Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T15:16:59.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding spheres of influence in international politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2019

Van Jackson Open the ORCID record for Van Jackson [Opens in a new window]
Van Jackson*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spheres of influence remain one of the most pervasive phenomena in the practice and history of international relations, yet only rarely have they been taken up analytically. To bring conceptual and discursive clarity, this article advances two arguments. First, it argues that spheres of influence are not a distinct form of hierarchy in international relations, but rather practices of control and exclusion that can be found within any ideal-type hierarchy. Second, these hierarchical practices are generally underspecified by those invoking the term. Different theoretical perspectives on international relations offer highly divergent ways of understanding control and exclusion, and all do so with plausible empirical mooring. Spheres of influence do not themselves denote a form of governance even if it does a form of order construction and maintenance. Any given empire, hegemonic order, or alliance may also be a sphere of influence depending on the practices that occur; the key is not to identify whether particular hierarchical traits are dispositive of one of these relational structures, but rather whether, and the extent to which, assertions of control and exclusion define the hierarchy.

Keywords

Spheres of InfluenceHierarchyInternational OrderPractice TheoryRelationalism
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , October 2020 , pp. 255 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The literature on spheres of influence is sparse, and none draw theoretical comparisons in like-terms as done here. For a critical conceptualisation, see Hast, Susanna, Spheres of Influence in International Relations: History, Theory, and Politics (London: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For policy-relevant interpretation, see Etzioni, Amitai, ‘Spheres of influence: a reconceptualization’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 39:2 (2015), pp. 117–32Google Scholar. For a historically-based inductive rendering, see Keal, Paul, ‘Contemporary understanding about spheres of influence’, Review of International Studies, 9:3 (1983), pp. 155–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Petito, Fabio, ‘Dialogue of civilizations in a multipolar world: Toward a multicivilizational-multiplex world order’, International Studies Review, 18:1 (2016), pp. 78–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 These two elements are common to most explicit definitions. For a classical definition, see Curzon, George Nathaniel, Frontiers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), pp. 42–3Google Scholar. For contemporary definitions, which echo the same, see Hast, Spheres of Influence in International Relations, p. 6; Keal, ‘Contemporary understanding about spheres of influence’, p. 158; Etzioni, ‘Spheres of influence’, p. 117; Kaufman, Edy, The Superpowers and Their Spheres of Influence: The United States and the Soviet Union in Central Europe and Latin America (London: Croom Helm, 1976)Google Scholar.

3 Munkler, Herfried, Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Hamashita, Takeshi, ‘Tribute and treaties: Maritime Asia and treaty port networks in the era of negotiation, 1800–1900’, in Arrighi, Giovanni, Hamashita, Takeshi, and Selden, Mark (eds), The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150, and 50 Year Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 17–50Google Scholar.

4 Gaddis, John Lewis, The Cold War: A New History (New York: Penguin Books, 2005)Google Scholar; Roberts, Geoffrey, ‘Ideology, calculation, and improvisation: Spheres of influence and Soviet foreign policy, 1939–1945’, Review of International Studies, 25:4 (1999), pp. 655–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Resis, Albert, ‘Spheres of influence in Soviet wartime diplomacy’, Journal of Modern History, 53:3 (1981), pp. 417–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Dennett, Tyler, Americans in Eastern Asia: A Critical Study of the Policy of the United States with Reference to China, Japan and Korea in the 19th Century (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922), pp. 603–06Google Scholar. For an American legal definition, see Willoughby, Westel W., Foreign Rights and Interests in China (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1920), pp. 272–3Google Scholar.

6 Curzon, Frontiers, p. 42.

7 LaFeber, Walter, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

8 Sexton, Jay, The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Hill and Wang, 2011), pp. 112–13Google Scholar.

9 Helene Cooper and Nicholas Kulish, ‘U.S. rejects “spheres of influence” for Russia’, New York Times (7 February 2009).

10 Nedra Pickler, ‘Obama casts Ukraine crisis as march toward liberty’, PBS Newshour (4 June 2014).

11 Office of the Vice President, Remarks by Vice President Joseph Biden to the Ukrainian Rada (9 December 2015), available at: {https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/09/remarks-vice-president-joe-biden-ukrainian-rada}.

12 Gilley, Bruce, ‘Not so dire straits: How the Finlandization of Taiwan benefits U.S. security’, Foreign Affairs, 89:1 (2015), p. 51Google Scholar; Ross, Robert, ‘The U.S.-China peace: Great power politics, spheres of influence, and the peace of East Asia’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 3:3 (2003), pp. 351–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Goh, Evelyn, ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing regional security strategies’, International Security, 32:3 (2008), pp. 113–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tow, Shannon, ‘Southeast Asia in the Sino-US strategic balance’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26:3 (2004), pp. 434–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ho Chung, Jae and Kim, Jiyoon, ‘Is South Korea in China's orbit? Assessing Seoul's perceptions and policies’, Asia Policy, 21:1 (2016), pp. 12–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Biddle, Stephen and Oelrich, Ivan, ‘Future warfare in the Western pacific: Chinese antiaccess/area denial, U.S. AirSea battle, and command of the commons in East Asia’, International Security, 41:1 (2016), p. 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., ‘The emerging structure of international politics’, International Security, 18:2 (1993), pp. 44–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mearsheimer, John J., The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 2001)Google Scholar.

17 For a classical statement, see Mackinder, Halford J., ‘The geographical pivot of history’, The Geographical Journal, 23:4 (1904), pp. 421–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For historiography that connects geopolitics to the realist tradition, see Ashworth, Lucian M., ‘Realism and the spirit of 1919: Halford Mackinder, geopolitics and the reality of the League of Nations’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:2 (2011), pp. 279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Fazal, Tanisha, ‘State death in the international system’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 311–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holslag, Jonathan, ‘The persistent military security dilemma between China and India’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 32:6 (2009), pp. 811–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Greenville, John A. S. and Young, George Berkeley, Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873–1917 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 219–22Google Scholar; Kent, Noel J., Hawaii: Islands under the Influence (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

20 Kim, Heungkyu, ‘From a buffer zone to a strategic burden: Evolving Sino-North Korea relations during the Hu Jintao era’, Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 22:1 (2010), pp. 57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Goldgeier, James M. and McFaul, Michael, ‘A tale of two worlds: Core and periphery in the post-Cold War era’, International Organization, 46:2 (1992), pp. 467–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, Evan, ‘Contested primacy in the western Pacific: China's rise and the future of US power projection’, International Security, 38:4 (2014), pp. 115–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 For reviews of the distinction, see Taliaferro, Jeffrey W., ‘Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited’, International Security, 25:3 (2000/01), pp. 128–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zakaria, Fareed, ‘Realism and domestic politics: a review essay’, International Security, 17:1 (1992), pp. 177–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, Evan, ‘Breaking out of the security dilemma: Realism, reassurance, and the problem of uncertainty’, International Security, 31:2 (2006), pp. 151–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Posen, Barry R., ‘Nationalism, the mass army, and military power’, International Security, 18:2 (1993), pp. 80–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Dennett, American Relations in Eastern Asia; Hinsley, F. H., ‘Expansion in the Pacific and the scramble for China’, in Hinsley, F. H., The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume XI: Material Progress and World-Wide Problems, 1870–1898 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 640–67Google Scholar.

25 From within the realist tradition, see Schweller, Randall L., ‘New realist research on alliances: Refining, not refuting, Waltz's balancing proposition’, American Political Science Review, 91:4 (1997), pp. 927–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an outside perspective, see Doyle, Michael W., ‘Thucydidean realism’, Review of International Studies, 16:3 (1990), pp. 223–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 MacDonald, Paul, Networks of Domination: The Social Foundations of Peripheral Conquest in International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Montgomery, ‘Contested primacy in the western Pacific’.

27 Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph, Power and Interdependence (New York: Harper Collins, 1977)Google Scholar; De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Lake, David and Powell, Robert, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Mattern, Janice Bially and Zarakol, Ayşe, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, International Organization, 70:3 (2016), pp. 623–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Keohane, After Hegemony; Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar.

30 Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Lake, David, ‘Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential?’, International Studies Quarterly, 37:4 (1993), pp. 459–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Ikenberry, G. John, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Ikenberry, G. John, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics; Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic and Military Conflict from 1500–2000 (New York: Random House, 1987)Google Scholar.

35 Lake, David, Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

36 Ikenberry, After Victory; Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan.

37 Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, p. 54.

38 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organization, 46:2 (1992), pp. 391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’. This assumption is even shared by constructivist critics of Wendt. See Guzzini, Stefano and Leander, Anna (eds), Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics (London: Routledge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 1.

41 For how constructivism differs from rationalism on these points, see Fearon, James and Wendt, Alexander, ‘Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view’, in Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 52–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Fearon and Wendt, ‘Rationalism v. constructivism’, p. 60; Hopf, Ted, ‘The logic of habit in international relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), pp. 539–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Though Wendt's work explicitly emphasised the state as the primary unit of analysis, much of constructivism relaxes this assumption.

44 Bially Mattern and Zarakol, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’, pp. 18–20.

45 Foucault, Michel, ‘The order of discourse’, in Shapiro, Michael J. (ed.), Language and Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1984), pp. 108–38Google Scholar; Mattern, Janice Bially, Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force (New York: Routledge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Kelly, Robert E., ‘A “Confucian long peace” in pre-western East Asia?’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:3 (2012), pp. 407–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kang, David C., East Asia before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Zhang, Feng, Chinese Hegemony: Grand Strategy and Regional Institutions in East Asian History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

47 Greenberg, Michael, British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–42 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), pp. 1–40Google Scholar; Hillemann, Ulrike, Asian Empire and British Knowledge: China and the Networks of British Imperial Expansion (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H., ‘Relations before states: Substance, process and the study of world politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:3 (1999), pp. 291–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 McCourt, David, ‘Practice theory and relationalism as the new constructivism’, International Studies Quarterly, 60:3 (2016), pp. 475–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Jackson and Nexon, ‘Relations before states’; Emirbayer, Mustafa, ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:2 (1997), pp. 281–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Nexon, Daniel, ‘Relationalism and new systems theory’, in Mathias, Albert, Cederman, LarsErik, and Wendt, Alexander (eds), New Systems Theories of World Politics (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009), pp. 101–02Google Scholar.

52 Nexon, ‘Relationalism and new systems theory’, p. 101; Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann, ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103:4 (1998), pp. 962–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Levine, Joel H., ‘The sphere of influence’, American Sociological Review, 37:1 (1972), pp. 14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For examples in international relations, see Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. and Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50:1 (2006), pp. 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Centrality in transnational governance: How networks of international institutions shape power processes’, in Avant, Deborah and Westerwinter, Oliver (eds), The New Power Politics: Networks and Transnational Security Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

54 Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Kahler, Miles, and Montgomery, Alexander H., ‘Network analysis for international relations’, International Organization, 63:3 (2009), pp. 563–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Grynaviski, Eric, ‘Brokering cooperation: Intermediaries and US cooperation with non-state allies, 1776–1945’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:3 (2015), pp. 691–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery, ‘Network analysis for international relations’, pp. 568–70; Milner, Helen V., Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 33–66Google Scholar.

57 Nexon, Daniel H. and Wright, Thomas, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’, American Political Science Review, 101:2 (2007), p. 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Greenberg, British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–42, pp. 1–40; Dennett, American Relations in Eastern Asia; Keliher, Macabe, ‘Anglo-American rivalry and the origins of U.S. China policy’, Diplomatic History, 31:2 (2007), pp. 227–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia, pp. 44–68.

60 Kinne, Brandon J., ‘Network dynamics and the evolution of international cooperation’, American Political Science Review, 107:4 (2013), pp. 766–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Ibid.

62 Belvaux, Bertrand, ‘The development of social media: Proposal for a diffusion model incorporating network externalities in a competitive environment’, Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English edn), 26:3 (2011), pp. 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Jackson, Van, ‘Power, trust, and network complexity: Three logics of hedging in Asian security’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14:3 (2014), pp. 331–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Between the eagle and the dragon: America, China, and middle state strategies in East Asia’, Political Science Quarterly, 131:1 (2016), pp. 9–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Nexon and Wright, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’.

66 Ibid., pp. 261–2.

67 Macdonald, Networks of Domination; Nexon and Wright, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’.

68 Kaufman, Robert G., ‘To balance or to bandwagon? Alignment decisions in 1930s Europe’, Security Studies, 1:3 (1992), pp. 417–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Labs, Eric, ‘Do weak states bandwagon?’, Security Studies, 1:3 (1992), pp. 384–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walt, Stephen M., ‘Alliances, threats, and U.S. grand strategy: a reply to Kaufman and Labs’, Security Studies, 1:3 (1992), pp. 448–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Rothstein, Robert L., ‘Alignment, nonalignment, and small powers: 1945–1965’, International Organization, 20:3 (1966), pp. 397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Biddle, Stephen, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walt, Stephen, Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), pp. 10, 165, 265Google Scholar.

71 Evera, Stephen Van, ‘Offense, defense, and the causes of war’, International Security, 22:4 (1998), pp. 5–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lieber, Keir A., ‘Grasping the technological peace: the offense-defense balance and international security’, International Security, 25:1 (2000), pp. 71–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldman, Emily O., ‘International competition and military effectiveness: Naval air power, 1919–1945’, in Brooks, Risa and Stanley, Elizabeth (eds), Creating Military Power: The Sources of Military Effectiveness (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2007), pp. 158–85Google Scholar.

72 Snyder, Glenn, Alliance Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 75, 167Google Scholar.

73 Mearsheimer, John J., ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security, 19:3 (1994), pp. 5–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 The sources of threat credibility in a realist lens that does not assume states are capable of iterative learning must be reducible to questions of material capability and exogenously assumed interest. Press, Darryl, Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

75 Montgomery, In the Hegemon's Shadow, p. 10; Montgomery, ‘Breaking out of the security dilemma’.

76 Montgomery, ‘Contested primacy in the western Pacific’.

77 Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, p. 3.

78 Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics. This is so even when asymmetric bargains take the form of constitutional orders. Ikenberry, After Victory, pp. 47–8.

79 Weisiger, Alex and Yarhi-Milo, Keren, ‘Revisiting reputation: How past actions matter in international politics’, International Organization, 69:2 (2015), pp. 473–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, Van, Rival Reputations: Coercion and Credibility in US-North Korea Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Dennett, American Relations in Eastern Asia; Pletcher, David M., ‘Rhetoric and results: a pragmatic view of American economic expansionism, 1865–98’, Diplomatic History, 5:2 (1981), pp. 93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Montgomery, In the Hegemon's Shadow, pp. 75–101; Myers, Ramon Hawley and Peattie, Mark R., The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics; DiCicco, Jonathan M. and Levy, Jack S., ‘Power shifts and problem shifts: the evolution of the Power Transition research program’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43:6 (1999), pp. 675–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Ibid.

84 Hast, Spheres of Influence in International Politics, p. 4.

85 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Levels of analysis vs. agents and structures: Part II’, Review of International Studies, 18:2 (1992), pp. 181–5Google Scholar.

86 On socialisation, see Michael Zurn and Jeffrey Checkel, T., ‘Getting socialized to build bridges: Constructivism and rationalism, Europe and the nation-state’, International Organization, 59:4 (2005), pp. 1045–79Google Scholar; Atkinson, Carol, ‘Constructivist implications of material power: Military engagement and the socialization of states, 1972–2000’, International Studies Quarterly, 50:3 (2006), pp. 509–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘Tracing causal mechanisms’, International Studies Review, 8:2 (2006), pp. 362–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On localisation, see Acharya, Amitav, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Phillips, Andrew and Sharman, J. C., International Order in Diversity: War, Trade and Rule in the Indian Ocean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 47–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Ibid.

88 Neumann, Iver, ‘Discourse analysis’, in Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa (eds), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), p. 62Google Scholar. See also Hast, Spheres of Influence in International Politics, p. 5.

89 Kliman, Daniel M., Fateful Transitions: How Democracies Manage Rising Powers, from the Eve of World War I to China's Ascendance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Ibid.

91 Emirbayer, ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’.

92 Nexon and Wright, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’, pp. 260–2.

93 Hafner-Burton, Kahler, and Montgomery, ‘Network analysis for international relations’. All three dynamics manifest in the ‘hub-and-spoke’ architecture of US alliances in Asia during the Cold War. See Cha, Victor, Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

94 Nexon and Wright, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’, pp. 262–5.

95 Zhao, Suisheng, ‘China's approaches toward regional cooperation in East Asia: Motivations and calculations’, Journal of Contemporary China, 20:68 (2011), pp. 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reeves, Jeffrey, Chinese Foreign Relations with Weak Peripheral States: Asymmetrical Economic Power and Insecurity (London: Routledge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 On at least one occasion, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs actively prevented the creation of a public list of its strategic partners, reportedly out of ‘fears that it could lead to confusion and unnecessary discontent’ within its periphery. See Feng Zhongping and Huang Jing, ‘China's Strategic Partnership Diplomacy: Engaging with a Changing World’, Working Paper 8 (Madrid: European Strategic Partnerships Observatory, June 2014), p. 8.

97 Zhongping and Jing, ‘China's strategic partnership diplomacy’, p. 13.

98 Reeves, Chinese Foreign Relations with Weak Peripheral States, pp. 27–8.

99 Zhongping and Jing, ‘China's strategic partnership diplomacy’, pp. 12–16; Reeves, China's Foreign Relations with Weak Peripheral States.

100 Buzan, Barry and Wæver, Ole, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Kang, David C., East Asia before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Ikenberry, G. John, ‘American hegemony and East Asian order’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 58:3 (2004), pp. 353–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goh, Evelyn, The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Transition in Post-Cold War East Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations; Bially Mattern and Zarakol, ‘Hierarchies in world politics’; Hobson, John M. and Sharman, J. C., ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: Tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International Relations, 11:1 (2005), pp. 63–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 A rare example is Alexander Cooley's M-form and U-form typology of hierarchies, which blends elements of the relational and rational-contractual approaches to spheres of influence highlighted here. Cooley, Alexander, Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

104 Nexon and Wright, ‘What's at stake in the American empire debate’.

105 ‘China not seeking “sphere of influence” in the Pacific, Xi Says’, Reuters (29 May 2019).

106 Reeves, Chinese Foreign Relations with Weak Peripheral States.

107 Alexander Bowe, ‘China's Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States’, a report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (24 August 2018).

108 Roy, Denny, ‘South China Sea: Not just about “free navigation”’, Asia-Pacific Bulletin, 177 (2012)Google Scholar, available at: {https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/south-china-sea-not-just-about-free-navigation}.