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: International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180210_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Chong, Ja Ian. "States of Imposition: Great Power Competition, Intervention, and a Theory of Sovereign State Formation in East Asia" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2009-05-24 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180210_index.html>

Chong, J. , 2007-02-28 "States of Imposition: Great Power Competition, Intervention, and a Theory of Sovereign State Formation in East Asia" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-05-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180210_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: My paper explores the convergence on sovereign statehood among East Asian polities during the late colonial era. Taking sovereign statehood as a specific institutional form, I hope to understand why and how sovereign states came to replace colonial states, feudal states, suzerain-vassal arrangements, and other forms of state organisation in East Asia.After all, these alternatives to the sovereign state have long histories in the region, sometimes going back several centuries. Yet by the mid-twentieth century, most East Asian polities were well on their way toward the institutionalisation of sovereign statehood.I consider the arguement that the formation of sovereign statehood among East Asian polities was a result of the changing nature of great power competition over access in these areas, as conditioned by perceptions about the increasing opportunity costs of intervention. Given divergent perceived opportunity costs of intervention prior to the mid-twentieth century, great powers could adopt a number of approaches to deny rivals access in a peripheral polity.The intensification of great power competition during the Great Depression, World War II, and early Cold War, however, uniformly drove up the expected costs of intervention for all great powers in East Asia. This forced the great powers active in that region to find more indirect ways to compete over access.In light of perceptions about the heightened opportunity costs of intervention, great powers sought to sponsor local groups that could help indirectly deny privileged access to adversaries in a particular polity. In exchange for cooperation on indirect access denial, then, a local group would receive assistance from its great power patron to defeat domestic rivals for control over the polity and the distribution of its surpluses. As these arrangements permit local partners to independently manage the polity in question, a primary resultant of such bargains was the institution of sovereign statehood.In contrast, when faced with more moderate perceived opportunity costs of intervention, great powers would attempt to regulate access by rivals directly. As such, a great power would work with local collaborators who would support explicit great power control and the direct regulation of access in return for a favourable cut of the state?s surpluses. A consequence of such arrangements was the establishment of a colonial state.If the expected opportunity costs of intervention were low, on the other hand, a great power may try to deny access to a polity by its rivals completely. It may do so by eliminating or fully co-opting local elites. As a result, the conquered polity would become fully absorbed and integrated as part of the metropolitan core. Were the opportunity costs of competition prohibitively high in an area, I claim that a great power may forego efforts to deny rivals access to the area in question. This is likely to leave the existing form of state organisation in that particular peripheral polity untouched.Further, I posit that that East Asia prior to the mid-twentieth century contained polities where great powers faced divergent expectations about the opportunity costs of intervention. As a result, great powers active in the region sought different types of arrangements and bargains with local actors among the various East Asian polities. This led to the co-existence of polities with different forms of state organisation throughout the region, ranging from colonies to ?semi-colonies? and nascent sovereign states.East Asia before the mid-twentieth century also included conditions where competing great powers faced differing opportunity costs of intervention in the same polity. Under such circumstances, there may be a divergence in great power approaches toward competition over access in that area. This may lead a polity to display a range of institutional set-ups across its territory, with the nature and location of each attempt to shape state organisation aligning to the spheres of influence of the various relevant great powers. I believe this last situation best describes the Chinese experience with foreign intervention before the mid-twentieth century.In this project, I take great powers to be competing with each other over access rather than control of resources. After all, physical ownership of resources may mean little if adequate amounts of critical materiel cannot reach a targeted destination in time, a fact Tsar Nicholas II discovered much to his chagrin during the Russo-Japanese War.I also posit that perceptions about the rising opportunity costs of intervention can lead to more of an emphasis on absolute gains and indirect access denial, even though great power competition over access focuses fundamentally on relative gains and full access denial. Finally, I also assume that there are always various local groups competing for control over a polity and the distribution of its surpluses, and hence, willing to work with an external power to further this end.In offering a view that explicitly tries to account for the role of great power intervention on sovereign state creation, then, my project is an attempt to address the gaps left by contemporary accounts of this process that focus on the effect s of nationalist mobilisation and international norms supporting self-determination. After all, both popular nationalism and norms favouring self-determination were well established and highly influential across a large number of non-European polities since the late nineteenth century, if not earlier.Nonetheless, widespread changes to state organisation outside Europe only occurred well into the mid-twentieth century, and without having to go through the lengthy processes of capital and coercive build-up identified by theories of sovereign state formation focusing on late mediaeval and early modern Europe.A careful examination of the East Asian experience can, therefore, simultaneously draw from, and help generate new insights into, the dynamics of and linkages between great power competition, imperialism, and sovereign state formation in East Asia and elsewhere.

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

National Institutions for a World Polity: Transnational Migrant Diasporas, Political Remittances and State Responses

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