Abstract
AbstractWhile structural models of empire have recently re-emerged in the theoretical debates in the field of International Relations, a lack of attention has been paid to peripheral actors therein. This is particularly true for the analysis of the peripheries’ relations with polities outside the imperial structure of which the peripheries are a part. In this article, I build a framework to better understand how these extra-imperial ties are translated into peripheral positional power. This framework is constructed on the basis of three core arguments. First, to theorise peripheral power, peripheries need to be positioned in networks outside the imperial structure. Second, the positional power of peripheries depends on the quality of the ties they have to external actors. Peripheries with dense and exclusive ties to external actors are more powerful than those with only sparse and non-exclusive ties. Third, from the different combinations of density and exclusivity arise not only variations in positional power, but also the likely strategies that are engaged in forming alliances with external actors. These logics are illustrated through the study of two cases of the diplomacy of decolonisation: the American Revolutionary War and the Angolan War of Independence.
Highlights
How do peripheral actors, entangled in hierarchical webs, enhance their relative power vis-à-vis the core? This has become an important question as the academic field of International Relations (IR) has recognised the importance of moving beyond the ‘states under anarchy’ framework, and as imperial and other hierarchical relationships have emerged as important analytical foci.1 This article focuses not on the hierarchical structure of empire in general, but on the peripheral units’ position therein and the political strategies they wage when they challenge the control and authority of imperial metropoles.2 When they, in other words, engage in contentious politics.3In these situations, peripheral power comes to the fore
While structural models of empire have recently re-emerged in the theoretical debates in the field of International Relations, a lack of attention has been paid to peripheral actors therein
The positional power of peripheries depends on the quality of the ties they have to external actors
Summary
How do peripheral actors, entangled in hierarchical webs, enhance their relative power vis-à-vis the core? This has become an important question as the academic field of International Relations (IR) has recognised the importance of moving beyond the ‘states under anarchy’ framework, and as imperial and other hierarchical relationships have emerged as important analytical foci. This article focuses not on the hierarchical structure of empire in general, but on the peripheral units’ position therein and the political strategies they wage when they challenge the control and authority of imperial metropoles. When they, in other words, engage in contentious politics.. While some relational studies of empire have noted the importance of ties to actors outside the imperial structure, they are yet to be explored in detail Both Alexander Motyl and Daniel Nexon, for instance, discuss – albeit briefly – the role of foreign assistance.. He does not delineate how variations in these ties matter: neither the quality (that is, weak or dense) of the ties themselves nor to whom they connect are brought into his analysis These two factors, I would argue, are crucial to understand the positional power of imperial peripheries, and their capacity to acquire external assistance. I will probe the utility of this theoretical framework by analysing two case studies: the American Revolution and the Angolan War of Independence.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
