Search

Copyright of Canadian Foreign Policy Journal (CFPJ) is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article focuses on the intersection of rising powers, competition for status, and the extent to which governance is influenced by such elements. Despite extensive scholarly attention to these concepts, contestation regarding the classification of state powers, the exact role status plays, and the consequences that can exist when it comes to global and regional forms of governance continues. We contend that the majority of states within this project have effectively risen, with some potentially still rising (from one grouping to another), while two countries, Iran and Turkey, are considered at best rising, but with uncertain trajectories. It remains unclear how they may rise sufficiently to become influential as 'rising' powers in the current state of international politics. We argue as well that the impact of status seeking on global governance is highly variable and, depending on the status seeking strategy chosen, may not exacerbate conflicts between rising powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extant work on status attribution has largely focused on major powers or state capabilities as key explanatory factors driving these social processes and suggests that status considerations increase conflicts between states. We argue for a more comprehensive approach to status attribution that considers international norms as another major factor that is weighed in the attribution process. We contend that states (policymakers) evaluate one another not only on the basis of economic and military capabilities but also on the extent to which there is behavioral conformance with normative expectations and reward one another dependent upon whether these expectations are met. However, this attribution of status is dependent upon the level of contestation pertaining to that norm. Using a data set that assesses consistency with six different norms (resource transference, multilateralism, economic liberalism, democratic governance, respect for human rights, and peaceful dispute resolution), we find that status attribution is associated with norm-consistent behavior but only when these norms are uncontested at the global level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work probes the variability in G7 cohesion in response to relatively new disturbances in the international system. Using a domestic politics model, we argue that G7 cohesion weakens in the face of international terrorism in the context of variable domestic consequences to common foreign policy responses to this systemic disturbance. We compare the predictions from our model with predictions stemming from neorealist and liberal/institutionalist explanations. We find that, consistent with the domestic politics explanation, G7 foreign policy cohesion declines as internal terrorism increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine two concepts associated with hegemonic strength: relational versus structural capabilities. We develop a measurement strategy for each, and test the salience of each for status inconsistency, frequency of wars and crises, and the incidence of terrorism in the international system. The tests correspond to our predictions regarding the relative salience of each concept for understanding the importance of hegemonic strength in the international system. We explore the implications of these findings for the emerging world order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research focuses on a relatively unique approach to the study of international terrorism: systemic explanations of terrorist activity. Using the post-1945 world of international politics, the research explores the extent to which fluctuations in hegemonic capabilities, acceptance of hegemonic leadership, bipolar conflict, bipolar balance, and contagion effects can account for variation in international terrorist activity. Five hypotheses are tested, using five different measures of the dependent variable The results consistently underscore the importance of systemic approaches, and especially that of the diminution of hegemonic capabilities, as salient contextual considerations for a comprehensive explanation of international terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]