The Case of the Missing Hegemon

British Nonintervention in the American Civil War

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12273077
AutoresPeter Thompson (0000-0003-4661-6233, Loyola Marymount University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2007
Volumen16
Número1
Páginas96-132
Fecha de publicación2007-04-16
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSecurity Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0963-6412 • E-ISSN: 1556-1852
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/09636410701304572
OpenAlexW1993214805
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4

Balance of power theories have come roaring back into prominence in recent years as international relations theory grapples with new developments, including offshore balancing and soft balancing. Recent works demonstrate the importance of more than just the distribution of power, and have addressed the role that domestic politics plays in balancing. One overlooked aspect of this debate, with implications for offensive realism and the current discussion on the United States and soft balancing, is the role that nonintervention conventions play in decision making. British nonintervention during the American Civil War presents a case at odds with offensive realist theory, as Britain should have intervened to protect its national interests—cotton, trade, and shipping—while also restraining a regional hegemonic power. Domestic cleavages, democratic peace norms, and public opinion pressures do not sufficiently explain this behavior. Instead, this paper posits that nonintervention was a result of British adherence to precedents and conventions

Balance (ability · Democracy · Economics · Epistemology · Hegemony · International relations · Management · Odds · Offensive · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Realism · Sociology · Soft power · Spanish Civil War · American Constitutional Law and Politics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Psychology