CONTEMPORARY EURASIA VOLUME VIII (1) ContemporaryEurasia81 | Page 48

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: WHAT IS BISHKEK’S HEDGING STRATAGEM?
subsisted in international relations, but nevertheless has recently gained
prominence as a significant alternative to the dominance of formal legal
sovereignty approaches and international relations centring on a “culture of
anarchy”. 9 In this sense, anarchy and hierarchy operate as opposite poles,
with varying gradients of authority: anarchy <–> loose hierarchy <–> tight
hierarchy. 10 Hierarchical relations are primarily created to generate a
political or economic order by having conferred authority upon the dominant
state, which is recognised by the approving subordinate(s). These
hierarchical (H) bargains can be conducted as dominant (D) to
subordinate(s) (S 1 /S n ), i.e. H 1 =D 1 (S 1 +S n ). Under these conditions, actors per
se are not conceived as equal entities in the international system as Jonathan
Renshon argues, “the fundamental ordering principle of international
relations is hierarchy, not equality”. 11 David A. Lake, in conjunction with
several like-minded scholars, acknowledges that states engage in hierarchical
settlements and conventions, which establish a dominant to provide political
order in exchange for the conferment of authority recognised by
subordinates. The latter, by complying with the rules set out by the
dominant, will legitimise the arrangement, nevertheless consistently seeking
to gain the best set of net benefits without offsetting the political order, as
long as the order conforms to their interests, incentives and preferences. 12 In
9
Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959);
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1948); John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New
York: W. W. & Norton, 2001); Victor Cha and David C. Kang, Nuclear North Korea. A
Debate on Engagement Strategies (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 169-170;
John M. Hobson, “The Twin Self-Delusions of IR: Why ‘Hierarchy’ and Not ‘Anarchy’ is the
Core Concept of IR”, Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (2014):
557-575; David A. Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press, 2009); Edward Keene, “A Case Study of the Construct of International
Hierarchy: British Treaty-Making Against the Slave Trade in the Early Nineteenth Century”,
International Organization, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2007): 311-339.
10
Joseph M. Parent and Emily Erikson, “Anarchy, Hierarchy and Order”, Cambridge Review
of International Affairs, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March 2009): 136-137.
11
Jonathan Renshon, Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2017), 1.
12
Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, chapters 1-3; William Clapton, “Risk and
Hierarchy in International Society”, Global Change, Peace & Security, Vol. 21, No. 1
(February 2009): 19-35, here 26. Here, the discussion follows Ayşe Zarakol ed., Hierarchies
in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); Brandon K. Yober,
“Hedging for Better Bets: Power Shifts, Credible Signals, and Preventive Conflict”, Journal
of Conflict Resolution (2018): 1-27; David C. Kang, “Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical
Puzzles in Asian International Relations”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 3, (Winter
2003/2004): 165-180,; John M. Hobson and J. C. Sharman, “The Enduring Place of Hierarchy
in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change”, European
Journal of International Relations, Vol. 11, No. 1, (2005): 63-98,; Evelyn Goh, The Struggle
for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy and Transition in Post Cold War East Asia, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013); John M. Hobson, “The Twin Self-Delusions of IR: Why ‘Hierarchy’
and not ‘Anarchy’ is the Core Concept of IR”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
Vol. 42, No. 3, (2014): 557-575.
48