Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, APSA 2004
4
system as a whole, it is a fallacy of division – albeit one commonly made – to infer that
all relationships within that system are anarchic. Hierarchy does not stop at a nation’s
borders or, in that famous phrase of foreign policy, “at the water’s edge.” This new
foundation will further erode the distinction between domestic and international politics,
expand the scope of institutionalist theory in international relations, and suggest
innovative avenues for research. It may also shed important light on both the history of
international politics and the role of the United States in the world today.
Authority
Anarchy is a political relationship in which the units possess no authority over
one another and are not bound under any common authority (Waltz 1979). Hierarchy
exists when one unit possesses authority over a second, or both are bound by some third
party. To understand this distinction, and the role it has assumed in international relations
theory, requires that we revisit the concept of authority and how a particular conception
became enshrined into the discipline.
In what is regarded as the paradigmatic definition, political authority is commonly
understood as a relationship in which “A…wills B to follow A and B voluntarily
complies” (Scheppele and Soltan 1987). Two implications of this brief definition are
noteworthy and deserve elaboration. First, for A to be authoritative, the several Bs who
live within its jurisdiction must recognize an obligation to comply if possible with the
laws or commands issued by A. In an authority relationship, the Bs recognize both that A
has the right to issue certain commands and that they should, within the limits of their
abilities, follow those commands. In short, the Bs accept A’s commands as legitimate.
Convention