G. John Ikenberry: After Victory order after major wars has changed as the capacities and mechanisms of states to restrain power has changed. The ability of. After Victory has ratings and 12 reviews. Dewey said: In After Victory, John Ikenberry examines the attempts of states to create lasting peace thro. Gilford John Ikenberry (October 5, ) is a theorist of international relations and United In After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars, Ikenberry explores how the United States utilized its.
|Published (Last):||27 December 2007|
|PDF File Size:||18.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem?
Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Return to Book Page. Preview — After Victory by G. The end of the Cold War was a “big bang” reminiscent of earlier moments after major wars, such as the end of the Napoleonic Wars in and the end of the World Wars in and Here John Ikenberry asks the question, what do states that win wars do with their newfound power and how do they use it to build order? In examining the postwar settlements in modern history The end of the Cold War was a “big bang” reminiscent of earlier moments after major wars, such as the end of the Napoleonic Wars in and the end of the World Wars in and In examining the postwar settlements in modern history, he argues that powerful countries do seek to build stable and cooperative relations, but the type of order that emerges hinges on their ability to make commitments and iknberry power.
The author explains vitory only with the spread of democracy in the twentieth century and the innovative use of international institutions–both linked to the emergence of the United States as vivtory world power–has order been created that goes beyond balance of power politics to exhibit “constitutional” characteristics.
The open character of the American polity and a web of multilateral institutions allow the United States to exercise strategic restraint and establish stable relations among the industrial democracies despite rapid shifts and extreme disparities in power.
Blending comparative politics with international relations, and history with theory, “After Victory” will be of interest to anyone concerned with the organization of world ikenberr, the role of institutions in world politics, and the ikenberrt of past postwar settlements for today.
It also speaks to today’s debate over the ability of the United States to lead in an era of unipolar power. Paperbackpages. Princeton Studies in International History and Politics. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign jkhn.
To ask other readers questions about After Victoryplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Oct 26, Dewey rated it liked it. In After Victory, John Ikenberry examines the attempts of states to create lasting peace through international order after major wars. Arguing that major wars create a new distribution of power, Ikenberry contends that winning states have increasingly had incentives to exercise strategic restraint in post-war agreements to lock-in long-term influence in the international order through institutions that preserve and maintain existing power structures.
While the three post-war cases presented do not all perfectly fit the constitutional order that best implements strategic constraints on power, Ikenberry effectively shows that winning states have sought to develop a more durable world order by creating binding agreements, that by placing limits on state power can create peace.
After Victory : G. John Ikenberry :
To analyze the three empirical cases, Ikenberry first discusses three different explanatory models of order: While Ikenberry predominately uses the constitutional framework, he admits that any of the types of order can exhibit characteristics of another. Ikenberry contends that states will seek to order based on constitutional ikenberryy to best conserve power in the long term. Using these frameworks, Ikenberry begins his empirical analysis by looking at the political order that emerged from the Vienna settlement in Moving away from solely balance of power considerations, Britain, the newly hegemonic state, sought xfter lock in a favorable post-war order and lasting peace by creating legitimacy among all involved states through a pactum de contrehendo.
British subsidies were contingent on allied support of British aims and gave Britain leverage to design the post-war order. Although the Vienna settlement offers evidence of some institutional characteristics, Britain does not appear to have significantly constrained itself in order to lock in the post-war agreement.
Inthe United States similarly sought to establish a favorable post-war order by locking states into institutional commitments. Because the United States did not yet possess hegemonic power, its ability to force Britain and France to abandon territorial claims in favor of institutionalism, was limited.
After Victory: Order and Power in International Politics by G. John Ikenberry
Ikenberry finally examines the peace after The lessons of the peace process coupled with greater American power and domestic acknowledgement that the US needed to prevent European states from going to war with one another led to the creation of significant institutions that have facilitated peace in Europe for over 65 years.
The advantage that democratic states have in creating credible commitments due to their democratic processes also exposes them to the vicissitudes of domestic polities. Democratic governance yields a longer, more precarious process in providing guarantees to other states as in the inability of Britain to provide a general security guarantee in the peace ofthe inability of Wilson to convince domestic politicians to sacrifice flexibility and zfter binding security commitments to Europe inand the six competing visions for peace by different domestic groups in the US in The book also suggests the importance of a hegemonic state in creating lasting peace.
Finally, US hegemony ameliorated European fears of potential German dominance through security guarantees and granted Europe the ability to rebuild through financial commitments in the Marshall Plan. While the scope of the book is limited to major wars between great powers, it provides the implications for other wars that peace i,enberry limited by the extent that states are able to use the power derived from victory to compel losers to enter into agreements, and get domestic victor to vicrory around strategic restraints.
Oct 24, Raj Agrawal rated it really liked it Shelves: This ikwnberry a snapshot of my thoughts on this book after just reading it. The author appeals often to the realist reader, first by recognizing that states may need incentive in order to enter into institutional agreements, and second, by pointing out how institutions may in fact be a power mechanism.
Ikenberry believes that lesser powers have as much a role to play in the durability of an institution, and also discusses the importance of institutional credibility. My admittedly realist and cynical perspective is that the author should not be so quick to make such a distinction. In an interview, Ikenberry admitted that a state required three things in order to lead other states into an institution: If this is the case, then it still serves a great power to pursue power and prestige Gilpinas well as economic strength, for the purposes of being more effective at using soft power such as Ikenberry suggests.
This theory simply seems a more civilized and less costly way of maintaining an international system toward a balance of power Waltz — or perhaps, to pursue even more power Mearsheimer. Certainly, this theory would be an effective way to balance the international system so that it remains relatively stable — allowing for the powerful to stay powerful and the weak remain relatively weak.
This is an articulate perspective on the value of institutions, what types of institutions can be effective control mechanisms after power has been established, and how constitutional characteristics can increase the likelihood of durability. Mar 07, James Carmichael rated it liked it Shelves: After Victory attempts to develop a grand theory ikebberry how international systems are reorganized after major conflict.
Specifically, it uses three cases to illustrate a theoretical framework for how the newly dominant victors in these conflicts —new hegemons — engage in institutional bargains, what Ikenberry calls the creation of constitutional orders, to secure a stable international order that maximizes the longevity of their dominance while making important concessions to the concerns and intere After Victory attempts to develop a grand theory of how international systems are reorganized after major conflict.
Despite the significant contribution that After Victory clearly represents, it is compromised by two important and separate issues: The second problem is empirical: Jojn would not be a major problem if his other cases — the British-led settlement after the Napoleonic Wars and the U. This compromises After Victory even in the bounded empirical ambit it sets for itself.
Finally, once one looks forward from now, a moment in which the pressing question does not appear to be reorganization after the abrupt dislocation of a major war but rather what will happen as the U. Feb 16, Christopher rated it liked it Shelves: How political institutions are created and operated is one of the keys to understanding how international affairs in general and foreign policy in particular is created.
In this book, Mr. Ikenberry lays out a general thesis of the three different orderings of international affairs balance of power, hegemonic, and constitutional and uses the examples of the post-war orderings of,and the post-Cold War period up to to back up his thesis. This book is good, if not necessaril How political institutions are created and operated is one of the keys to understanding how international affairs in general and foreign policy in particular is created.
This book is good, if not necessarily groundbreaking, and his historical analysis of the reasons for how each post-war ordering was different in each historical instance. And his theory on constitutional international orders, which morphed by the end of the book into institutional international orders is there a difference?
But, as I said before, there was nothing necessarily groundbreaking about this work. I would recommend that you pick up Henry Kissinger ‘s Diplomacy first for a much better and more detailed historical analysis of the working of international affairs first then use this book as a supplement to that.
Jan 29, Piker rated it liked it Shelves: This study of postwar orders does a fine job of describing balance of power, hegemonic, and constitutional systems and how they have been applied after four major conflicts.
This is insightful as it is real analysis of international relations seen through a historical lens. Ikenberry’s definitions of the three systems are well told and his applications to historical example illustrate how each has their benefits and downfalls.
The thesis centers around the merits of constitutional order as they This study of postwar orders does a fine job of describing balance of power, hegemonic, and constitutional systems and how they have been applied after four major conflicts. The thesis centers around the merits of constitutional order as they are most binding of the nations involved and more likely to serve as peaceful orders.
A great introduction to international relations. Oct 24, Nate Huston rated it really liked it. Excellent discussion of where institutions fit into international relations. May 09, Greg rated it liked it Shelves: Ikenberry’s book is a useful corrective to the current trend towards a reassertion of the Hobbesian view of relations between nations, however, it neglects certain aspects what truly makes multilateral agreements and transnational institutions functional–an Anglo-American hegemon with leaders temperamentally predisposed to be magnanimous in victory in seeing that the institutions function.
Feb 17, Jon rated it really liked it. A thorough and interesting explanation of the causal variables in neoliberal IR theory, analyzed through the post-war hegemonic settlements of,and Oct 24, Chantel rated it liked it. A little repetitive, but made some good points about how institutions fit into the ordering of states in contrast to the realist balance of power theory. Apr 21, J. I remember I had to read chunks of this for victorg IR class.
Very interesting analysis of what to do once you have won a war.
Jan 23, Clayton rated it really liked it. Interesting response to realism. Midori rated it it was amazing Dec 17, Mark Jacobsen rated it really liked it Dec 08, Lizzie Johnson rated it it was amazing Oct 31, Michael rated it really liked it Mar 25, Mark Wass rated it really liked it Dec 09, Aliza rated it liked it Nov 09, Ryan Giarusso rated it liked it May 23, Kelly S rated it really liked it Jan 29, Andrew Chellinsky rated it it was amazing Jan 03, jonh Brooks rated it victoey liked it Nov 20, Jason Zumwalt rated it really liked it Nov 17,