Search

Despite having key implications for fundamental political science questions, slavery as a global phenomenon has received little attention in the field. We argue that slavery played an important role in state-building and international order formation. To counter a historical U.S./Atlantic bias, we draw evidence mostly from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. We identify two slave-based paths to state construction. A "slaves as the state" logic saw slave soldiers and administrators used to overcome the constraints of indirect rule in centralizing power. In a "slaves under the state" model the economy was based on slave production, itself underpinned by institutionalized state coercion. Norms often prohibited enslavement within communities, thus externalizing demand. This led to militarized slaving, and fostered increasingly long-distance trade in slaves. The combination of these normative, military, and commercial factors formed international slaving orders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00518.x Byline: J.C. Sharman (*) Abstract: Twenty years ago not a single country had a policy against money laundering; currently, over 170 have very similar anti-money laundering (AML) policies in place. Why have so many countries with so little in common adopted the same policy so rapidly? This extensive diffusion is particularly puzzling given the lack of evidence that AML policies actually work. In explaining the international spread of AML policies, this article draws on recent literature from International Relations, sociology, comparative politics, and public policy dealing with policy diffusion and policy transfer, but also differs from most of this work in two key aspects: First, it is argued that the process of diffusion in the developing world has been much more power-based than voluntary. Second, the mechanisms driving policy diffusion (direct coercion, mimicry, and competition) are all shown to be discursively mediated exercises of power, rather than reflecting rational learning or brute material forces. Evidence is drawn from surveys, interviews, and participant-observation in developing countries from three regions. Author Affiliation: (*)Griffith University

Much International Relations theory explains the dominance of the sovereign state within the international system by a process of competitive selection. By analogy, the selection effects of market competition in promoting better-adapted firms are said to illustrate the selection effects of security competition under anarchy in promoting better-adapted units, specifically sovereign states. In critiquing this analogy, the article argues instead that the historical diffusion and current dominance of sovereign states is better explained by a sociological institutionalist logic. Units secure social acceptance, and incidentally survival, through conformity to promote legitimacy. This position is justified on three grounds. First, survival and violent elimination from the international system over the last two centuries are unrelated to military capacity, but highly correlated with legitimacy. Second, selection-by-learning rests on a series of highly demanding and unrealistic assumptions; the sociological alternative requires much less heroic assumptions. Finally, a qualitative study of micro-states, most-likely cases for competitive elimination, demonstrates their attempts to conform to idealized templates of the modern state. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The growing body of literature on hierarchy in international relations has overlooked instances of contemporary imperial governance. These imperial arrangements constitute a strong test of rationalist contractual theories of hierarchy. They support the contention that some polities will eschew sovereign prerogatives, or even renounce sovereignty altogether. Contrary to historical instances of empire, current dependencies receive prominent material benefits from the continuation of their relationship with the metropole. But the failure of the metropoles to obtain equivalent benefits shows why contractual scholarship on hierarchy is incomplete in failing to incorporate logics of appropriateness. Thus the primary theoretical goal of the article is to show that such scholarship is right in claiming that there is more to the international system than just sovereign-like units under anarchy, but also that it is too narrow in seeking to explain all instances of hierarchy as mutually beneficial bargains. Evidence is taken from fieldwork and interviews in dependencies of the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this research note, the authors briefly report the results of an exercise measuring the relative research performance of Australian universities in the field of international relations (IR). The findings are based on counting articles in the leading journals in the field, as determined by the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) journal ranking. The authors also present the number of IR scholars in each university according to a 2011 survey. Three issues are addressed: the logic of journal rankings, especially in light of the decision to drop these from the ERA exercise; the method by which the data was compiled; and a discussion of the findings. These results build on and update those reported earlier for the broader discipline of political science, extending to the period 2003–11. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the literatures on policy transfer and policy diffusion are complimentary, but need to focus more clearly on five key issues drawing insights from both literatures. First, work in each area can benefit from a greater focus on the changing interactions between the various mechanisms involved in diffusion/transfer. Second, the diffusion literature privileges structure, while the transfer literature privileges agency, but we need an approach which recognizes the dialectical relationship between the two. Third, the diffusion literature concentrates on pattern-finding, while the transfer literature examines process-tracing, but any full explanation of transfer/diffusion needs to do both. Fourth, both literatures suffer from skewed case selection with, in particular, too little attention paid to developing countries. Finally, while both literatures need to be interested in whether diffusion/transfer is likely to be successful/unsuccessful, neither considers any criteria that might be used to establish policy success and failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses the global profile of Australian International Relations (IR) scholarship by measuring the presence of Australian-based scholars in leading journals and presses, relative to other non-US scholars. It presents three alternative conclusions, depending on the benchmark adopted. The first perspective, low impact, suggests that on the basis of publications in top journals, Australian IR scholars are doing a bad job, that is, Australian scholars have a much smaller presence in leading journals than could reasonably be expected. The second view, a bookish lot, is based on publication in leading book presses, and presents a much more positive picture. The third alternative, a very British affair, concludes that according to both journal and book data Australian scholars are notable for their disproportionate representation in British rather than American publication outlets. These claims are supported with publication data from top outlets over the past decade as determined by Australian and international rankings. [image omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional wisdom maintains that since 1648 the international system has comprised states-as-like units endowed with Westphalia sovereignty under anarchy. And while radical globalization theorists certainly dispute the centrality of the state in modern world politics, nevertheless most assume that the state retains its sovereignty under globalization. In contrast we argue that hierarchical sub-systems (and hence unlike units) have been common since 1648, and that the international system continues to be characterized by hierarchical (as well as anarchic) relations. The article goes on to reveal the existence of these multiple hierarchic formations and uncovers the differing social logics connected with identity-formation processes that govern their reproduction. Successive religious, racial, socialist and democratic social logics not only constitute their reproduction, but the emergence of new norms, social ideas and identities have to an important extent accounted for the rise and decay of successive hierarchies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]