Author's Keywords: empire, Foucault, Wendt, Shaw, governmentality, biopower, Barkawi, Laffey, International Relations, Theory	Convention Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p150596_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Kiersey, Nicholas. "The 'Debate about Empire' and International Relations Theory: Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-05-24 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p150596_index.html>

Kiersey, N. J. , 2006-08-31 "The 'Debate about Empire' and International Relations Theory: Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-05-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p150596_index.html

Publication Type: Proceeding Abstract: NEW TITLE: Governmentality, Empire and the World State This paper examines the implications of the recent debates concerning imperialism and empire in IR theory for theory of the state. It first critiques contemporary theoretical discussion about the state and its autonomy as an actor under conditions of globalization, focusing in particular on recently popular ‘world state’ theory. I suggest that while this discourse is useful to the extent that it historicizes the function of the state in world politics, it also restricts our understanding of sovereignty of the world state by posing it as a sort of general combining of sovereignty, led by developed liberal states. Martin Shaw, for example, poses this development as a voluntary decision made by these polities in favor of increasing efficiency, and as a response to increasing global complexity. Alexander Wendt argues the same but adds that the phenomenon must ultimately be situated in the context of man’s transhistorical struggle for ‘recognition’. While not necessarily challenging the argument that a world state may be emerging at this time, the purpose of this paper is to set out a critical analysis of the particular understanding of the state elaborated by these two scholars. Premised as they both are on an understanding of political power that is both instrumental and right, they assume that the emerging zone is both powerful and legitimate. Yet what is the basis of this power? And how is its legitimacy constituted? By way of responding to these sorts of questions, this chapter elaborates a critique of global state theory by challenging its most fundamental assumption, the notion of the state as a legitimate centre of power given outside of social relations. This paper suggests instead that the state is a historically dynamic thing subject to change as predominant notions of what the state represents as a subject are themselves transformed. To make this argument, this paper borrows from two different critiques of the world state. It refers first to an emerging Marxist critique within IR theory that focuses on the repressive role of imperial violence in the formation of the world state. However, while noting that this approach is useful to the extent that it reveals the elision of many forms of violence in world state theory, it also suggests a pressing need also to examine the role of productive forms of power in this development. To elaborate on this I turn to Foucault’s critique of government and some recent applications of this theory to both traditional imperialism and the newer imperialism of neo-liberal governmentality. These works challenge not only the innocence of the politics that has produced the world state but also the assumption of the possibility of an essentially definable governing world sovereign. In this way, these works speak not only to the importance of rationalizations of imperial government in determining forms of sovereignty but they also allow us today to situate the global state in continuity with the imperial regimes that preceded it.

Why do states choose certain normative strategies over others in world politics? Interrogating theories of normative state agency in International Relations.

The 'Debate About Empire' and International Relations Theory; Beyond the Narratives of Sovereign and Imperial Power in Theorizing Modern World Politics