Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 27 items :

  • International Relations x
  • Political Geography and Geopolitics x
  • Politics and Public Policy x
  • International Politics x
  • Chapters/Articles x
Clear All Modify Search
This content is available to you

Michael C. LaBelle

This content is available to you

Michael C. LaBelle

This content is available to you

Michael C. LaBelle

This content is available to you

Silvana Bartoletto

You do not have access to this content

Silvana Bartoletto

You do not have access to this content

Nengye Liu

Henry Kissinger, in his book World Order, describes order as: “The concept held by a region or civilization about the nature of just arrangements and the distribution of power thought to be applicable to the entire world” (Kissinger, 2015: 9). The United States of America, together with its Western allies, constructed the existing rules-based order that has governed the world since the Second World War. International law is at the core of the rules-based international order (Scott, 2017). However, who determines the law-making agenda and the allocation of resources to law-making is crucial for the development of international law (Boyle and Chinkin, 2007). That is to say, shifting power within the international community may eventually materialize in changing international law. It is therefore very interesting to observe the rise of Asian powers, especially China, and its implications for the future of global governance

This content is available to you

Edited by Chih Y. Woon and Klaus Dodds

This content is available to you

Edited by Jens Bartelson, Martin Hall and Jan Teorell

You do not have access to this content

Ellen Ravndal

From their establishment in the nineteenth century, international (intergovernmental) organizations (IOs) have been intimately linked to both international and domestic aspects of state making. This chapter examines non-European IO membership in the nineteenth century and argues that joining an IO could strengthen a state’s claim to statehood in two ways. First, IOs provided an arena of international politics where non-European states could participate on the basis of formal sovereign equality with the European great powers. Second, joining IOs and implementing their agreements on postal services, telegraphs, intellectual property, and other new technologies and government services, further offered a way for non-European states to prove that they were doing what ‘modern’ states were supposed to do. IO membership thus offered the possibility for non-European states both to gain international recognition as sovereign equals, and a means for them to display their progress in extending their domestic jurisdiction within their territories. The chapter problematizes the Westphalian unilinear view of state making, as well as the English school expansion thesis, by examining the agency of non-European entities and how their decisions to join IOs both strengthened individual states’ claims to statehood, and contributed to changes in international society.

You do not have access to this content

Jens Bartelson and Jan Teorell

In this concluding chapter, we first provide a thematic summary of the contributions to this volume from the perspective of their temporal and geographical de-centering. We then explore in more depth how they address three key challenges in the literature on state making: how to (1) conceptualize the state; (2) theorize state making; and (3) how to bridge comparative and international perspectives. We conclude by sketching the contours of a new emerging agenda for research on states and their making. In brief, we argue for the need to conceptualize the state as both a materialist and ideational variable; not only to theorize war-centric but also other drivers of state making; and for taking a historical perspective.