The role of international authority in lake's hierarchical "scheme" of world politics

Vladimir Ajzenhamer
{"title":"The role of international authority in lake's hierarchical \"scheme\" of world politics","authors":"Vladimir Ajzenhamer","doi":"10.2298/medjp1903311a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role\n and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it\n comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper,\n we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which\n in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from\n the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the\n concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the\n fundamental pillars of Lake's theory of hierarchy in international\n relations. Comparing the content of Lake's concept of authority with\n different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily\n those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake's\n interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude\n that Lake?s theory can be characterized as \"non-canonical\" rethinking of\n world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and\n subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on\n voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake's theory, and at the same time\n represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the\n force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that\n humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the\n anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this\n context, Lake's study indicates that reality is something completely\n different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to\n benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of\n authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to\n explain Lake's view on world politics, and why his findings on authority,\n subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of\n economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for\n every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international\n relations.","PeriodicalId":316095,"journal":{"name":"Medjunarodni problemi","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medjunarodni problemi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/medjp1903311a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper, we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the fundamental pillars of Lake's theory of hierarchy in international relations. Comparing the content of Lake's concept of authority with different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake's interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude that Lake?s theory can be characterized as "non-canonical" rethinking of world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake's theory, and at the same time represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this context, Lake's study indicates that reality is something completely different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to explain Lake's view on world politics, and why his findings on authority, subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international relations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际权威在世界政治等级体系中的作用
虽然关于权力在世界政治中的作用和重要性,不同的理论方法很容易达成一致,但在权力的定义上,甚至缺乏基本的共识。本文分析了戴维·莱克关于权力的理论解释,其概念范围和对国际秩序的解释偏离了国际关系领域已有的理论轨迹。我们关注权威作为一种国际权力形式的概念,这是莱克国际关系等级理论的基本支柱之一。将莱克权威概念的内容与不同的国际权力理论解释(主要是之前的理论解释)进行比较,我们强调了莱克对国际体系结构解释的理论优势。我们的结论是莱克?在某种程度上,S的理论可以被描述为对世界政治的“非规范”反思。不依赖于强制,也不依赖于对武力的恐惧,而是依赖于自愿同意的优越和从属关系,构成了莱克理论的支柱,同时也代表了其最知名和最有争议的部分。对武力的征服通常被解读为人类历史上黑暗的一章,在20世纪下半叶反殖民运动的兴起和成功之后,人类似乎轻蔑地关闭了这一章。在这种背景下,Lake的研究表明现实是完全不同的。为了从中受益,前殖民地仍然同意处于从属地位,但今天是自愿的。通过分析他的权威概念,并将其与其他权力概念进行比较,我们试图解释莱克对世界政治的看法,以及为什么他在经济和安全领域关于权威、从属、优势和国际等级的发现是每个对当代国际关系研究感兴趣的学者不可避免的理论目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The roots of the idea of humanitarian intervention in De Iure Belli ac Pacis by Hugo Grotius The prospects of U.S.-Russian relations in the light of war in Ukraine: “Containment 2.0.” The sword of Damocles in global stability China’s 21st century geopolitics and geo-economics: An evidence from the Western Balkans The crisis of democracy in Eastern Europe: (un)successful political integration of new members?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1