The theoretical roots of hierarchy in international relations

The past fifteen years have seen arguments from all theoretical schools predicting that Asia will very soon be riven with conflict. Indeed, so common has been this pessimistic sentiment that it could properly be called the consensus view on Asian international relations. Whether based on balance of power theories that emphasise differential power in the region, based on a liberal argument about and a lack of institutions such as international organisations and democracy, or based on culturalist notions of historical animosities and unresolved grievances, the conventional wisdom and dominant prediction by both scholars and policymakers has been that post-Cold War Asia is an unstable place, and will be into the foreseeable future. Given the wide disparities in economic and military power among nations in the region, political systems that range from democratic to totalitarian, historical animosities, and the lack of international institutions, scholars concluded that Asia was 'ripe for rivalry. The theoretical propositions that I put forth in this essay are universal in nature, but obtain in an area-specific context. That is, this essay does not make a claim for the universal presence of hierarchy, nor does it claim that hierarchy always predominates over balance. Rather, under certain conditions balancing will obtain, and in other contexts hierarchy will obtain. The relative distribution of power in a system is an important variable, but it is not the only important variable. The preferences and intentions of states, expectations, reputation, adaptational mechanisms, and domestic processes are all important in determining the pattern and stability of a system. These are all elements of a larger abstraction of either balancing or hierarchy, but exploring how they exist in a specific context is what is important. The remainder of this essay is composed of three major sections. In the first section I discuss the rationale for viewing Asia as a hierarchic, rather than balancing, international system. The second section incorporates a number of recent findings from the rationalist school of international relations to construct the theoretical foundations for hierarchy in international relations. A final section concludes, pointing to areas for further research. © 2004 Australian Institute of International Affair.