Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T12:58:11.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The Elephant in the Room of International Relations

Rule in the Study of International Politics

from Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

By
Christopher Daase ,
Nicole Deitelhoff  and
Antonia Witt
Edited by
Christopher Daase ,
Nicole Deitelhoff  and
Antonia Witt
Christopher Daase
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Nicole Deitelhoff
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Antonia Witt
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Get access

Summary

International Relations scholars are increasingly studying different forms of sub- and superordination in the international system through analytical lenses such as hierarchy, hegemony, or authority. Drawing on these debates, this introduction sets out to establish the concept of rule as the defining feature of order in the international realm. More specifically, we argue that the manifold conceptual approaches to sub- and superordination in the international should be understood as rich conceptualizations of one concept: rule. We define rule broadly as constellations of formally or informally institutionalized sub- and superordination with the aim of affecting the distribution of basic goods and influence and of stabilizing expectations, regardless of whether these constellations are primarily of sociocultural, economic, or military nature. With this, we aim at advancing a research agenda that defines rule as a systematic approach to studying international politics. By promoting the concept of rule, we aim to show that rule can serve both as an integrating and a diagnostic tool for the study of the international “beyond anarchy.”

Keywords

RulehierarchyhegemonyauthorityanarchyInternational Relations theory
Type
Chapter
Information
Rule in International Politics , pp. 3 - 30
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 647–659.Google Scholar
Acharya, Amitav. 2017. “After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order.” Ethics & International Affairs 31(3): 271–285.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J., Helfer, Laurence R., and Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2018. “International Courts in a Complex World,” in Alter, Karen, Helfer, Laurence R., and Rask Madsen, Mikael (eds.), International Court Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Anderl, Felix. 2022. Broken Solidarities: How Open Global Governance Divides and Rules. Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Anderl, Felix, Daase, Christopher, Deitelhoff, Nicole, Kempf, Victor, Pfister, Jannik, and Wallmeier, Philip (eds.). 2019. Rule and Resistance beyond the Nation State: Contestation, Escalation, Exist. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Anghie, Anthony. 2006. “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Post-Colonial Realities.” Third World Quarterly 27(5): 739–753.Google Scholar
Anghie, Anthony, and Chimni, Bhupinder S.. 2003. “Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflicts.” Chinese Journal of International Law 2(1): 77–103.Google Scholar
Anievas, Alexander, Manchanda, Nivi, and Shilliam, Robbie (eds.). 2015. Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ashley, Richard K. 1988. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17(2): 227–262.Google Scholar
Avant, Debora D., Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan K. (eds.). 2010. Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barder, Alexander D. 2017. “International Hierarchy.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-95 (last accessed July 25, 2022).Google Scholar
Barder, Alexander D. 2015. Empire Within: International Hierarchy and Its Imperial Laboratories of Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barkawi, Tarak, and Laffey, Mark. 2002. “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations.” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 31(1): 109–127.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael. 2001. “Authority, Intervention, and the Outer Limits of International Relations Theory,” in Callaghy, Thomas M. et al. (eds.), Intervention and Transnationalism in Africa: Global-Local Networks of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael N., and Finnemore, Martha. 1999. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 53(4): 699–732.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael N., and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael N., and Duvall, Raymond. 2004. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice, and Zarakol, Ayşe. 2016. “Hierarchies in World Politics.” International Organization 70(3): 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieler, Andreas, and David Morton, Adam. 2004. “A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order, and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations.” Capital & Class 28(1): 85–113.Google Scholar
Black, Julia. 2017. “‘Says Who?’ Liquid Authority and Interpretive Control in Transnational Regulatory Regimes.” International Theory 9(2): 286–310.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and Wohlforth, William C.. 2008. World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2003. Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buckel, Sonja, and Fischer-Lescano, Andreas. 2009. “Gramsci Reconsidered: Hegemony in Global Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law 3: 437–454.Google Scholar
Cerny, Philip G., and Prichard, Alex. 2017. “The New Anarchy: Globalization and Fragmentation in World Politics.” Journal of International Political Theory 13(3): 378–394.Google Scholar
Chimni, B. S. 2003. “Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto,” in Anghie, Anthony et al. (eds.), The Third World and International Order. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, Christopher. 1998. “Degrees of Statehood.” Review of International Studies 24(2): 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Ian. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10(2): 126–155.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert W. 1983. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12(2): 162–175.Google Scholar
Daase, Christopher, and Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2019. “Opposition and Dissidence.” Journal of International Political Theory 15(1): 11–30.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Daase, Christopher. 2021. “Rule and Resistance in Global Governance.” International Theory 13(1): 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2006. “Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society.” European Journal of International Relations 12(2): 139–170.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2015. “The Discourse of Anarchy in IR.” International Theory 7(3): 393–425.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2017. “Beyond Hierarchy,” in Zarakol, Ayşe (ed.), Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–265.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel W. 2019. “Counter-Hegemonic Strategies in the Global Economy.” Security Studies 28(3): 505–531.Google Scholar
Frank, André G. 1979. “Unequal Accumulation: Intermediate, Semi-Peripheral, and Sub-Imperialist Economies.” Review 2(3): 281–350.Google Scholar
Gallie, Walter B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56(1): 167–198.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen (ed.). 1993. Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 2003. Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1980. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goh, Evelyn. 2013. The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Transition in Post-Cold War East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula. 1996. Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Gruffydd Jones, Branwen. 2008. “Race in the Ontology of International Order.” Political Studies 56: 907–927.Google Scholar
Havercroft, Jonathan and Prichard, Alex. 2017. “Anarchy and International Relations Theory: A Reconsideration.” Journal of International Political Theory 13(3): 252–265.Google Scholar
Heupel, Monika, and Zürn, Michael (eds.). 2017. Protecting the Individual from International Authority: Human Rights in International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, John M., and Sharman, Jason C.. 2005. “The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change.” European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 63–98.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2015. “Delegation and Pooling in International Organizations.” Review of International Organizations 10(3): 305–328.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Lenz, Tobias, and Marks, Gary. 2019. “Contested World Order: The Delegitimation of International Governance.” The Review of International Organizations 14: 731–743.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Lisbet, Marks, Gary, Lenz, Tobias, Bezuijen, Jeanine, Ceka, Besir, and Derderyan, Sved. 2017. Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Global Governance. Vol III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 2013. “Common-Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics.” International Organization 67(2): 317–354.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization 53(2): 379–408.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John, and Nexon, Daniel. 2019. “Hegemony Studies 3.0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders.” Security Studies 28(3): 395–421.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Seybert, Lucia A. (eds.). 2018. Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keene, Edward. 2013. “International Hierarchy and the Origins of the Modern Practice of Intervention.” Review of International Studies 39(5): 1077–1090.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, Charles P. 1981. “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy.” International Studies Quarterly 25(3): 242–254.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 1997. “Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch.” European Journal of International Law 8: 566–582.Google Scholar
Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian. 2019. Emergency Powers of International Organizations: Between Normalization and Containment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krisch, Nico. 2017. “Liquid Authority in Global Governance.” International Theory 9(2): 237–260.Google Scholar
Kustermans, Jorg, and Horemans, Rikkert. 2022. “Four Conceptions of Authority in International Relations.” International Organization 76(1): 204–228.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lentner, Howard H. 2005. “Hegemony and Autonomy.” Political Studies Review 53(4): 735–752.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Paul K. 2018. “Embedded Authority: A Relational Network Approach to Hierarchy in World Politics.” Review of International Studies 44(1): 128–150.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Kate, and Macdonald, Terry. 2017. “Liquid Authority and Political Legitimacy in Transnational Governance.” International Theory 9(2): 329–351.Google Scholar
Mallavarapu, Siddharth. 2021. “Imperialism, International Law, and War: Enduring Legacies and Curious Entanglements,” in Brock, Lothar, and Simon, Hendrik (eds.), The Justification of War and International Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
McConaughey, Meghan, Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2018. “Beyond Anarchy: Logics of Political Organization, Hierarchy, and International Structure.” International Theory 10(2): 181–218.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Meiches, Benjamin. 2019. “The Charge of Genocide: Racial Hierarchy, Political Discourse, and the Evolution of International Institutions.” International Political Sociology 13(1): 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, Julia C., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2014. “Contested Multilateralism.” Review of International Organizations 9: 385–412.Google Scholar
Murphy, Craig. 1994. International Organization and Industrial Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nedal, Dani K., and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2019. “Anarchy and Authority: International Structure, the Balance of Power, and Hierarchy.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4(2): 169–189.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2017. “Hegemonic-Order Theory: A Field-Theoretical Account.” European Journal of International Relations 24(3): 662–686.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas, and Klink, Frank F.. 1989. “Anarchy, Authority, Rule.” International Studies Quarterly 33(2): 149–173.Google Scholar
Organski, Abramo F. K. 1958. World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Parmar, Inderjeet. 2019. “Transnational Elite Knowledge Networks: Managing American Hegemony in Turbulent Times.” Security Studies 28(3): 532–564.Google Scholar
Paul, T. V., Larson, Deborah W., and Wohlforth, William C. (eds.). 2014. Status in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2016. International Packing Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2017. “Against Authority: The Heavy Weight of International Hierarchy,” in Zarakol, Ayşe (ed.), Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2021. “Global Governance in the Age of Epistemic Authority.” International Theory 13(1): 144–156.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas (ed.). 2013. Governance without the State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James N., and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds.). 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Brian C. 2018. Hegemony: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis. Berlin: DOC Research Institute.Google Scholar
Scholte, Jan Aart. 2020. “Rethinking Hegemony as Complexity,” in Dutkiewicz, Piotr, Casier, Tom, and Aart Scholte, Jan (eds.), Hegemony and World Order. London: Routledge, pp. 78–97.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole J. 2015. The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole J. 2017. “Recognition and Liquid Authority.” International Theory 9(2): 311–328.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole J., and Neumann, Iver B.. 2006. “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power.” International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2017. “The Return of Anarchy?” Columbia Journal of International Affairs, Special 70th Anniversary Issue: The Next World Order, Vol. 70, https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/return-anarchy (last accessed July 14, 2022).Google Scholar
Spanu, Maja. 2020. “The Hierarchical Society: The Politics of Self-determination and the Constitution of New States after 1919.” European Journal of International Relations 26(2): 372–396.Google Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas, Bäckstrand, Karin, and Aart Scholte, Jan (eds.). 2018. Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources Processes, and Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas, and Zürn, Michael. 2019. “The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework.” Review of International Organizations 14(4): 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammen, Ronald L., Kugler, Jacek, and Lemke, Douglas. 2017. “Foundations of Power Transition Theory,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-296 (last access July 26, 2022).Google Scholar
Towns, Ann E. 2012. “Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion ‘From Below’.” International Organization 66(2): 179–209.Google Scholar
Towns, Ann E., and Rumelili, Bahar. 2017. “Taking the Pressure: Unpacking the Relation between Norms, Social Hierarchies, and Social Pressures on States.” European Journal of International Relations 23(4): 756–779.Google Scholar
Viola, Lora, Snidal, Duncan, and Zürn, Michael. 2015. “Sovereign (In)Equality in the Evolution of the International System,” in Leibfried, Stephan et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Transformations of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–236.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy: Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Webb, Michael C., and Krasner, Stephen D.. 2009. “Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment.” Review of International Studies 15(2): 183–198.Google Scholar
Witt, Antonia. 2022. “Beyond Formal Powers: Understanding the African Union’s Authority on the Ground.” Review of International Studies 48(4): 626–645.Google Scholar
Wohlforth, William C., Carvalho, Benjamin de, Leira, Halvard, and Neumann, Iver B.. 2018. Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies 44(3): 526–546.Google Scholar
Wolf, Reinhard. 2019. “Taking Interaction Seriously: Asymmetrical Roles and the Behavioral Foundations of Status.” European Journal of International Relations 25(4): 1186–1211.Google Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2010. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe (ed.). 2017a. Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zarakol, Ayşe. 2017b. “Theorising Hierarchies: An Introduction,” in Zarakol, Ayşe (ed.), Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×