John
Ikenberry makes three main arguments in his essay, “Liberalism and Empire:
Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age.” The first argument is that
imperial temptations can be generated by unipolarity, “ but notions of empire
do not adequately capture key features of the political order that have grown
up around American power” (Ikenberry, 2004). The second argument made is
that “both liberal and imperial logics are at play in the current American
unipolar moment” (Ikenberry, 2004), and it is highlighted that these liberal
and imperial logics have been rooted in American diplomacy and political
culture. The third main argument that Ikenberry makes is that “despite
Washington's imperial temptation, the US is not doomed to abandon rule-based
order” (Ikenberry, 2004).
The section of the article that I found most
interesting in relation to this course’s overall theme of sovereignty within
the international realm was the section titled Anarchy and Hierarchy. It
is highlighted that “neorealists make the elemental distinction between anarchy
and hierarchy. Anarchy is order without central authority” (Ikenberry, 2004).
It is then noted that “In a condition of anarchy, states do not stand in
any fixed, formal, or hierarchical relation with one another” (Ikenberry,
2004). To summarize, there is no hierarchy within anarchy.
The
reason that I found this statement so interesting is because within the
international realm where each state holds sovereignty, there is still an
understood level of hierarchy that the public sees and, for the most part,
adheres to. Even though within anarchy, there is not supposed to be
levels of power - it is very easy to have common understandings of what
sovereign states are more powerful and hold more weight in the international
realm. I am not saying that everyone sees this ranking the same.
I can imagine that citizens of one country may hold the importance
of their country higher than citizens of other countries. But
nonetheless, there are certain norms that imply that some countries or continents
are power houses in the international realm.
Is
it possible that this hierarchy of power is an example that each sovereign
state may not really be as autonomous and sovereign as some scholars of
the international realm assume?
Reference:
John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire:
Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies
30:4 (2004).
Fatima,
ReplyDeleteOne way I might offer for looking at this paradox between anarchy and hierarchy is by evaluating it within the context of global governance. Hierarchy implies structure, which comes from global governance institutions like the United Nations. We have nations that can veto humanitarian interventions because the structure of the international system provides them with those powers through a UN security council veto. Ultimately, I would argue that the transition from anarchy to global governance is a continuum, along which this emerging hierarchy is best understood. There are limits to this perceived hierarchy because it is not absolute- the U.S. and Germany cannot compel Iran to adopt a nuclear agreement, they must still agree.
Fatima, I agree with your point that informal hierarchy will emerge in a system where there are power relations among actors, which means that within anarchy some kind of loose hierarchy is likely to develop. And like Ben says, "hierarchy implies structure," but I would argue that is a problem with our understanding of hierarchy. Hierarchy in its simplest form is simply power differences that exist, whether or not they are institutionalized. But given the different kinds of power in our international system, it is not always easy to evaluate where the different actors fall along the power spectrum.
ReplyDelete