The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change

Hobson, John M.; Sharman, J. C.

doi:10.1177/1354066105050137

Cited by 215 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do so on the basis of recent scholarship showing the presence of varying kinds and degrees of authority in international history (see, e.g., Hobson and Sharman 2005;Keene 2007;Sharman 2013), and on the basis that IR theory has erred in typically attributing authority solely to actors (Hurd 1999;Raymond 2015). Authority is also a potential property of rules.…”

Section: Forms Of Multistakeholder Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on John Ruggie's pioneering study of multilateralism, this paper presents an analogous study of multistakeholder governance, or multistakeholderism. Its central argument is that multistakeholderism is, as yet, a much less well-defined institutional form. Cases exhibit significant variation both in the combinations of actor classes entitled to participate and the nature of authority relations among those actors. The first section discusses multistakeholderism as an institutional form, and proposes a taxonomy of its types. This section also briefly addresses the implications of the analysis for International Relations theory. The paper then conducts a comparative analysis of multistakeholderism, applying the taxonomy to five illustrative cases. It demonstrates the degree of inter-case variation, and the range of issue-areas across which the institutional form is employed and invoked by actors. Three cases are drawn from the increasingly contentious area of Internet governance; the paper thus makes a secondary contribution to this growing literature. The paper's most striking finding in this regard is that Internet governance often fails to live up to its multistakeholder rhetoric. Other cases include governance of securities regulation and the governance of corporate social responsibility. The paper concludes by examining the implications of our argument, and identifying areas for further research.

show abstract

Section: Forms Of Multistakeholder Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Formally, great powers do not possess extra legislative powers: they cannot dictate the rules of the game in international society. Still, informally, they have executive prerogatives-in waging anti-hegemonic wars to 18 restore the balance of power (Bull, 2002(Bull, [1977 (Donnelly, 2009(Donnelly, , 2015 as well as a defence of hierarchy (Donnelly, 2006(Donnelly, , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). Assessing the former, anti-anarchy argument is relevant for the present discussion.…”

Section: Hedley Bull and The Anarchical Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to take it seriously given the rise of theory scepticism in the field (Wight, Hansen, and Dunne, 2013). And yet, the problem has not received attention in the recent anarchy-versus-hierarchy IR debate (Donnelly, 2006(Donnelly, , 2009(Donnelly, , 2015Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016). The aim here is not to review this extensive body of literatures but to make a critical contribution to it by emphasising the role of holism and second-order, philosophical considerations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two principal groups of interlocutors can be distinguished depending on whether they prefer an anarchical, or an hierarchical structure. Proponents of hierarchy (in IR see Donnelly 2006Donnelly , 2009Hobson, 2014;Hobson and Sharman, 2005;Lake, 2001Lake, , 2009Mattern and Zarakol, 2016) think of world politics in terms of an hierarchical authority covering the globe. The form of such authority is not international but global-it can range from a unitary world government (Craig, 2008;Nielsen, 1988;Wendt, 2003), to a more loosely structured global federation of states (Nardin, 2011(Nardin, : 2065(Nardin, -2067, to an ensemble of issue-specific global institutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things

Lechner¹

2017

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The category of anarchy is conventionally associated with the emergence of an autonomous discipline of International Relations (IR). Recently Donnelly (2015) has argued that anarchy has never been central to IR (hierarchy is more weighty). His criticism targets not just concepts of anarchy but theories of anarchy and thereby expresses an anti-theory ethos tacitly accepted in the discipline. As a form of conceptual atomism, this ethos is hostile to structuralist and normative theories. This paper aims to reinstate theoretical holism against conceptual atomism and to defend the enduring relevance of theories of international anarchy for IR. This is done by revisiting two classic, structuralist accounts of international anarchy articulated in Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (scientific structuralism) and Hedley Bull's Anarchical Society (normative structuralism). It will be shown that both represent coherent theoretical 'wholes' which reveal a more complex relationship between anarchy and hierarchy than supposed by critics, and which recognise the important connection between the structure of international anarchy (whose key players are states) and the value of freedom. The conclusion examines the prospects of normative theories of international anarchy and 'anarchical' freedom in a globalising world where state agency is being challenged.

show abstract

“…Donnelly, 2006, Goh, 2008, Hobson and Sharman, 2005. In hierarchical systems, unlike anarchical systems, dominant states acquire the ability to command while subordinate states accept a duty to obey through the exercise of legitimate authority (Lake, 2013: 74, Hobson andSharman, 2005: 69-70).…”

Section: Analysing India-australia Relations: a Postcolonial Criticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The natural/neglected relationship: liberalism, identity and India–Australia relations

Chacko

Davis

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Recent commentary on India-Australia relations has defined the relationship as 'natural' and based on 'shared values' and 'shared history'. The relationship has simultaneously been considered 'neglected'. The paradoxical juxtaposition of a natural/neglected partnership is yet to be adequately explained. We consider the historical construction of liberalism in both states as a facet of state identity to argue that, far from creating a natural relationship, differing liberal identities have served to keep these two states apart. This is illustrated through case studies of divergent opinions over the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the rise of China.

show abstract

The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change

Cited by 215 publications

References 59 publications

Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution

Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution

Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things

The natural/neglected relationship: liberalism, identity and India–Australia relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About