Intervention and the ordering of the modern world

I am lead editor of a special issue of the Review of International Studies, which is the house journal of the British International Studies Association. The special issue arose from a competitive process. I am scheduled to have two pieces in this issue.This introductory discussion establishes the notion of intervention as a ‘social practice’ and carves out the contextual and conceptual space for the special issue as a whole. The first move is to recontextualise intervention in terms of ‘modernity’ as distinct from the sovereign states system. This shift enables a better appreciation of the dynamic and evolutionary context that generates variation in the practice of intervention over time and space and which is more analytically sensitive to the economic and cultural (as well as Great Power) hierarchies that generate rationales for intervention. The second move is to reconceptualise intervention as a specific modality of coercion relatively well-suited to the regulation or mediation of conflict between territorially bounded political communities and transnational social forces. Third is to ‘historicise’ the practice of intervention through showing how it has changed in relation to a range of international orders’ that have defined the modern world and which are each characterised by a different notion of the relationship between social and territorial space. Fourth and finally is a brief consideration of the possibility of intervention’s demise as a social practice.ESRC funded seminar series, ‘Rethinking Intervention: Intervention in the Modern World’, grant reference RES-451-26-066

Contracting States: Incomplete Contracts in International Relations"

The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Spruyt's research intersects comparative politics with international relations and focuses particularly on the formation of polities and their disintegration, and the rise and demise of sovereignty. He is currently working on a book-length manuscript applying incomplete contracting theory to diverse issues as decolonization, overseas basing, and regional integration.Ohio State University. Mershon Center for International Security StudiesEvent webpage, streaming video, event photo

Creating a Working Vocabulary of Sovereignty: Language at the International Court of Justice

“What is sovereignty?” If there are questions international legal and political scholars ought to be able to answer, this is certainly one. State sovereignty is arguably the basis of all political and legal international relations. And, yet, what it means remains elusive. As we discuss whether we are witnessing the demise of the Westphalian system, it is critical to understand state sovereignty today. Despite the resurgence in sovereignty scholarship, there has been little empirical work done that combines political and legal theory. This project addresses that gap in the current literature between political science and international legal research by providing an empirical study of how sovereignty is conceptualized in international legal discourse. The theoretical basis for this paper is largely informed by international relations theory of binding states and the variability of sovereignty. The methodological approach is legal case analysis. Because sovereignty is such a slippery concept, the question of how to study it is tricky. This paper will follow Jens Bartelson’s approach and avoid the direct question “what is sovereignty?” and instead ask the question “how do we discuss sovereignty?” The project provides an analysis of advisory opinions and contentious cases before the International Court of Justice over the last fifteen years. The results of the research contribute to a general understanding of contemporary sovereignty in two main ways: Firstly, the study provides a framework of “ideal types” which suggests that contemporary notions of sovereignty fall into three main categories: (1) as the final and supreme power of the state requiring no justification (“The Prince”), (2) as a supreme power justified by the state’s ability to protect its citizens from both internal and external threats (“The Protector”), and (3) as a privilege granted by citizens of the state and the international community in return for accepting certain norms and fulfilling certain responsibilities (“The Citizen”). Secondly, the paper suggests that with a viable working vocabulary, legal and political scholars can then address questions concerning how the legal discussion of sovereignty interacts with international relations structure

Cyberspace Sovereignty: Is Territorializing Cyberspace Opposed to Having a Globally Compatible Internet?

The internet is at a crossroads today. Whence once viewed as a borderless domain, today it is spoken of in alarmist terms that warn against its demise in the context of growing government censorship programs and powerful commercial interests. This essay reviews the literature on cyberspace and sovereignty, showing the emergence of pro-sovereigntist perspectives and predictions of cyberspace Balkanization in recent decades. It further links the conceptual debate over cyber-sovereignty to real-world geopolitical conflicts and struggles over the future of Internet governance, showing how different conceptions of cyberspace are functions of the geopolitical interests of different powers. Drawing on recent literature on cyber espionage, this essay provides a review of the defensive and offensive practices of state powers in and through cyberspace to argue that while impulses towards re-territorialization of cyberspace are undeniable, such attempts are ultimately frustrated by operations aiming to use common protocols for external security and internal surveillance. Such practices illustrate a more nuanced depiction of sovereignty in cyberspace that goes beyond the borderless versus Balkanized dichotomy

Globalization and the Demise of Policy Sovereignty: A Perspective of the Developing Countries

Unaware of what globalization is destined to, in the past three to four decades, naivety is abounding as if we had and still continue to have exclusive policy sovereignty of our own domestic policies.  Today, the idea of domestic or sovereignty over one’s own policy seems simply a memory of past narrative that may not match with the tenets and real practices of the unprecedentedly globalizing world. Consequently, the concepts ‘globalization’ and domestic or ‘sovereign’ public policies are becoming asymmetrical, lacking in common meeting grounds. The objective of this article is to draw the attention of a range of policy actors to become aware of the incongruity between globalization and policy sovereignty on one hand, and the inevitability of the advance of globalization and the need to rise up as strong competitor to survive and face head-on the likely predicaments that may result in,  on the other. Keywords: Globalization, Public policy, Domestic policy, Policy sovereignty, Competition, and Knowledge economy DOI: 10.7176/PPAR/9-9-03 Publication date:September 30th 201

Russia and its neighbours: East or West?

As ‘Europe’ becomes more diverse, the countries that were formerly part of the USSR face new choices. One of the most fundamental is whether they identify with the economic and military institutions of the ‘West’, such as NATO and the European Union, or with the Commonwealth of Independent States and other forms of association with the Slavic ‘East’. We examine these choices in each of three societies—Belarus, Russia and Ukraine—on the basis of national surveys conducted between 2000 and 2008. Across the three, ‘Eastern’ orientations have more popular support than ‘Western’ ones, but Ukrainian opinion is more sharply polarised than opinion in the other two countries. There is more support for a ‘Slavic choice’ in Russia than in either of the other two countries, and particularly large numbers there who regret the demise of the USSR; but opinion on such matters is moderate rather than fundamentalist and does not necessarily exclude a closer relationship with the European Union and NATO

Sea Power and China's Strategic Choices

China's national goals have shifted from the need to guarantee its survival during the country's revolutionary days to the current state of securing stable economic development. This shift marks a full transition for China, changing from a closed country to a developing one that is irrevocably integrated with the rest of the world. Today, while this subject is a common discourse in scholarly and political circles, the international community is still coming to grips with the meaning and impact of China's evolving role on the world stage. It is not an easy issue and extends beyond economics