A Summary of The New Sovereignty in International Relations by David Lake
A Précis: The New Sovereignty in International Relations: By David Lake
The importance of hierarchy is understood, but rarely recognized nor viewed with scrutiny for patterns and implications within IR. Domestic hierarchy and international anarchy work together to define s. Classical realists use Westphalian S: an absolute with single internal hierarchy & state equality with all other sovereign states. This view remains today even in the shifts of theories (attribute to relationship). Waltz describes international systems by differentiating the hierarchic realm of domestic politics and the anarchic realm of international politics – decentralized and anarchic. Major states should be major players, others are inconsequential. Economic Interdependence/Transnational theory, merged into classical view for theorizing, but the dependency theory (capitalist world economy) failed with the success of East Asian countries’ industrialization.
S has transformed greatly as classical view is static structurally not accounting for real-world changes. For constructivists S is a socially created structure, produced, not just deemed therefore effecting IR. They view influences of social norms and practices (including international societies & constitutional structure) as central, not depending on itself in terms of protecting its anarchy, but relying on relationships not subordinate to a common authority. This constructivist theory is almost an ‘English’ mindset of ‘big players’ and ignores polities that violate the norm of procedural justice (over 2/3 of humanity). With all of the debate, S continues as an absolute condition. S is thought of as indivisible, but Krasner shows S is eminently divisible revealing a wide range of authority relationships. Westphalia S (territory & exclusion of domestic authority) is seen as the rule of modern IR, but Krasner’s looks at the wider scope of int’l restrictions placed on states. To address hierarchy is seen as in-politically
The importance of hierarchy is understood, but rarely recognized nor viewed with scrutiny for patterns and implications within IR. Domestic hierarchy and international anarchy work together to define s. Classical realists use Westphalian S: an absolute with single internal hierarchy & state equality with all other sovereign states. This view remains today even in the shifts of theories (attribute to relationship). Waltz describes international systems by differentiating the hierarchic realm of domestic politics and the anarchic realm of international politics – decentralized and anarchic. Major states should be major players, others are inconsequential. Economic Interdependence/Transnational theory, merged into classical view for theorizing, but the dependency theory (capitalist world economy) failed with the success of East Asian countries’ industrialization.
S has transformed greatly as classical view is static structurally not accounting for real-world changes. For constructivists S is a socially created structure, produced, not just deemed therefore effecting IR. They view influences of social norms and practices (including international societies & constitutional structure) as central, not depending on itself in terms of protecting its anarchy, but relying on relationships not subordinate to a common authority. This constructivist theory is almost an ‘English’ mindset of ‘big players’ and ignores polities that violate the norm of procedural justice (over 2/3 of humanity). With all of the debate, S continues as an absolute condition. S is thought of as indivisible, but Krasner shows S is eminently divisible revealing a wide range of authority relationships. Westphalia S (territory & exclusion of domestic authority) is seen as the rule of modern IR, but Krasner’s looks at the wider scope of int’l restrictions placed on states. To address hierarchy is seen as in-politically