Abstract
A sphere of influence is a determinate region within which a single external power exerts a predominant influence, which limits the independence or freedom of action of political entities within it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
See G.W. Rutherford, ‘Spheres of influence: an aspect of semi-suzerainty’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 20, no.2 (1926) pp. 300–25.
G.N. Curzon, Frontiers, The Romanes Lecture 1907 (London: Clarendon, 1907) p. 42.
G.N. Curzon, Russia in Central Asia in 1889 and the Anglo-Russian Question (London: Frank Cass, 1967) p. 326.
Sir Charles Lucas, The Partition and Colonization of Africa (Oxford: Clarendon, 1922) p. 97.
M.F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969; repr from 1926 ed) p. 209.
F.D. Lugard, The Dual Mandate (London: Blackwood, 1923) p. 12.
J. Scott-Keltie, The Partition of Africa (London: Edward Stanford, 1893) p. 267.
Hannis Taylor, A Treatise on International Law (Chicago: Callaghan, 1901) p. 271.
L. Oppenheim, International Law: a Treatise (London: Longmans Green, 1947), vol. 1, p. 513.
J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: a Study (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972) and
V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, A Popular Outline (New York: International Publishers, 1977) p. 119.
J. Joll, Europe Since 1870, An International History (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976) p. 89.
A.J.P. Taylor, Germany’s First Bid for Colonies 1884–1885: a Move in Bismarck’s European Policy (London: Macmillan, 1938) p. 6.
The New Cambridge Modern History, ed. by F.H. Hinsley (Cambridge University Press, 1962) vol. XI, p. 607. See also R. Robinson and J. Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians — The Official Mind of Imperialism (London: Macmillan, 1970).
E. Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty (London: Frank Cass, 1967), reprinted from the 1896 third edition, vol. III, p. 868, and British and Foreign State Papers, 1885–1886 (London: William Ridgway, 1893) vol. LXXVII, p. 1049.
E.L. Evans, The British in Tropical Africa, An Historical Outline (Cambridge University Press, 1929) p. 143.
R.A. Falk, ‘Zone II as a world order construct’, in J.N. Rosenau, V. Davis and M.A. East, The Analysis of International Politics, Essays in honour of Harold and Margaret Sprout (New York: The Free Press, 1972) pp. 189–90.
J.E. Schrecker, Imperialism and Chinese Nationalism, Germany in Shantung (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971) p. 33.
It was not merely that the sovereignty of so-called backward peoples was denied; in important cases they were regarded as being entirely beyond the pale of international law. The American envoy, Caleb Cushing, argued that as China did not recognize the ‘law of nations’, civilized states need not be bound by legal considerations in their dealings with China. See Tyler Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1941) p. 164.
B.E.C. Dugdale, Arthur James Balfour (London: Hutchinson, 1936) vol. 1, pp. 250–1.
G.F. Hudson, The Far East in World Politics (Oxford University Press, 1945) p. 105.
L.K. Young, British Policy in China, 1895–1902 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) p. 78.
Martin Wight, Power Politics (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1949) pp. 50–1.
Alistair Lamb, Asian Frontiers (Melbourne: Cheshire, 1968) pp. 1–2.
Frederick Jackson Turner, ‘The significance of the frontier in American history’, in Frontier and Section: Selected Essays of Frederick Jackson Turner (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961) p. 39.
A.J. Toynbee, A Study of History, abridgement by D.G. Somervell (London: Oxford University Press, 1962) pp. 111–12 and p. 116.
On the distinction between frontiers and boundaries, see Ladis D. Kristof, ‘The nature of frontiers and boundaries’ in W.A. Douglas Jackson (ed.), Politics and Geographic Relationships (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964) pp. 134–44. Kristof points out that whereas ‘frontier’ is not a legal concept ‘boundary’ is, in that boundaries define the legal territorial limits of sovereign states.
H. Duncan Hall, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship (London: Stevens, 1948) p. 3.
D.C.M. Platt, Finance, Trade, and Politics in British Foreign Policy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) pp. 220–4.
For Persia, see also F. Kazemzadeh, Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864–1914 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).
H.A. Gibbons, An Introduction to World Politics (New York: Century, 1923) p. 182.
Copyright information
© 1983 Paul Ernest Keal
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keal, P. (1983). The Term and Its Use. In: Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06224-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06224-9_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-06226-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06224-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)