“Is America an empire in fact or in the making? This article attempts to elaborate the conceptual resources required to answer such questions. 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 self-contradictory” (139).
Empire in history: began through Roman usage, taken from a Greek word approximating rule. Adapted in the middle ages to create a separation between the power of the pope and the king. Empire: “…an extensive polity incorporating diverse, previously independent units, ruled by a dominant central polity” (140).
Donnelly’s focus is highlighting traditional core-periphery polities, not exploring the more distinct and recent discussion of empire, for example, that of Hardt and Negri.
Hierarchy in Anarchy:
Waltz presents hierarchy and anarchy as dichotomous. “Rather than thinking of anarchy or hierarchy we should attend instead to hierarchy in anarchy” (141).
Figure 1: (143).
All quadrants except the bottom right are in anarchy.
“Confusion over hierarchy is exacerbated by the common association of anarchy with sovereign equality. As Waltz puts it, ‘formally, each is the equal of all others’ (1979: 88). Even David Lake, who is particularly sensitive to elements o hierarchy in international relations, equates anarchy with sovereign equality, describing ‘anarchic institutions’ as ‘those premised upon the full sovereignty of all members’ (2001: 130)” (144).
Historical account of the transformation and growth of sovereignty. Practices such as outlaw states, semi-sovereignty (servitudes, imperfect unions, financial controls, etc.) formal and informal inequalities, etc.
10 models of hierarchy in anarchy: balance of power, protection/guarantee, concert, collective security, hegemony, dominion, empire, pluralistic security, common security and amalgamated security (See Figure 2) (154).
“Contemporary America is indeed something of a colossus…It is not, however an empire” (157).
“Iraq can be read as a fairly conventional exercise in Quadrant III unipolar balance of power politics; self-help by the biggest ‘self’ on the block, without any special (formal or informal) rights” (159). “…consider the controversy over Guantanamo, which has appeared prominently in many arguments of American imperialism. In fact, it shows Quadrant III unipolar unilateralism. Empires set the rules. They do not need to assert awkward, implausible and almost universally rejected expectations for themselves. A state that cannot obtain widespread endorsement of its preferred international norms ins not an empire. A state that can’t even get grudging acquiescence by its leading ‘allies’ is not even much of a hegemon” (160).
