Book contents
- The Historicity of International Politics
- The Historicity of International Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I The Imperial Past and Present in International Politics and IR
- 2 The Colonial Origins – and Legacies – of International Organizations
- 3 Collective Hegemony after Decolonization
- 4 The Historicity of State Formation
- 5 Privateering, Colonialism and Empires
- 6 Where Did the Mongol Empire Go?
- 7 Where Would We Be without the Fog Lifting in Austerlitz?
- Part II Historical Sociology and the Imperial Fundaments of International Politics
- Part III Global History and the Imperial Fundaments of International Politics
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
2 - The Colonial Origins – and Legacies – of International Organizations
from Part I - The Imperial Past and Present in International Politics and IR
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 June 2023
Book contents
- The Historicity of International Politics
- The Historicity of International Politics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I The Imperial Past and Present in International Politics and IR
- 2 The Colonial Origins – and Legacies – of International Organizations
- 3 Collective Hegemony after Decolonization
- 4 The Historicity of State Formation
- 5 Privateering, Colonialism and Empires
- 6 Where Did the Mongol Empire Go?
- 7 Where Would We Be without the Fog Lifting in Austerlitz?
- Part II Historical Sociology and the Imperial Fundaments of International Politics
- Part III Global History and the Imperial Fundaments of International Politics
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
The relationship between imperialism and international organizations is a close one. This chapter charts three stages in this relationship since the early nineteenth century: first, the use of international organizations as a means of coordinating imperialism and containing or, preferably, preventing inter-imperial conflict; second, the global expansion of international organizations as a means of stratifying polities initially via a ‘standard of civilization’ and, later, through quotients of ‘modernization’; and third, the use of international organizations as a means for various forms of interventionism. Taken together, these three stages mark a shift from a limited realm of international organization to a virtually universal condition of international administration. Over the past two centuries, the rationale and competences of international organizations have been reconfigured, rearticulated and redistributed. This narrative demonstrates that international organizations in particular, and forms of international administration in general, owe core aspects of their origins, development and legacies to imperialism.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Historicity of International PoliticsImperialism and the Presence of the Past, pp. 49 - 65Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abernathy, D. B. (2000). The Dynamics of Global Dominance, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Anghie, A. (2004). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D., Lloyd, L. & Redmond, J. (2004). International Organization in World Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bain, W. (2003). Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bayly, C. A. (2004). The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Belich, J. (2009). Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783–1939, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. & Lawson, G. (2014). Capitalism and the Emergent World Order, International Affairs, 90(1), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. & Lawson, G. (2015). The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, I. (2007). International Legitimacy and World Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dodge, T. (2013). Intervention and Dreams of Exogeneous Statebuilding: The Application of Liberal Peacebuilding in Afghanistan and Iraq, Review of International Studies, 39(5), 1189–212.Google Scholar
Duffield, M. (2007). Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Geyer, M. & Bright, C. (1996). Global Violence and Nationalizing Wars in Eurasia and the Americas, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 38(4), 619–57.Google Scholar
Gong, G. W. (1984). The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grovogui, S. (1996). Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hameiri, S. (2010). Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jarrett, M. (2013). The Congress of Vienna and Its Legacy, London: I. B. Tauris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keene, E. (2013). International Hierarchy and the Origins of the Modern Practice of Intervention, Review of International Studies, 29(5), 1077–90.Google Scholar
Lawson, G. & Tardelli, L. (2013). The Past, Present and the Future of Intervention, Review of International Studies, 39(5), 1233–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantilla, G. (2020). Lawmaking under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, C. S. (2012). Leviathan 2.0, in Rosenberg, E. S. (ed.). A World Connecting, 1870–1945, 29–282, Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
Millennium (2014). Special Issue: The Standard of Civilization, Millennium, 42(3), 546–849.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). To Intervene or Not to Intervene, Foreign Affairs, 45(3), 425–36.Google Scholar
Orford, A. (2011). International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterhammel, J. (2014). The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S. (2015). The Guardians: The League of Nations the Crisis of Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Individual Rights and the Making of the International System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. (2004). Great Powers and Outlaw States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sluga, G. & Clavin, P. (2017). Internationalisms: A Twentieth Century History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, J. (1974). Non-Intervention and International Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, D. (2013). Development, Intervention and International Order, Review of International Studies, 39(5), 1213–31.Google Scholar
Zarakol, A. (2011). After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar