Netting the Empire: Relationships and US Roles Governing Small Arms and Military and Security Services

Abstract

The US roles in the governance trajectories of small arms and military and security services are puzzling traditional analyses. While the US was important in both, its behavior looks quite different in these two issues and defies the expectations of realist or liberal versions of hegemony as well as classic views of Empire. By examining the different patterns of relational ties with the US on these two issues, as well as the brokerage versus closure strategies of key nodes aiming to “net” the US, we can better explain these distinct governance dynamics. In the small arms issue, competing networks (for and against regulation) connected with the US using a closure logic. While pro-regulatory connections led the Clinton administration to interact with other states and intergovernmental organizations as a global leader to support regulation, anti-regulatory connections with the Bush administration led the US to interact with the same actors as a sovereign authority to frustrate governance efforts. In the private security service issue, however, a brokerage strategy by the Swiss government and the ICRC brought US regulators in contact with a broader array of state, sub-state, and non-state intermediaries on the basis of a wider variety of authority claims to enhance transnational governance. The US is a central and important actor but forming connections to shape US preferences and authority claims is an important avenue for those in an out of the US to influencing the direction of transnational security governance.