Between Eurocentrism and Babel: A Framework for the Analysis of States, State Systems, and International Orders

Abstract

Mindful of the growing interest in non-Western and pre-modern political systems, we propose a framework for the analysis of states, state systems, and international orders. We provide a culturally neutral definition of the state and outline a method for assessing variation in political organization both within and above the state. Our framework cleanly delineates hierarchy from anarchy and can be applied to a diverse set of state systems. We then show how the content of international order inter-relates with system structure and the local density (interaction capacity) of a region. We argue that our framework captures similarities-and exposes differencesbetween different systems and orders over time and space. It strikes a balance between the traditional focus on the Western experience and the current trend toward regional studies in which it is difficult to accumulate knowledge in a rigorous manner.

Myths of military revolution: European expansion and Eurocentrism

“…Events like the Ottoman conquest of South-East Europe and North Africa, the Mughal conquest of most of the Indian subcontinent, and the Manchu conquest of China are seen as fleeting and unrepresentative historical curios, while relatively brief periods of success like those of the Dutch and Swedes are seen as being of epochal and enduring importance. Quantitative IR works that are based on explicitly Eurocentric data sets, such as the Correlates of War and Great Power Wars 1495–1815, have been shown to be profoundly misleading in the conclusions they suggest about international systems (Butcher and Griffiths, forthcoming; Fazal, 2007; Kang, 2014).…”

“…The Correlates of War data set only includes states before 1919 if they have been recognized by both Britain and France, systematically excluding non-Western powers (Butcher and Griffiths, forthcoming; Fazal, 2007).…”

War, interaction capacity, and the structures of state systems

“…The first actor is the polity P . Polities are territorial entities with some autonomous military organization and the right to act on behalf of subjects in matters of war and peace (Bremer and Ghosn, 2003;Butcher and Griffiths, 2017). Put differently, polities extract military and economic resources from their territory and have the right to use those resources to bargain with other polities.…”

“…P ceases to be a state when it cedes control of S , which is where we differentiate states from sub-state polities. For a fuller theoretical justification, see Author's Papers Butcher and Griffiths (2015, 2017). Briefly, this is a thin definition of statehood with roots in international practice and key texts on historical systems analysis (Watson 1992; Buzan and Little 2000), one that elides other considerations such as the effective monopoly of political violence, or what Krasner calls Domestic Sovereignty (Krasner 1999).…”

“…We accept that every regional system occurred in a specific context, but contend that there are common patterns across those systems that can be examined and theorized (Buzan and Little, 2000). Following Butcher and Griffiths (2017), we focus on culturally neutral concepts like empire that existed in diverse and unconnected systems, and are not rooted in a specific historical locale. The downside to our universalizing approach, in contrast to particularistic analyses, is that we sacrifice depth for breath.…”