Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, APSA 2004
3
assumes that the hierarchy of authority within states possesses a single apex culminating
in the “sovereign.” Yet, in practice, there can be multiple apexes of authority within any
society, some of which culminate outside a given territorial realm. A relational approach
to authority opens the possibility of international hierarchies that do not take the form of
traditional, “Westphalian” states.
Third, hierarchy is a central feature of international politics, even today.
Hierarchy varies with the authority exerted by a dominant party over a subordinate party.
Operationalization of this concept is difficult and remains tentative, but we can map
authority relationships in security affairs in a way that appears conceptually valid. Since
the end of the Cold War, the United States has dominated an extensive security hierarchy
which has both brought order to troubled regions of the globe and stimulated a backlash
against what is popularly referred to as American imperialism.
Fourth, understanding the role and pattern of hierarchy in international politics is
essential for explaining, interpreting, and ultimately making foreign policy. The
importance of hierarchy is demonstrated here through a large-n quasi-experimental test.
A relational conception of authority expects dominant states to provide a stable social
order – and more specifically, security – for their subordinates. This implies that
countries in authority relationships with dominant powers should exert less defense effort
(military spending as a proportion of GDP) than countries not in authority relationships,
all else held constant. As predicted, hierarchy is found to exert on a statistically and
substantively significant effect on military spending.
Together, these four themes point towards a new foundation for international
relations theory. Although the fact of international anarchy remains a truism for the
Convention