Donnelly: Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society

Donnelly, Jack. (2006). "Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society". European Journal Of International Relations, 12(2), 139-170. http://www.csa.com/ids70/gateway.php?mode=pdf&doi=10.1177%2F1354066106064505&db=sagepol-set-c&s1=80ee883868977a98ef5390896262f864&s2=aba9bbf7ab98695f11b9924f219fa0de

“I focus on multiple forms of hierarchy in anarchy and diverse practices of sovereign inequality — concepts that most mainstream perspectives ignore, find paradoxical, or even dismiss as selfcontradictory” (139).

Donnelly argues in this piece that most current understandings of US power and empire are lacking. He deploys an approach that seeks to examine a more nuanced view of international society, one that allows for hierarchy to exist in international anarchy and one that sees sovereign states as not always participating with the same bundle of basic rights. He is also critical of views of American empire, which tend to lightly gloss over important traditional definitions and understandings that emphasize rule over others.

He begins by tracing out the etymology of the word empire and finding that it is derived from the Latin “imperium”, which was translated into the Greek arche (rule). Initially, this was used to describe the Roman republic as it moved away from its earlier republic status.
He claims that we still need the concept: “But we still need ‘empire’ to describe an extensive polity incorporating diverse, previously independent units, ruled by a dominant central polity” (140). His definition of empire requires a central rule over previously autonomous international agents and states. He dismisses the Hardt and Negri empire account as missing the broader point derived from the original meaning.

Waltz then makes an appearance in this text. Donnelly highlights Waltz’s account of hierarchy and anarchy operating as ordering principles. Instead, Donnelly claims that we should not focus on hierarchy or anarchy, but rather that we should be looking for hierarchy in anarchy. Also, he claims that Waltz is formally wrong in that he identifies hierarchy as being the opposite of anarchy, when it is really archy, or rule.

The nature of the distinction between hierarchy and anarchy is then explored. Waltz’s approach presents hierarchy and anarchy as being polar opposites. This, Donnelly claims, is empirically false and problematic. Firstly, hierarchy is not the opposite of anarchy, but rather its opposite is archy, or simply rule/governance. Donnelly explores a domestic government situation to make a comparison: the congress is not subordinate to the executive branch, though there is hierarchy in different realms. There is hierarchy, but clearly there is not rule.

He then creates a 2x2 quadrant that examines the current realities of empire. The x axis is authority, whether it is coordinated or not. The y axis is system polarity. The highly coordinated authority and low polarity system represents an empire like Rome/Athens. The highly coordinated multi-polarity, in Donnelly’s example, the Concert of Rome, represents a situation that is similar to the current US relation vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

Different forms of sovereign inequality are examined in order to make a clear distinction between un-equal measures and international arrangements from empire. There have been myriad cases and examples of nations that did not enjoy fully sovereign status. These nations were not able to exercise the same amount of sovereign rights as were fully sovereign nations. However, this does not signify that these nations were being fully controlled by the more fully sovereign nations. Instead, this simply signified that there was international inequality.

There is then an examination of the typological movement from hegemony to domination to empire. There is much in this section detailing different possible characteristics of international society. In terms of an overview of possible international systems, it is quite helpful.

Donnelly then examines the recent war in Iraq with an eye towards the arguments that it involves an exercise of empirical powers. He finds that the justification for the war relied on standard non-proliferation discussions, though they were followed up with physical intervention, which has not been the norm. This could simply represent a change in the international regime of non-proliferation from a static, sanction imposition institution to one with more teeth and more propensity for action. Additionally, some critics of US policy in Iraq point to the Coalition of the Willing as an example of US empiric powers. This is simply false, as, while some nations were bribed and broadly coerced, none were ruled or directed to join. This is not an example of empirical rule, but simply hegemonic dominance and coercion. Regional control is another metric used to evaluate the degree of empirical power by some, but Iraq is again a poor example of this. The US is unable to gain influence in this region to really any degree, as this can be seen by Syria and Iran’s explicit refusal to bow to US interest. Most interestingly, this lack of influence can be seen in Iraq’s refusal to support the US in its policy towards Israel. This is not an empire, but a materially rich, ideationally weak nation trying to impose its will upon others with limited success.