Theory of International Politics
Citations
96 citations
Cites background from "Theory of International Politics"
...This article contributes to several ongoing theoretical debates in international relations: the interplay between material and ideational sources of political change, the interaction between agents and the structures, and the nature of what constitutes an international system+ Each is addressed in terms of the transition from medieval to modern political structures and the origins of sovereign territorial statehood+ Within the constructivist tradition, ideas, norms, and beliefs are understood to be an integral part of political structures, providing meaning to material facts and structuring practices and outcomes+1 From early critiques of neorealism2 to subsequent refinements,3 this approach to international relations has provided a framework for analyzing the origins of the sovereign state system in early modern Europe and the medieval political practices that preceded it+4 By examining the ideational effects of material cartographic technology, this article offers a useful means of studying technological drivers of change while acknowledging that the effects of such material factors are constructed by, and operate through, the ideas that give them meaning+5 In particular, my focus on techniques of representation builds on Ruggie’s theorization of the role of epistemic transformation and collective imaginings in the construction of the uniquely modern form of political organization known as the sovereign state+6 Changes in representational technologies structured political interactions, but only because those technologies altered ideas about the appropriate and legitimate forms of political authority+ This historical study illustrates the complexity of the relationship between agents and structures, in which actors promulgate structural conditions and simultaneously are subject to them+7 A mutually constitutive relationship exists between representations of political space, the ideas held by actors about the organization of political authority, and actors’ authoritative political practices manifesting those 1+ See, in particular, Wendt 1999+ 2+ Ruggie 1983+ 3+ See Kratochwil 1989; Ruggie 1993; and Reus-Smit 1999+ 4+ See Kratochwil 1986; Hall and Kratochwil 1993; and Hall 1999+ 5+ This notion follows on Wendt’s ~1999, chap+ 3! proposal of an ideational theory that simultaneously acknowledges the importance of material facts+ 6+ Ruggie 1993+ 7+ For example, the structuration theory of Giddens 1984+ See also Wendt 1987; Doty 1997; and Wight 1999+ ideas+ Actors are constrained by the structural ideas and practices of the system but also create those constraints through their ongoing interactions+ Exogenous sources of change act through this relationship: the cartographic revolution in early modern Europe created new representations that led to, first, changes in ideas of authority and, subsequently, a transformation in the structures and practices of rule+ This development accords with theories of structural change that allow for the possibility of transformation in the agent-structure dynamic, such as theories of cognitive evolution8 and morphogenesis+9 This article also contributes to the theorization of international systems and efforts to delineate the character, origins, and future trajectory of modern sovereign states+10 These political structures have been seen as recurring patterns throughout history, as inventions of the late Middle Ages, or as constructs implemented only in the much more recent past+11 My focus on the connection between representational technologies and the authoritative basis of political structures builds on the constructivist approach to understanding when modern states and international relations appeared+ Considering how political authority is represented, understood, and operationalized reveals the historical novelty and unique character of our sovereign state system—in particular, the exclusive reliance on territorial authority and discrete boundaries to define the highest level of political organization+ A broad literature has sought to explain the origins of modern territorial statehood and international relations, with theories generally falling into two categories: those focusing on material driving forces, such as military technology,12 organizational competition,13 property relations,14 and economic systems,15 and those relying on changes in ideas, including new representational epistemes,16 shifts in religious norms,17 and developments in political theory+18 While not denying the importance of those factors, I argue that a key constitutive driver of this transformation has been neglected, largely because existing explanations have not focused on certain key features of modern territorial statehood: the exclusively linear character of boundaries and the homogenously territorial authority claimed within those lines+ Cartography’s social and ideational effects provided a new framework that structured the impact of other causal processes, leading to the imple- 8+ Adler 2005+ 9+ See Archer 1995; and Carlsnaes 1992+ 10+ For a variety of theorizations of international systems, see Bull 1977;Wight 1977;Waltz 1979; Ruggie 1993; Spruyt 1998; Reus-Smit 1999; Wendt 1999; and Buzan and Little 2000+ 11+ See, for example, Wight 1977; Waltz 1979; Gilpin 1981; Fischer 1992; Hall and Kratochwil 1993; Krasner 1993; Spruyt 1994; Hall 1999; and Osiander 2007+ 12+ McNeill 1982+ 13+ See Tilly 1992; and Spruyt 1994+ 14+ See Rosenberg 1994; and Teschke 1998+ 15+ See Anderson 1974; and Wallerstein 1974+ 16+ Ruggie 1993+ 17+ See Philpott 2001; and Gorski 2003+ 18+ Skinner 1978+ mentation of an exclusively territorial—and discretely bounded—notion of political authority and organization+ Existing explanations account for certain aspects of the modern state system but are more effective when combined with the impact of cartography+ For example, Tilly’s work on the competitive advantages enjoyed by larger states in terms of extraction and coercion explains why, in early modern Europe, larger and more centralized political units became dominant+19 Similarly, Spruyt points out the importance of institutional competition among diverse late-medieval actors, in which larger territorial states won out because of their efficiency advantages in several domains+20 Yet neither theory accounts for the particular form that states assumed by the early nineteenth century: exclusively territorial entities separated by discrete boundaries+ Territorial organization based on authority and control over a collection of places, rather than linearly divided space, could just as easily have satisfied the need for efficient extraction and organization+ Competitive pressures may have been a necessary component of this systemic transformation, but they are not a sufficient explanation for the particular form of sovereign states+ Alternatively, Ruggie’s brief examination of the origins of modern statehood combines material changes, strategic incentives, and “a transformation in social epistemology + + + the mental equipment that people drew upon in imagining and symbolizing forms of political community+”21 While this adds the key element of how power and authority are understood—and hence instantiated in practice— Ruggie’s focus on single-point perspective as the representational embodiment of political change relates to the shift from multiple sources of authority to a single, centralized sovereign: “political space came to be defined as it appeared from a single fixed viewpoint+”22 This does not address another fundamental change in the nature of political organization: the homogenization of territorial authority over spaces defined and separated by discrete, linear boundaries+ Thus, I examine the role of cartography in shaping the dual transition in political authority—the transformation of territoriality and the elimination of nonterritorial authorities—that constituted the shift from medieval heteronomous complexity to modern territorially exclusive statehood+23 The undermining of medieval structures of rule combined with the new possibilities suggested by mapping resulted in sovereign territorial statehood as we know it today+ This ideational effect of cartography explains why, in a period with a number of possible political structures, the particular model of the sovereign territorial state was implemented as 19+ Tilly 1992+ 20+ Spruyt 1994+ 21+ Ruggie 1993, 157+ 22+ Ibid, 159+ 23+ This builds on other studies that have drawn a connection between cartography and state for- mation: see Biggs 1999; Neocleous 2003; Steinberg 2005; and Strandsbjerg 2008+ the only legitimate form of rule+24 Functional efficiency alone does not explain this outcome, unique to the modern system of states+25 The fundamental character of the international system is structured by ideas and practices concerning political authority+26 For example, sovereignty is typically conceptualized in international relations as having internal and external aspects, both of which are constituted by the character of the authority that a state or ruler holds, claims, or is assigned+ Additionally, the functional dimension of sovereign authority ~the range of activities over which authority is claimed! can be distinguished from the constitutive dimension ~the principle by which actors claim “ultimate or final authority”!+27 The constitutive dimension is my focus because it differentiates the fundamental principle of sovereign authority across diverse international systems and historical periods+ I draw a distinction between spatial authorities ~territoriality! and those not defined spatially ~nonterritorial authorities!+ Within those categories, territoriality can vary in terms of how space is understood ~exclusive or overlapping, center- or boundary-focused!, and nonterritorial forms of authority range from personal authoritative bonds to authority over economic or social issues+28 These ideas structure the identities, interests, and behaviors of political actors because notions of what is politically appropriate or even conceivable will offer both constraints and incentives for particular actions+29 These norms constitute part of the structure of the international system—a structure that is unobservable in itself, but observable in its implications for actors’ ideas and practices+ In early-nineteenth-century Europe, rule came to be defined exclusively in terms of territories with boundaries between homogenous spatial authority claims+ My argument challenges theories that have pushed sovereign statehood back much further, seeing key aspects of sovereignty in the late Middle Ages,30 in the sixteenth century,31 or after the Westphalian settlement+32 These studies point toward the origins of certain aspects of statehood but do not explain the modern system’s exclusive reliance on territorial authority and linear boundaries to define states+ Defined broadly, states and state systems may have existed during many historical 24+ European colonial empires diverged from the model of sovereign states but—as will be discussed below—were built on a similar foundation of exclusively territorial authority defined by linear boundaries+ 25+ Contrary to Krasner’s argument that territorial rule can be explained solely as a practical, logicof-consequences choice by rulers from a repertoire of acceptable principles+ See Krasner 1993+ 26+ The basis of sovereignty and international structure in political authority is noted by, among others, Lake 2003 and 2009; Milner 1991; and Thomson 1994+ 27+ Thomson 1994, 14–15+ 28+ The variety within territorial and nonterritorial forms of authority is illustrated below, with regards to early modern Europe+ For the concepts in general, see Sahlins 1989; Ruggie 1993; Kratochwil 1986; and Sack 1986+ 29+ March and Olsen 1998+ 30+ Strayer 1970+ 31+ See Wight 1977; and Skinner 1978+ 32+ Philpott 2001 ~among many others!+ periods, including sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe+33 Yet on the key dimension of how political authorities are defined, claimed, and separated, modern territorial statehood is distinct and a historically recent arrival+...
[...]
...…to the imple- 8+ Adler 2005+ 9+ See Archer 1995; and Carlsnaes 1992+ 10+ For a variety of theorizations of international systems, see Bull 1977;Wight 1977;Waltz 1979; Ruggie 1993; Spruyt 1998; Reus-Smit 1999; Wendt 1999; and Buzan and Little 2000+ 11+ See, for example, Wight 1977; Waltz 1979;…...
[...]
...…see Bull 1977;Wight 1977;Waltz 1979; Ruggie 1993; Spruyt 1998; Reus-Smit 1999; Wendt 1999; and Buzan and Little 2000+ 11+ See, for example, Wight 1977; Waltz 1979; Gilpin 1981; Fischer 1992; Hall and Kratochwil 1993; Krasner 1993; Spruyt 1994; Hall 1999; and Osiander 2007+ 12+ McNeill 1982+…...
[...]
96 citations
Cites background from "Theory of International Politics"
...…this ‘status’, or identity does not allow for much differentiation between states, the unequal distribution of capabilities still leads to some states being ascribed ‘great power’ or ‘superpower’ identities (Mearsheimer 2001; Waltz 1979) while others are known as ‘middle powers’ or ‘small states’....
[...]
95 citations
95 citations
References
5,295 citations
4,969 citations
4,163 citations
2,922 citations