Search

Opportunities for dialogue between scholars who perceive of themselves as 'international relations theorists' and those with area expertise are rare (in part, because those of us who lack regional expertise [...]

When Right Makes Might: Rising Powers and World Order. By Stacie Goddard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2018. Twilight of the Titans: Great Power Decline and Retrenchment. By Paul MacDonald and [...]

What is the relationship between insularity—a state's separation from other states via large bodies of water—and expansion? The received wisdom, prominent in (though not exclusive to) realist theories, holds that insularity constrains expansion by making conquest difficult. We contend, by contrast, that this received wisdom faces important limits. Focusing on U.S. expansion via means short of conquest, we interrogate the underlying theoretical logics to demonstrate that insular powers enjoy two distinct advantages when it comes to expansion. First, insularity translates into a "freedom to roam": because insular powers are less threatened at home, they can project more power and influence abroad. Second, insularity "sterilizes" power, which explains why insular powers are seen as attractive security providers and why we do not see more counterbalancing against them. On net, existing scholarship is correct to argue that insularity impedes conquest between great powers. Still, it has missed the ways that insularity abets expansion via spheres of influence abroad. One consequence is an under-appreciation for the role of geography writ large and insularity in particular in shaping contemporary great power behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2020.13, published by Cambridge University Press, 19 August 2020. In the initial publication of the introduction to this review roundtable (Shifrinson and Haggard 2020), the name of scholar Yan Xuetong [...]

As researcher Emma Ashford rightly puts it, spheres are thus "a measure of the practical limitations of a state's power and political influence."[3] Finally, and related to the preceding, states can still pass judgement on and respond to another great power's bad behavior within its sphere. Dominant states can shape the foreign policy of subordinate states in ways that suit their security and economic interests.[25] At the same time, managing a sphere ties up resources and attention in a state's near abroad. Rather, the hallmark of spheres is that a single great power has primary influence; it is the leading - though not necessarily sole - power in an area.[6] Hence, while leading powers may tolerate some limited involvement from other great powers within a sphere in areas such as trade or cultural outreach, they draw the line at actions that would significantly impact the foreign policy of subordinate states. Not only did this help protect the newly independent states within the sphere from being recolonized by European great powers - albeit at the cost of American dominance - it also reduced potential points of friction between the United States and those great powers. [Extracted from the article]