communism. The book argues that waves of regime change are driven by the aftermath of cataclysmic disruptions to the international system. These hegemonic shocks, marked by the sudden rise and fall of great powers, have been essential and often-neglected drivers of domestic transformations. Though rare and fleeting, they not only repeatedly alter the global hierarchy of powerful states but also create unique and powerful opportunities for sweeping national reforms—by triggering military impositions, swiftly changing the incentives of domestic actors, or transforming the basis of political legitimacy itself. As a result, the evolution of modern regimes cannot be fully understood without examining the consequences of clashes between great powers, which repeatedly—and often unsuccessfully—sought to cajole, inspire, and intimidate other states into joining their camps.

Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard V. Smith
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Power ◽  
World War ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
The World ◽  
Paris Peace Conference

We have long known that the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 “failed” in the sense that it did not prevent the outbreak of World War II. This book investigates not whether the conference succeeded or failed, but the historically specific international system it created. It explores the rules under which that system operated, and the kinds of states and empires that inhabited it. Deepening the dialogue between history and international relations theory makes it possible to think about sovereignty at the conference in new ways. Sovereignty in 1919 was about remaking “the world”—not just determining of answers demarcating the international system, but also the questions. Most histories of the Paris Peace Conference stop with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on June 28, 1919. This book considers all five treaties produced by the conference as well as the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey in 1923. It is organized not chronologically or geographically, but according to specific problems of sovereignty. A peace based on “justice” produced a criminalized Great Power in Germany, and a template problematically applied in the other treaties. The conference as sovereign sought to “unmix” lands and peoples in the defeated multinational empires by drawing boundaries and defining ethnicities. It sought less to oppose revolution than to instrumentalize it. The League of Nations, so often taken as the supreme symbol of the conference’s failure, is better considered as a continuation of the laboratory of sovereignty established in Paris.

Latin America’s Evolving Contribution to Peaceful Change in the International System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold A. Trinkunas
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
International Law ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
International System ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Interstate Disputes ◽  
System P ◽  
Soft Balancing ◽  
Interstate System

Latin America has long aspired for an interstate system based on the principles of nonintervention and adherence to international law. Over time, the region has become increasingly free of war, and interstate disputes are frequently settled via diplomacy or by international courts. But it has achieved a largely “negative” peace as peaceful relations in the region are neither the result of nor have produced deeper commercial integration, effective regional organizations, or epistemic security communities. This chapter examines realist, liberal, and constructivist explanations to explain the sources of peace and peaceful change in Latin America, as well as how structural changes in the international system have affected the region. In particular, it analyzes how Latin America’s relative weakness in terms of material capabilities has led it to rely on diplomacy, “soft balancing,” and norms entrepreneurship in international law to secure its interest in a progressively more peaceful and rule-bound international order.

The EU–China ‘Strategic Dialogue’: Pathways in the International System

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID SCOTT
Keyword(s):  
Textual Analysis ◽  
International System ◽  
Political Language ◽  
System P ◽  
International Environment ◽  
Dialogue Process ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

By examining the strategic dialogue process, this chapter conducts a wider evaluation across time and the issue areas of the relationship. It provides a careful textual analysis of the discourse mechanisms that Europe and China are using to develop their political language; but it also points to the gaps, inconsistencies, and slippages between what is being said and what is being understood. The discussion considers the emergent actors to be seeking pathways in a fluid international environment, in which they sometimes seem to be on parallel paths, at other times on divergent ones, with the result that it cannot easily be deduced at this stage whether these pathways will lead to a common end destination or not. Still, if liberalism-functionalism has any credence, then EU multilateralism may also be encouraging similar multilateralism trends in China.

How Hegemonic Orders Unravel

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-79
Author(s):  
Alexander Cooley ◽  
Daniel Nexon
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
International Order ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Soviet System ◽  
World War ◽  
System P ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Power Transitions

This chapter identifies three drivers of hegemonic unraveling and transformation in international orders: great-power contestation and alternative order building; how the dominant power’s loss of its “patronage monopoly” enhances the bargaining leverage of weaker states; and the rise of counter-order movements, especially transnational ones, that weaken support for existing international arrangements—sometimes within the leading power itself. Because analysts tend to focus their attention on the relationship between power transitions and great-power wars, they have only recently begun to appreciate the significance of these three processes. This chapter shows that these challenges—from above, below, and within—played a key role in past power transitions and transformations in international order, including the decline of Spanish hegemony, challenges to British hegemony before World War I, the rise of fascism and Bolshevism during the interwar period, decolonization, and the collapse of the Soviet system.

The Wilsonian Solution

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-139
Author(s):  
Charlie Laderman
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
British Empire ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Choice ◽  
World War ◽  
System P ◽  
The First World War ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
First World

This chapter examines Woodrow Wilson’s pragmatic decision not to declare war on the Ottoman Empire after American entry into the First World War. It explains why this policy choice offers important insights into Wilson’s attitude toward the Allied powers, particularly the British Empire. It evaluates Wilson’s broader attitude to Britain and his attitude toward an Anglo-American alliance. The chapter emphasizes the clash between Wilson and Roosevelt over whether the United States should declare war on the Ottoman Empire, and what this reveals about their humanitarian visions and broader conceptions of international order. In doing so, it traces the emergence of Wilson’s own solution to the Armenian question as part of a reformed, American-led international system.

Securing Diplomacy in the War on Terrorism

2019 ◽  
pp. 200-222
Author(s):  
Clara Eroukhmanoff
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
International System ◽  
Private Security ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Private Security Companies ◽  
System P ◽  
Security Companies

This chapter explores the entanglements of Western diplomatic efforts with the war on terrorism, arguing that this involvement might increase diplomats’ insecurity. It takes a critical approach to “security” and the “securitization” of diplomacy, that is, the discourse that portrays Western diplomats as under an “unprecedented” level of threat that requires extraordinary security measures. The securitization of diplomacy in the theaters of the war on terrorism has led to further distancing between diplomats and locals, translating into the use of isolated fortress embassies and the resort to military escorts and private security companies. This chapter sheds light on the short-term and problem-solving nature of this securitization and seeks instead to re-engage diplomacy as a powerful structuring force in the international system.

Great Power and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Martinez Machain ◽  
Rebecca Kaye ◽  
Jared Oestman
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
International System ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Minor Powers

Great powers have traditionally played a major role in the study of foreign policy. From a variety of work on foreign policy analysis, it is known that great powers are more active in their foreign policy than other states in the international system are. Whether the actions are disbursing foreign aid, creating alliances, conflict involvement, or others, studies will often control for great power status, with the underlying expectation being that major powers will be more likely to utilize these foreign policy tools. In fact, when considering relevant dyads in quantitative studies of foreign policy analysis, states have to be contiguous for the dyad to be considered relevant, but an exception is made for dyads containing at least one major power, given the ability of great powers to project their power beyond their borders. Key literature on the foreign policy behavior of great powers discusses different ways of defining great powers. In particular, the debate over defining great power status has focused on whether a great power should be defined solely on its physical capabilities, or also on intangible factors, such as its foreign policy interests or whether the state is recognized as a great power by others in the international system. Further, there are questions of whether great powers have to be military powers or whether economic superiority is enough to classify a state as a great power. There is also the issue of regional powers: states that are clearly military, economic, and political leaders within a limited geographic region, but not at the global level. Should these states be considered great powers, or should that classification be reserved for global powers? The literature on great-power foreign policy also discusses cooperative and conflictual behaviors of great powers in the international system. It addresses great power war, focusing on how they are more conflict prone than minor powers, and reviews the issues that drive great powers to engage in conflict, such as positional issues and the intent to shape the international system to their liking. It also discusses a variety of foreign policy actions, both coercive and cooperative, that major powers are more likely to engage in than their minor-power counterparts. In addition, there is much work done on the relationships between great powers and between great powers and minor powers, stressing the competitive nature of major-power interactions and the trade-off between economic and military security and policy concessions that defines major-minor power interactions.

scholarly journals Identity through foreign policy: Russia and China in the Middle East

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Alexander Slocombe
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
Civil Conflict ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
The West ◽  
Identity Constructions

<p>Understanding national identity through foreign policy provides a strong means of ascertaining the prevailing social constructions within a great power nation state. There is a growing need to understand the national identities of Russia and China without pre-theorising or depending on asymmetric comparative studies with regional states. China and Russia are frequently compared to their regional neighbours which undermines understanding their unique identities. There are also frequent misunderstandings of contemporary Chinese and Russian national motives, often likening the modern Russian state to the Soviet Union, or attempting to understand China as a challenger to US unipolarity. Both great powers exhibit common characteristics of authoritarianism, both have recently endured massive social and national changes, and both have global interests that manifest in the Middle East such as securing vital geostrategic resources, both states are conscious of their native Muslim populations and to be recognised as a great power identity both must demonstrate influence in the Middle East. Yet, there have been significant differences in agendas and outcomes of their foreign policy decisions. This thesis seeks to use a constructivist framework to discern Russian and Chinese identity through comparison of their respective foreign policy. Contrary to “neo-realist” and “neo-liberal” arguments that accept state interests as rational, determined by the international system, and not determined by identity, this thesis seeks not to pre-theorise but to identify how their respective actions towards three key case studies in the Middle East; the Syrian Civil Conflict, the Iranian Nuclear Framework, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, indicate their prevailing social constructions. This thesis compares Russian and Chinese attitudes and actions towards these cases. Despite their similar disposition and principles towards international relations these two nations had significant points of difference. Drawing upon foreign policy analysis and a comparative model this thesis finds that despite the commonalities between the Russian and Chinese nations, Russian identity as great power, unique Eurasian power, and an alternative to the West, ensures a defiance of its relatively weak economic position to engage in positions of leadership in the Middle East, whilst China’s identity constructions that are common with Russia, its great power, civilisational, and alternative to the West constructions manifest despite an increasingly influential and material position in the world order, has provided little incentive to engage in meaningful ways throughout the Middle East’s recent conflicts.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document