Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society
This article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society b...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Review of international studies 2017-04, Vol.43 (2), p.367-388 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 388 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 367 |
container_title | Review of international studies |
container_volume | 43 |
creator | Zala, Benjamin |
description | This article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society but with a specific focus on the mutual recognition, and conferral, of status. Such a focus highlights the changing, and sometimes competing, perceptions of not only which states should be thought of as great powers, but also therefore whether the power structure of international society remained multipolar or shifted towards bipolarity or even unipolarity. The article argues that a ‘golden age’ of great power management existed during a period in which perceptions of great power status were in fact more fluid than the standard literature accounts for. This means that predictions surrounding the imminent demise of the social institution of great power management under an increasingly ambiguous interstate order today may well be misplaced. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0260210516000292 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878799209</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0260210516000292</cupid><jstor_id>26619161</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26619161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-153e36a7044089f9459f08174c255020741ab32576b80e0a56bb758d4bf629a13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLxDAcxIMouD4-gAeh4MVL9Z80z6MsugoLHnxcS9pN1y5tsiYpst_e1F1EFC8JZH4zGQahMwxXGLC4fgLCgWBgmAMAUWQPTTDlKldA6T6ajHI-6ofoKIRVYiSjdIJeZ97omK3dh_FZr61emt7YmGm7yHRftcvBDSFzfpHk1ma2tSaaBLzldToHv0mv0XirY-us7rLg6tbEzQk6aHQXzOnuPkYvd7fP0_t8_jh7mN7M85oWMuaYFabgWqSOIFWjKFMNSCxoTRgDAoJiXRWECV5JMKAZryrB5IJWDSdK4-IYXW5z1969DybEsm9DbbpOW5OKl1gKKZQioBJ68QtduSEV776ogigJnCQKb6nauxC8acq1b3vtNyWGcly6_LN08pxvPasQnf82EM6xwnwsWewy06K-XSzNj6__Tf0EemuICw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873298062</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Zala, Benjamin</creator><creatorcontrib>Zala, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><description>This article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society but with a specific focus on the mutual recognition, and conferral, of status. Such a focus highlights the changing, and sometimes competing, perceptions of not only which states should be thought of as great powers, but also therefore whether the power structure of international society remained multipolar or shifted towards bipolarity or even unipolarity. The article argues that a ‘golden age’ of great power management existed during a period in which perceptions of great power status were in fact more fluid than the standard literature accounts for. This means that predictions surrounding the imminent demise of the social institution of great power management under an increasingly ambiguous interstate order today may well be misplaced.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0260-2105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-9044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0260210516000292</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>19th century ; Ambiguity ; Bipolarity ; Diplomacy ; Graphs ; History ; International ; Management ; Political power ; Political science ; Power ; Power structure ; Social power ; Society</subject><ispartof>Review of international studies, 2017-04, Vol.43 (2), p.367-388</ispartof><rights>British International Studies Association 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-153e36a7044089f9459f08174c255020741ab32576b80e0a56bb758d4bf629a13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-153e36a7044089f9459f08174c255020741ab32576b80e0a56bb758d4bf629a13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26619161$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0260210516000292/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,799,12824,27901,27902,55603,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zala, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><title>Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society</title><title>Review of international studies</title><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><description>This article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society but with a specific focus on the mutual recognition, and conferral, of status. Such a focus highlights the changing, and sometimes competing, perceptions of not only which states should be thought of as great powers, but also therefore whether the power structure of international society remained multipolar or shifted towards bipolarity or even unipolarity. The article argues that a ‘golden age’ of great power management existed during a period in which perceptions of great power status were in fact more fluid than the standard literature accounts for. This means that predictions surrounding the imminent demise of the social institution of great power management under an increasingly ambiguous interstate order today may well be misplaced.</description><subject>19th century</subject><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Bipolarity</subject><subject>Diplomacy</subject><subject>Graphs</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>International</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Political power</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Power structure</subject><subject>Social power</subject><subject>Society</subject><issn>0260-2105</issn><issn>1469-9044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLxDAcxIMouD4-gAeh4MVL9Z80z6MsugoLHnxcS9pN1y5tsiYpst_e1F1EFC8JZH4zGQahMwxXGLC4fgLCgWBgmAMAUWQPTTDlKldA6T6ajHI-6ofoKIRVYiSjdIJeZ97omK3dh_FZr61emt7YmGm7yHRftcvBDSFzfpHk1ma2tSaaBLzldToHv0mv0XirY-us7rLg6tbEzQk6aHQXzOnuPkYvd7fP0_t8_jh7mN7M85oWMuaYFabgWqSOIFWjKFMNSCxoTRgDAoJiXRWECV5JMKAZryrB5IJWDSdK4-IYXW5z1969DybEsm9DbbpOW5OKl1gKKZQioBJ68QtduSEV776ogigJnCQKb6nauxC8acq1b3vtNyWGcly6_LN08pxvPasQnf82EM6xwnwsWewy06K-XSzNj6__Tf0EemuICw</recordid><startdate>20170401</startdate><enddate>20170401</enddate><creator>Zala, Benjamin</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170401</creationdate><title>Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society</title><author>Zala, Benjamin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c438t-153e36a7044089f9459f08174c255020741ab32576b80e0a56bb758d4bf629a13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>19th century</topic><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Bipolarity</topic><topic>Diplomacy</topic><topic>Graphs</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>International</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Political power</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Power structure</topic><topic>Social power</topic><topic>Society</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zala, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Complete</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zala, Benjamin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society</atitle><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><date>2017-04-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>367</spage><epage>388</epage><pages>367-388</pages><issn>0260-2105</issn><eissn>1469-9044</eissn><abstract>This article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society but with a specific focus on the mutual recognition, and conferral, of status. Such a focus highlights the changing, and sometimes competing, perceptions of not only which states should be thought of as great powers, but also therefore whether the power structure of international society remained multipolar or shifted towards bipolarity or even unipolarity. The article argues that a ‘golden age’ of great power management existed during a period in which perceptions of great power status were in fact more fluid than the standard literature accounts for. This means that predictions surrounding the imminent demise of the social institution of great power management under an increasingly ambiguous interstate order today may well be misplaced.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0260210516000292</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0260-2105 |
ispartof | Review of international studies, 2017-04, Vol.43 (2), p.367-388 |
issn | 0260-2105 1469-9044 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878799209 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge Journals Online; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts |
subjects | 19th century Ambiguity Bipolarity Diplomacy Graphs History International Management Political power Political science Power Power structure Social power Society |
title | Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T20%3A37%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Great%20power%20management%20and%20ambiguous%20order%20in%20nineteenth-century%20international%20society&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20international%20studies&rft.au=Zala,%20Benjamin&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=367&rft.epage=388&rft.pages=367-388&rft.issn=0260-2105&rft.eissn=1469-9044&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0260210516000292&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26619161%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873298062&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0260210516000292&rft_jstor_id=26619161&rfr_iscdi=true |