Hegemony, not empire

Prys, Miriam; Robel, Stefan

doi:10.1057/jird.2010.2

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not only have China and the U.S. taken a noticeable interest in the region lately (albeit in different ways); both have also developed specific bilateral strategies to secure or enlist 4 As Lai (2011: 23) states, on many accounts-conventional accounts which emphasize population size, armed forces personnel, military expenditure etc.-China looks like a 'well-qualified contender'. Brand and Robel 2011;Prys and Robel 2011. Vietnam as a partner. Chan (2005).…”

Section: Power Transition and The Triangular Relationship Us-vietnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

Fels¹,

Vu²

2016

Global Power Shift

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10201Ample empirical evidence points to recent power shifts in multiple areas of international relations taking place between industrialized countries and emerging powers, as well as between states and non-state actors. However, there is a dearth of theoretical interpretation and synthesis of these findings, and a growing need for coherent approaches to understand and measure the transformation. The central issues to be addressed include theoretical questions and empirical puzzles: How can studies of global power shift and the rise of 'emerging powers' benefit from existing theories, and which alternative aspects and theoretical approaches might be suitable? How can the meanings, perceptions, dynamics, and consequences of global power shift be determined and assessed? This edited series will include highly innovative research on these topics. It aims to bring together scholars from all major world regions as well as different disciplines, including political science, economics and human geography. The overall aim is to discuss and possibly blend their different approaches and provide new frameworks for understanding global affairs and the governance of global power shifts.

show abstract

Section: Power Transition and The Triangular Relationship Us-vietnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

Fels¹,

Vu²

2016

Global Power Shift

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We broadly rely on a conceptualization of (international) hegemony as has been developed by Stefan Robel (e.g. Brand and Robel, 2011: 75–79; Prys and Robel, 2011), who in turn used ideas put forth by Heinrich Triepel and Charles Kindleberger. According to Robel, international hegemony can be defined as a specific form of leadership in which the existence and continuity of the relation depends on (a) the power resources of the hegemon, (b) its will to produce and maintain such a relationship, (c) its strategic competence to do so as well as (d) basic forms of allegiance among (at least a core group of) other states and/or the respective political and societal elites there.…”

Section: Ideas and Foreign Policy In The Americasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without delving too deep into the conceptual debate on "hegemony" (for a comprehensive overview of international relations hegemony debates, see e.g. Prys and Robel, 2011), we nevertheless have to be specific about what we mean by the term and why we refer to it in the US-Latin American context. We broadly rely on a conceptualization of (international) hegemony as has been developed by Stefan Robel (e.g.…”

Section: Hegemony and Counter-hegemony In The Americasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farewell to leadership? Ideas of hegemony and counter-hegemony in the Americas

Muño

Brand

2014

International Area Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mainstream International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis have often concentrated on material factors and actors’ preferences, leaving out ideational dynamics. However, US–Latin American relations in general seem fraught with ideas, narratives and historical references re-articulated from time to time on both sides. In his campaign, Barack Obama announced a fresh start of US–Latin American relations, promising to “restore American leadership in Latin America”, at the same time creating “a new partnership for the Americas”, combining two narratives in US–Latin American policy. “Leadership”, enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt corollary, which declared Latin America the “backyard” of the USA, and “Partnership”, related to the Good Neighbor Policy declared by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which aimed at establishing a more equal relation of partners. This discourse shows that inherited traditions and foreign policy narratives are subject to cycles of re-production, re-articulation and subtle change. In order to grasp the relevance of ideas in US–Latin American relations, we advocate a turn towards “ideational approaches” of discursive and constructivist providence. The article first situates “ideas” to key concepts of a more interpretive foreign policy analysis, which focuses on tradition and narratives. As a second step, US–Latin American relations are located within a specific, hegemony-oriented ideational account of foreign policy. Two analytical sketches of crucial cases of recent US–Latin American relations follow, the War on Drugs and the reactions towards the coup d’état in Honduras, showing how ideas were articulated on both the USA and the Latin American side and what role they played. The overall focus of the paper is thus on elucidating the ideational dynamics that underpin the political relations between the USA and Latin America.

show abstract

“…Alexander Cooley's approach fits into a growing literature about hierarchy in international relations. Proponents of this body of literature include from different perspectives DavidLake (2008Lake ( , 2009, JackDonnelly (2006), Daniel Nexon and T. Wright(Nexon 2011, Nexon andWright 2007),Jordheim 2011, Prys and Robel (2011), and Spruyt (2008 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

US Military Bases, Quasi-bases, and Domestic Politics in Latin America

Bitar¹,

Gardner²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation explores the obstacles for US formal military bases in Latin America. While in the past, the United States managed to establish bases in several countries in the region, despite Washingtons efforts every negotiation to open new bases has failed since 2000, and older bases have been terminated, as in the case of Ecuador. Using evidence from Ecuador, Colombia, El Salvador, and other countries in the region, the dissertation finds that shifts in government preferences do not explain this failure. Instead, domestic challenges to host governments in Latin America systematically appear as blocking mechanisms that impede the establishment of foreign military bases, even when leaders support them.The dissertation builds on the work of Alexander Cooley and others and develops a model of base politics to explain how domestic political calculations affect foreign basing negotiations. Furthermore, the dissertation finds that when formal bases have not succeeded, interested governments have worked around domestic constrains to establish alternative and informal arrangements that allow US military presence and operations in their countries. These alternative arrangements, or quasi-bases, have advanced US security interests in Latin America even in the absence of formal base leases, while at the same time their secrecy and informality protects Latin American leaders from domestic contestation. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance of my chair, Patrick Jackson, and the thorough comments of Arlene Tickner and Eric Hershberg, members of my committee. Through over a year of revising the final manuscript it gained a lot both in content and in clarity, thanks to the several rounds of revisions where the three of them contributed from their different fields of expertise. Other people at the American University provided guidance, suggestions, source material, and more importantly, constant support. Ryan Briggs and Tom Long have been patient readers of my work and provided valuable criticism during every stage of this process. But more than anything, their friendship and moral support has been the greatest gift I received during my time at American University. Dean Louis Goodman, Sharon Weiner, Philip Brenner, and my cohort at the SIS PhD program have also been constant sources of wisdom and support and I cannot thank them enough. Back in Colombia, the faculty at the School of Government of the Universidad de los Andes blessed me with their confidence and always provided a warm space for me to work when I visited Bogota. Carlos Caballero Argaez, Director of the School, and Carlos Angulo, then President of the University, both encouraged me and provided everything I could need to start, and complete, my PhD successfully. This dissertation greatly benefited from comments I received from Alexander Cooley, David Vine, the faculty at the Universidade de Sao Paulo, along with reviewers and commentators of pieces presented at various academic conferences. Maria Berger also co...

show abstract

Hegemony, not empire

Cited by 13 publications

References 55 publications

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

Farewell to leadership? Ideas of hegemony and counter-hegemony in the Americas

US Military Bases, Quasi-bases, and Domestic Politics in Latin America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About