Equality in International Law

McNair, Arnold D.

doi:10.2307/1279448

Cited by 28 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lubeck), and permanently neutralized states (Belgium and Luxemburg). Such practices produced ‘semi-sovereign’ (Wheaton, 1866: Sections 34–38), ‘imperfectly independent’ (Hall, 1895: Section 4), or ‘half-sovereign’ (McNair, 1927: 138; Oppenheim, 1955: Section 126) states. In addition, individual powers exercised unlegitimated local and regional control (as ordinary ‘great powers’).…”

Section: Multiply-ranked Orders: Heterarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Donnelly

2009

Int Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Structure’ in the discipline of International Relations, for all the criticism of Kenneth Waltz’ work, still typically means the Waltzian triad of ordering principles, functional differentiation, and distribution of capabilities. I argue, however, that this triad not only does not in Waltz’ particular presentation but cannot provide an adequate account of political structures. In its place I sketch a five-part framework of the elements of political structures. Three types of structural differentiation are identified: vertical differentiation, which establishes hierarchical ranking; horizontal differentiation, which establishes non-hierarchical segmentation; and unit differentiation, which assigns certain types of actors a privileged status. Two dimensions of structural elaboration are also identified: norms and institutions and technology and geography. This framework highlights the central place of ranking in international political structures, developing a tripartite account of ‘ordering principles’ that identifies autarchic, single-hierarchic, and heterarchic systems. It also draws attention to the diversity of international orders and opens structural analysis to the concerns and contributions of constructivism.

show abstract

Section: Multiply-ranked Orders: Heterarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Donnelly

2009

Int Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under duress, weak states are more likely to bandwagon with aggressor states; this can either be due to domestic political climates or to external threats to security. Regardless of the circumstances under which these small states engage in potentially dangerous alliances, ‘International law does not recognize the fact that one party to a treaty was induced by duress or coercion or undue influence’ as a ‘ground for treating it invalid’ (Donnelly, 2006; McNair, 1927). McNair (1927) argues that when states enter into treaties, regardless of the impetus for the said treaty, those states actually ‘vindicate’ their sovereignty, to a point of replacing that sovereignty with dependency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of the circumstances under which these small states engage in potentially dangerous alliances, ‘International law does not recognize the fact that one party to a treaty was induced by duress or coercion or undue influence’ as a ‘ground for treating it invalid’ (Donnelly, 2006; McNair, 1927). McNair (1927) argues that when states enter into treaties, regardless of the impetus for the said treaty, those states actually ‘vindicate’ their sovereignty, to a point of replacing that sovereignty with dependency. We can expect this dynamic to especially hold true for weak states that are under internal duress and, or are threatened by a close revisionist power, backed into a corner where a bandwagoning alliance seems to be the only way out of their desperate circumstances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Bandwagoning Hypothesis: A Statistical Analysis of the Alliance Dynamics of Small States

Carter

2022

International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early theories of alliance formation often focus on when great power or status quo states will enter into military alliances. However, revisionist powers, seeking to threaten the international order igniting global security concerns, often draw power from their alliances with small regional neighbours and weak states. Though several studies discuss indicators that may potentially drive these weak states to bandwagon with revisionist powers to the detriment of protecting status quo security interests, many of these theories have yet to be tested empirically, let alone be presented and tested within the same study. This research empirically tests the conditions under which weak states will form bandwagoning alliances with aggressor states. The results demonstrate that weak states will form bandwagoning alliances with neighbouring regional aggressors, when facing an external threat, and especially under conditions of internal duress or domestic political strife. In order to protect global security interests and to keep aggressor and revisionist states from gaining power and influence through bandwagoning alliances, status quo states should identify internally destabilized weak states and offer early assistance in state building and increasing bureaucratic capacity.

show abstract

“…The standard monograph is Dickinson (1920). See also Simpson (2004: Ch. 2), Klein (1974), Kooijmans (1964), McNair (1927), Goebel (1923. 5.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society

Donnelly

2006

European Journal of International Relations

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is unrivalled American power reshaping 21st-century international society? Is the United States an empire, in fact or in the making? This article attempts to elaborate the conceptual resources required to answer such questions. I focus on multiple forms of hierarchy in anarchy and diverse practices of sovereign inequality—concepts that most mainstream perspectives ignore, find paradoxical, or even dismiss as self-contradictory. After defining empire and hierarchy in anarchy, I present a typology of international orders tuned to thinking about empire and its alternatives. The central section of the article explores three classes of formal inequalities common during the Westphalian era—special rights of Great Powers, restricted rights for outlaws, and a wide range of particular practices of ‘semi-sovereignty’. I then sketch ten historically grounded models of hierarchical international relations. Two brief applications to contemporary American power seek to illustrate the value of this conceptual apparatus. Throughout, my focus is on appreciating the precise nature and considerable variety of international inequalities. I argue that the concepts of hierarchy in anarchy and sovereign inequality, but not empire, are essential for understanding the shape and development of contemporary international order.

show abstract

Equality in International Law

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond

Revisiting the Bandwagoning Hypothesis: A Statistical Analysis of the Alliance Dynamics of Small States

Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About