Violations of Sovereignty and Regime Engineering

A Critique of the State Theory of Stephen Krasner

Bibliographic Data

ID6235026
AuthorsT Moore (0000-0003-2973-019X, University of Newcastle Australia, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume44
Issue3
Pages497-511
Publication date2009-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1036-1146 • E-ISSN: 1363-030X
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10361140903067268
OpenAlexW2012084904
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited39

With the publication of his 1999 book Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, and a welter of other publications on sovereignty, Krasner has represented a dominating voice in the recent resurgence of sovereignty discourse. Krasner's intricate discussions of international relations (IR) and US foreign policy have overshadowed the theoretical weaknesses of his account of sovereignty itself, leading to accusations by critics such as Amitav Acharya of ‘disorganised hypocrisy’. This paper investigates both the content of his policy prescriptions for the State Department, of which he was a part from 2005 to 2007, and the thin account of sovereignty in his works, and demonstrates a possible relationship between the two. It also seeks to situate his position, as a neorealist with some liberal institutionalist tendencies,1 1Krasner is described by Donnelly (1995 Donnelly, J. 1995. “‘Realism and the Academic Study of International Relations.’”. In Political Science in History – Research Programs and Political Traditions, Edited by: Farr, J., Dryzek, J. S. and Leonard, S. T. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar], 193) as ‘the leading young neorealist’ of the 1970s in a passage that stresses the closeness of neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Neorealists are supportive of the leading liberal institutions, such as the WTO and IMF. Liberal institutionalists can be very close to neorealism, and for example Joseph Nye's idea of ‘soft power’ (Nye 2004 Nye, J. S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) questions the neo-conservative policy of unilateralism but does not dispute ideas of power asymmetries that make US dominance conceivable. The warm acceptance of selected global institutions (WTO, World Bank) by leading neoliberal political economists has further confused this distinction. within the larger debate on sovereignty in IR. It is argued that Krasner does not satisfactorily resolve the contradictions between sovereignty and extended transitional administrations or similar arrangements, especially the regime established by the US in Iraq

Epistemology · Foreign policy · Hypocrisy · International relations · International relations theory · Law and economics · Neorealism (international relations · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Realism · Sociology · Sovereignty · State (computer science · Transatlantic relations · Unilateralism · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Development and Aid · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub