Advertisement

Sovereignty American Style: Protecting Apple Pie, Fixing Foreign Recipes

  • Jeffrey W. Legro
Part of the Asia Today book series (ASIAT)

Abstract

Sovereignty is an idea that states hold about authority and autonomy over their own polity and others’ polities. How leaders think about their sovereignty and that of other states helps shape international cooperation and conflict. To the extent that a country is willing to cut deals that might somehow limit its autonomy or freedom of decision making, cooperation becomes possible. Highly defensive attitudes toward sovereignty and extreme nationalism can be harbingers of conflict.1 Understanding how and why the United States thinks about sovereignty offers insights into American foreign policy and the potential for future US-China conflict and collaboration.

Keywords

United States Foreign Policy International Criminal Court Military Intervention American Foreign Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See, for example, Janice E. Thomson, “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1995): 213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations andthe Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
  4. Robert Keohane, “Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4 (2002): 761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Efforts to address this question with regard to particular issues include Rosemary Foot, S. Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno, eds., US Hegemony and International Organizations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrew Moravcsik, “The Paradox of US Human Rights Policy,” in Michael Ignatieff, ed., American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 147–197.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929–39 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973)Google Scholar
  8. G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 9Google Scholar
  10. Robert Jackson, Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea (Cambridge, UK: Polity 2007)Google Scholar
  11. F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    Alex J. Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities (Cambridge: Polity, 2009).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    John M. Owen IV, The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510–2010 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    For a sense of how the ebb and flow of this debate and how the emergence of dominant ideas occurs on issues of centralized government, see Aaron Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America’s Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2000), 18–33Google Scholar
  15. Jeffrey W. Legro, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Lipset, American Exception alism and Samuel Huntington, American Politics: Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abraham D. Sofaer, War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power: The Origins (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976)Google Scholar
  18. Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace 1955)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: the American Encounter with the World Since 1776 (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 38Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    They were of course far from idealists in pursuing their goals. See Norman Graebner, “The Pursuit of Interests and a Balance of Power,” in Dennis Merrill and Thomas G. Paterson, eds., Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, vol. 2, Since 1914, 5th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 23–26.Google Scholar
  21. Robert Kagan, Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 112–126.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gordon Silverstein, Imbalance of Powers: Constitutional Interpretation and the Making of American Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press 1997)Google Scholar
  23. Andrew Moravcsik, “Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist?” in Shepard Forman and Stewart Patrick, eds., The Cost of Acting Alone: Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001), 350–352Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    John Ikenberry has termed this strategy “self-binding.” See G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See Jeffrey W. Legro, “Whence American Internationalism,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Spring 2000): 253–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 28.
    Stewart Patrick, The Best Laid Plans: The Origins of American Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold War (Lanham, MD: Rowman 8c Littiefield, 2008), xxvii.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Quoted in Edward Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization, 1991–1999 (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1999), 41.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    See Peter J. Spiro, “The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and its False Prophets,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 79, No. 6 (November/December 2000): 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harold Hongju Koh, “Bringing International Law Home,” Houston Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall 1998): 623–681Google Scholar
  30. Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, The Limits of International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Mark Philip Bradley, “The Ambiguities of Sovereignty: The United States and the Global Human Rights Cases of the 1940s and 1950s,” in Douglas Howland and Luise White, eds., The State of Sovereignty: Territories, Laws, Populations (Bloomington IN: University of Indiana Press, 2008), 125–132.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Diane Orentlicher, “Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court,” Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 415 (2004): 415–433.Google Scholar
  33. 39.
    John Gerard Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global. Governance,” in Michael Ignatieff, ed., American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  34. 42.
    Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 45.
    Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the World-Wide Struggle for Democracy (expanded edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mark Peceny, Democracy at the Point of Bayonets (State College, PA: Penn State University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  37. 46.
    Michael Krenn, The Color of Empire: Race and American Foreign Relations (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2006).Google Scholar
  38. Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism & U.S. Imperialism 1865–1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  39. 48.
    Samuel Barkin and Bruce Cronin, “The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 48 (Winter 1994): 107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2003).Google Scholar
  41. 49.
    Richard E. Welch, Jr., Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1898–1902 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987)Google Scholar
  42. 52.
    James Sofka, “American Neutral Rights Reappraised: Identity or Interest in the Foreign Policy of the Early Republic,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 26 (2000): 599–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mlada Bukovansky, “American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812,” International Organization, Vol. 51 (1997): 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 53.
    For example, the United States intervened abroad to protect the commerce of its ships or its citizens (or exact retribution for attacks thereupon), such as in the Barbar y wars or during unsettled political periods often involving physical violence in foreign countries. These interventions tended to be in Latin America, East Asia and the Pacific Islands, and North Africa. Richard F. Grimmett, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2009, RL32170 (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service Library of Congressjanuary 27, 2010), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf (accessed May 25, 2011).Google Scholar
  45. 54.
    George B. Young, “Intervention under the Monroe Doctrine: The Olney Corollary,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2 (1942): 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 57.
    Gregory F. Treverton, Covert Action: The Limits of Intervention in the Postwar World (New York: Basic Books, 1987)Google Scholar
  47. John Prados, Presidents’ Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II through the Persian Gulf (Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1996).Google Scholar
  48. 58.
    Alex J. Bellamy, “The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On,” Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 24 (2010): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 64.
    Suisheng Zhao, A Nation State by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  50. 65.
    Richard F. Grimmett, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2009, RL32170 (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service Library of Congress January 27, 2010). http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf (accessed May 25, 2011).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© G. John Ikenberry, Wang Jisi, and Zhu Feng 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey W. Legro

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations