Claims of inter-state ‘specialness’ are commonplace in international politics. But how do some relationships between states come to be seen and categorized as ‘special’ in the first place? And what impact, if any, do recurring public representations of specialness have on states’ political and diplomatic interaction? While much scholarly work exists on alleged instances of special relationships, and on inter-state cooperation and alliances more generally, little systematic and theory informed research has been conducted on how special relationships evolve and unfold in practice. This book offers such a comprehensive study. Theorizing inter-state relations as ongoing social processes, it makes the case for approaching special relationships as constituted and upheld through linguistic representations and bilateral interaction practices. Haugevik explores this claim through an in-depth study of how the bilateral relationship most frequently referred to as ‘special’ – the US-British – has unfolded over the last seventy years. This analysis is complemented with a study of Britain’s relationship with a more junior partner, Norway, during the same period. The book offers an original take on inter-state relations and diplomacy during the Cold War and after, and develops an analytical framework for understanding why some state relationships maintain their status as ‘special’, while others end up as ‘benignly neglected’ ones.

Claims of inter-state 'specialness' are commonplace in international politics. But how do some relationships between states come to be seen and categorized as 'special' in the first place? And what impact, if any, do recurring public representations of specialness have on states' political and diplomatic interaction? While much scholarly work exists on alleged instances of special relationships, and on inter-state cooperation and alliances more generally, little systematic and theoretically informed research has been conducted on how special relationships evolve and unfold in practice. This book offers such a comprehensive study. Theorizing inter-state relations as on-going social processes, it makes the case for approaching special relationships as social processes, which are constituted and upheld through linguistic representations and bilateral interaction practices. Haugevik explores this claim through an in-depth study of how the bilateral relationship most frequently referred to as 'special' - the US-British - has unfolded over the last seventy years. This analysis is complemented with a study of Britain's relationship with a more junior partner, Norway, during the same period. The book offers an original take on inter-state relations and diplomacy during the Cold War and after, and develops an analytical framework for understanding why some state relationships maintain their status as 'special', while others end up as 'benignly neglected' ones.

This unique volume seeks to offer an original collection of essays on the theme of America’s ‘special relationships’. The essays vary in their focus; some are primarily historical, some are more contemporary. All consider the quality of ‘specialness’ in the context of America’s relationship with particular countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Russia, Iran and Israel.

rofessor Gilpin uses history, sociology, and economic theory to identify the forces causing change in the world order.

A reinterpretation of world politics drawing on Chinese cultural and philosophical traditions to argue for a focus on relations amongst actors, rather than on the actors individually.

How international relations theory can be applied to a zombie invasion What would happen to international politics if the dead rose from the grave and started to eat the living? Daniel Drezner’s groundbreaking book answers the question that other international relations scholars have been too scared to ask. Addressing timely issues with analytical bite, Drezner looks at how well-known theories from international relations might be applied to a war with zombies. Exploring the plots of popular zombie films, songs, and books, Theories of International Politics and Zombies predicts realistic scenarios for the political stage in the face of a zombie threat and considers how valid—or how rotten—such scenarios might be. With worldwide calamity feeling ever closer, this new apocalyptic edition includes updates throughout as well as a new chapter on postcolonial perspectives.

International relations are generally understood as a realm of anarchy in which countries lack any superior authority and interact within a Hobbesian state of nature. In Hierarchy in International Relations, David A. Lake challenges this traditional view, demonstrating that states exercise authority over one another in international hierarchies that vary historically but are still pervasive today. Revisiting the concepts of authority and sovereignty, Lake offers a novel view of international relations in which states form social contracts that bind both dominant and subordinate members. The resulting hierarchies have significant effects on the foreign policies of states as well as patterns of international conflict and cooperation. Focusing largely on U.S.-led hierarchies in the contemporary world, Lake provides a compelling account of the origins, functions, and limits of political order in the modern international system. The book is a model of clarity in theory, research design, and the use of evidence. Motivated by concerns about the declining international legitimacy of the United States following the Iraq War, Hierarchy in International Relations offers a powerful analytic perspective that has important implications for understanding America's position in the world in the years ahead.