Hierarchy under anarchy: Informal empire and the East German state

International Organization

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 1995, Pages 689-721

  Wendt, Alexander ^a   Friedheim, Daniel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972476295     PISSN: 00208183     EISSN: 15315088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300028484     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. On spheres of influence, see especially Paul Real, Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance (New York: St. Martin's, 1983); and Jan Triska, ed., Dominant Powers and Subordinate States (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986). On intervention, see, for example, John Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974); and Richard Little, “Revisiting Intervention: A Survey of Recent Developments,” Review of International Studies 13 (January 1987), pp. 49-60. And on great power management, see Robert Klein, Sovereign Equality Among States (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974); and Ian Clark, The Hierarchy of States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
2. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959).
3. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 391-425.
4. See John Ruggie, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” World Politics 35 (January 1983), pp. 261-85; and Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
5. Stephen Kocs, “Explaining the Strategic Behavior of States: International Law as System Structure,” International Studies Quarterly 38 (December 1994), pp. 535-56.
6. Peter Blau, “Critical Remarks on Weber's Theory of Authority,” American Political Science Review 57 (June 1963), pp. 305-16. The quotation is drawn from p. 307.
7. Robert Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 42, emphasis original.
8. Steven Lukes, “Power and Authority,” in his Moral Conflict and Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 95.
9. Richard Della Fave, “The Dialectics of Legitimation and Counternorms,” Sociological Perspectives 29 (October 1986), pp. 435-60 and p. 441 in particular.
10. See Richard Herrmann, “The Empirical Challenge of the Cognitive Revolution,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (June 1988), pp. 188-89; and more generally, Richard Merelman, “Domination, Self-Justification, and Self-Doubt: Some Social-Psychological Considerations,” Journal of Politics 48 (May 1986), pp. 276-300.
11. Gerhard Wettig, “Die Deutschland-Note vom 10. Marz 1952 auf der Basis diplomatischer Akten des russischen Aupenministeriums: Die Hypothese des Wiedervereinigungsangebots” (The Germany note of 10 March 1952, based on diplomatic files of the Russian Foreign Ministry), DeutschlandArchiv 26 (July 1993), p. 795.
12. James Richter, “Re-examining Soviet Policy Towards Germany in 1953 ’ Europe-Asia Studies 45, no. 4, 1993, pp. 671-96.
13. Victor Baras, “Beria's Fall and Ulbricht's Survival,” Soviet Studies 21 (July 1975), pp. 381-95. This traditional kremlinology-style analysis has stood the test of time—and of recent revelations from East German and Soviet archives
14. Andrei Gromyko, Memories (London: Hutchinson, 1989), p. 318.
15. Vladislav M. Zubok, “Khrushchev and the Berlin Crisis,” working paper 6, Cold War International History Project, Wilson Center, Washington, D.C., (hereinafter CWIHP), May 1993, p. 5.
16. See especially James Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds., Governance Without Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); and Oran Young, International Governance (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1994).
17. Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: MacMillan, 1974).
18. Power: A Radical View