Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society

Abstract

How is unrivalled American power reshaping 21st-century international society? Is the United States an empire, in fact or in the making? This article attempts to elaborate the conceptual resources required to answer such questions. I focus on multiple forms of hierarchy in anarchy and diverse practices of sovereign inequality—concepts that most mainstream perspectives ignore, find paradoxical, or even dismiss as self-contradictory. After defining empire and hierarchy in anarchy, I present a typology of international orders tuned to thinking about empire and its alternatives. The central section of the article explores three classes of formal inequalities common during the Westphalian era—special rights of Great Powers, restricted rights for outlaws, and a wide range of particular practices of ‘semi-sovereignty’. I then sketch ten historically grounded models of hierarchical international relations. Two brief applications to contemporary American power seek to illustrate the value of this conceptual apparatus. Throughout, my focus is on appreciating the precise nature and considerable variety of international inequalities. I argue that the concepts of hierarchy in anarchy and sovereign inequality, but not empire, are essential for understanding the shape and development of contemporary international order.

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

“…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.…”

“…With respect to the anarchy-hierarchy controversy, it prevents us from distinguishing the idea of a system whose overall structure is anarchical and which incorporates limited elements of hierarchy from the altogether distinct idea of a system whose overall structure is hierarchical and which contains certain elements of anarchy. Thus, when Donnelly (2006) explores the phenomenon of 'hierarchy within anarchy', he assumes away the basic distinction between system and elements, focussing instead on a derivative distinction between formal and informal elements. But even if some of the elements of an anarchical international system are hierarchical (such as relations of inequality)-either formally or informally-this would not change its overall character of anarchy as long as these hierarchical relations are not defining of it as a whole.…”

“…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.…”

“…In international relations, the participant states are engaged in mechanisms of self-regulation and self-policing without oversight by a global sovereign. Third, the issue is not whether the anarchical international system contains some elements of hierarchy (Deudney, 2007;Donnelly 2006Donnelly , 2009) but whether the system-as a whole-is structured as hierarchy or, alternatively, as anarchy. This leads us back to the problem of structure.…”

Inquiring into Others’ Conceptions of the International and Security

“…Although there have been attempts to render visible the "hierarchy in anarchy" (Donnelly 2006) and "hierarchy under anarchy" (Wendt and Friedheim 2009) in recognition of "inequalities" between states, focus thus far has been on inequalities in material power or institutionalized relationships of dependency. This is opposed to inequalities that follow relegating one's contemporaries to the past by temporalizing difference and spatializing time (Fabian 1983;Hindess 2007;Jabri 2013).…”