Ikenberry, international relations theory, and the rise of China
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148118791979 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Author | John M. Owen |
| Subject Matter | Breakthrough Commentaries |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118791979
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2019, Vol. 21(1) 55 –62
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118791979
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Ikenberry, international
relations theory, and the
rise of China
John M. Owen
Keywords
China’s rise, E. H. Carr, G. John Ikenberry, liberal hegemony, realism
In this essay, I make two points. The first concerns the no longer fashionable, but still
important, ‘isms’ of international relations (IR) theory. Over the course of his career, par-
ticularly in his 2001 book After Victory, John Ikenberry has answered better than anyone
else a challenge put to liberals by realists, particularly E. H. Carr (2001). My second point
is on the decidedly fashionable and important topic of the rise of China. I fear that Ikenberry
is too sanguine about China’s effects on the liberal international order (LIO), and indeed,
his theory’s own emphasis on liberal hegemons gives us one reason why.1
Power or rules?
Back in the 1990s, when reading Ikenberry’s papers on liberal hegemony and the ‘logic of
the West’, I could discern his steady progress towards solving an old problem in IR theory:
How do we give both power and rules their due? How do we acknowledge the importance
of coercion in world politics, and the importance of institutions, without doing violence to
either? At least since 1756, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau poured cold water on the Abbé
de St-Pierre’s Plan for Perpetual Peace, the problem has plagued scholars who believe
that the human race can improve international life. Rousseau admired St-Pierre’s plan and
acknowledged the rationality of a politics designed to serve the good of all European peo-
ples. But, observed Rousseau, the common good is beside the point and so is any plan to
make international politics serve it. Monarchs and their ministers hold power and want
above all to keep and expand that power both at home and abroad. Perpetual peace would
require that a superior power coerce these thrones. That coercer would be an even more
powerful king, and so, the cure would be worse than the disease (Rousseau, 1991).
Carr’s question
So have gone most dialogues between liberals and realists. Liberals offer a rational plan
for international peace, typically based on law, interdependence, or democracy, and
Department of Politics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Corresponding author:
John Owen, Department of Politics, University of Virginia, PO Box 400787, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Email: jmo4n@virginia.edu
791979BPI0010.1177/1369148118791979The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsOwen
research-article2018
Breakthrough Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial