Journal Name: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific:
August 2001, Vol. 1, No. 2
ISSN: 1470-482X, Online ISSN: 1470-4838
Organizing hypocrisy and transforming sovereignty(pp167-172)
Takashi Inoguchi and Paul Bacon
Organized hypocrisy in nineteenth-century East Asia (pp173-197)
Stephen D. Krasner (Department of Political Science, Stanford University, USA and Fellow, 2000–2001, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Germany)
Every international system or society has a set of rules or norms that define appropriate behaviors. These norms are, however, never obeyed in an automatic fashion. Perhaps more than any other setting the international environment is characterized by organized hypocrisy. Actors violate rules in practice without at the same time challenging their legitimacy. In nineteenth-century East Asia this was true for countries embracing the European sovereign state system of formal equality and autonomy, and the Sinocentric Confucian system of hierarchy and dependency. The West imposed the treaty port system which violated the sovereign principle of non-intervention. China accommodated the West, tacitly jettisoning demands for ritual obeisance. Japan chose those principles that were most suitable for its material interests. Korea, however, dominated by a literati class whose position was associated with Confucian principles, failed to pursue policies that might have maintained Korean independence.
Globalization and the governance of space: a critique of Krasner on sovereignty (pp199-226)
Steve Smith (University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AA, Wales UK)
This paper examines the literature on the relationship between globalization and sovereignty, focusing on the arguments of Stephen Krasner as to the limited changes to this relationship represented by globalization. Contra Krasner, this paper argues that globalization represents a fundamental challenge to the way in which space is governed. The paper outlines three conceptual lenses through which to look at the governance of space: Foucault on social practices; critical politics and Henri Lefebvre; and R.B.J. Walker on sovereignty. It then discusses Krasner's recent book on sovereignty, and offers a series of criticisms of his argument, particularly in its treatment of the impact of globalization. This leads to a discussion of the three main interpretations of globalization: sceptical, hyperglobalist and transformationalist. The paper concludes by arguing for a transformationalist view of sovereignty and consequentially a view of its impact on sovereignty that is very different to that proposed by Krasner.
Sovereignty, globalization and transnational social movements (pp227-246)
Raimo Väyrynen (Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, USA)
Traditionally, sovereign states have been defined, in terms of their external and internal dimensions, as mutually exclusive territorial jurisdictions. Economic globalization is associated with the liberalization of the world economy, decreases in transaction costs, the development of communication technologies, and the emergence of transnational social and cultural spaces. These have eroded the divide between national and international systems and fostered the dispersal of power in social networks. As a result, it is unrealistic to define state sovereignty as a counterpose to the global system, as these phenomena have become mutually embedded. States and their sovereignty are not disappearing – on the contrary, they may be gaining new tasks and resources – but they cannot exercise their agentive power as effectively as before. This means that the internal dimension of state sovereignty has been transformed more thoroughly than the external one. This is in part due to the growth and proliferation of transnational social movements, which have also gained agentive power in national societies. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement, although it is unable to halt the process of economic integration, has been able to redefine the terms of the globalization debate and influence responses by national governments and international financial institutions.
The transformationalist perspective and the rise of a global standard of civilization (pp247-264)
Mehdi Mozaffari (Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark)
The ongoing process of globalization is transforming the world. States, the principal actors in international systems, are the privileged subjects of this transformation. State identities are changing and state sovereignties are challenged. Some scholars refer to this as a 'Grotian moment'. I argue that a meaningful analysis of contemporary international politics needs to consider seriously questions related to the identities of actors and the quality of anarchy. Furthermore, I argue that the rise of a 'global standard of civilization' reflects the transformation of the world and is affecting state sovereignty. Finally, I argue that only a truly democratic culture is able to construct durable, peaceful and generative co-operation.
On the Meiji Restoration: Japan's search for sovereignty? (pp265-283)
Masaru Kohno (School of International Politics, Economics and Business, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan)
It is generally taken for granted that the Meiji Restoration was a watershed event that incorporated Japan into the modern sovereign state system. This conventional wisdom is misleading. The Japanese political system that existed prior to the Meiji Restoration, the so-called Tokugawa Baku-Han regime, was comparable with many modern sovereign states in its exercise of public authority and its ability to control cross-border movements. Furthermore, as Krasner has shown, sovereignty itself is a problematic concept, the fundamental norms and principles of which are frequently violated. A case study of the 1862 incident known as Namamugi Jiken demonstrates how Japan was recognized and treated internationally, revealing that while some aspects of Japan's sovereignty were conveniently violated, other sovereignty norms were certainly respected by the Western nations. These norms constrained the range of choices available to the key actors involved in this incident and thus significantly affected the subsequent course of events, which ultimately led to Tokugawa's collapse in 1868. Hence, it was the complex (hypocritical) nature of Japan's existent sovereignty, and not its absence, that explains why the Meiji Restoration occurred the way it actually did.
Sovereignties: Westphalian, liberal and anti-utopian (pp285-304)
Takashi Inoguchi (Insitute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, Japan) and Paul Bacon (Faculty of Political Economy, Shumei University, Japan)
Sovereignty remains the key concept and principle according to which the world is ordered. But sovereignty is also a disputed concept and a contested social practice; it has come under fierce assault from a number of diverse sources. Sovereignty is paradoxical in nature and hypocritically practised. States have different empirical degrees and qualitative types of sovereignty, ranging from the merely formal to the substantial to the popular. States also have different dispositions towards sovereignty, and are liable to project their own in different ways in pursuit of conflicting objectives. Different groups of states attempt to impose their understandings and beliefs on the international system. There are three ideal types which help us to understand the issue of sovereignty and the interactions of sovereign states. These are respectively Westphalian, liberal and anti-utopian. The Westphalian paradigm has the maintenance and protection of state sovereignty as its key concept. The liberal paradigm is conceived in terms of the concept of popular sovereignty and controversies over the extent to which this ideal should be promoted and exported. The anti-utopian paradigm is conceived in terms of the concept of quasi-sovereignty or the loss of sovereignty, and in terms of resistance to attempts to impose globalization and liberal values on recalcitrant states and cultures.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (2001)
Copyright ©2001 Oxford University Press and the Japan Association of International Relations
(This journal is available online at: http://irap.oupjournals.org/)
Posted with permission from the publisher.