1. See, for example, Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes(Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, particularly the editor's introductory and concluding chapters, and Ruggie, John Gerard, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity,” in Keohane, Robert O., ed., Neorealism and Its Critics(New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 130–57Google Scholar. A major new study which has been very influential in my own thinking is James, Alan, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986)Google Scholar.

2. See Jackson, Robert H., “Civil Science: A Rule-Based Paradigm for Comparative Government” (Delivered at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 3–609 1987)Google Scholar.

3. Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” in Knorr, K. and Rosenau, J. N., eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 20Google Scholar and Wight, Martin, “Why Is There No International Theory?” in Butterfield, H. and Wight, M., eds., Diplomatic Investigations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), p. 17Google Scholar.

4. Knox, T. M., ed., Hegel's Philosophy of Right (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 13Google Scholar.

5. Ryle, G., The Concept of Mind (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968), chap. 2Google Scholar.

6. Ryle, G., “Ordinary Language,” in Chappell, V. C., ed., Ordinary Language (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 32Google Scholar.

7. Krasner, , International Regimes, p. 2Google Scholar. Among contemporary British international theorists the term “international society” is used to denote the same phenomenon. See, for example, Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1967)Google Scholar, chaps. 1 and 3. The term “international regimes” is preferable because it denotes principles and rules and not merely regularities or norms: in other words, it is a better jurisprudential term.

8. Bull, , “International Theory,” p. 54Google Scholar.

9. Kratochwil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 753–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Ibid., p. 760.

11. Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), ch. 5Google Scholar.

12. Puchala, Donald J. and Hopkins, Raymond F., “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, p. 86Google Scholar.

13. Notable recent studies in civil regimes analysis include Kratochwil, Friedrich, “The Force of Prescriptions,” International Organization 38 (Autumn 1984), pp. 685–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nardin, Terry, Law, Morality and the Relations of States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, and Onuf, N. G. and Peterson, V. Spike, “Human Rights and International Regimes,” Journal of International Affairs 37 (Winter 1984), pp. 329–42Google Scholar.

14. James, , Sovereign Statehood, p. 25Google Scholar.

15. Classical realism goes one step farther by suggesting that international relations are totally instrumental and not at all an institutionalized game. Hans Morgenthau discloses this conception in his defining statement: “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” Politics among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1966), p. 25Google Scholar.

16. See Mcllwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York: Macmillan, 1932), p. 268Google Scholar.

17. See the remarkable collection of essays analyzing this process in Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, ed., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), especially Parts I and IIGoogle Scholar.

18. See Wight, Martin, British Colonial Constitutions 1947 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), pp. 80–81Google Scholar.

19. See Pennock, J. Roland, “Political Development, Political Systems, and Political Goods,” World Politics 18 (1966), pp. 415–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. The distinction between politics as a literature and as a language is explored by Oakeshott, Michael in “The Study of ‘Politics’ in a University,” Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962), p. 313Google Scholar.

21. According to Popper this is how science advances. See his Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Harper & Row Torchbooks, 1968)Google Scholar.

22. Mackenzie, W. M., Politics and Social Science (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967), pp. 279–80Google Scholar.

23. Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, pp. 195–231Google Scholar.

24. See the discussion of international regime change in ibid., pp. 4–5.

25. Puchala, and Hopkins, , “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis,” p. 73Google Scholar.

26. Quoted by Plischke, E., Microstates in World Affairs (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1977), p. iGoogle Scholar.

27. Oakeshott, , Rationalism in Politics, p. 69Google Scholar.

28. Beer, G. L., African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Scribners, 1923), p. 65Google Scholar.

29. Touval, S., The Boundary Politics of Independent Africa (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. As quoted in McEwen, A., International Boundaries of East Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 22Google Scholar.

31. Kirk-Greene, A., “The Thin White Line: The Size of the British Colonial Service in Africa,” African Affairs 79 (1980), pp. 25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Ekeh, P., “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 17 (1975), p. 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Williams, Robert, Political Corruption in Africa (Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing, 1987), chap. 1Google Scholar.

34. Andreski, Stanislav, The African Predicament: A Study in the Pathology of Modernization (New York: Atherton Press, 1968), chap. 7Google Scholar.

35. See, among others, Callaghy, Thomas S., The State-Society Struggle: Zaire in Comparative Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Clapham, Christopher, Third World Politics (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, Robert H. and Rosberg, Carl G., Personal Rule in Black Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and LeVine, Victor T., “African Patrimonial Regimes in Comparative Perspective,” The Journal of Modern African Studies 18 (1980), pp. 657–73Google Scholar.

36. Hart, Keith, The Political Economy of West African Agriculture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 104–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. The distinctions between medieval and modern are discussed in terms of international theory by Ruggie, John Gerard, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity,” pp. 141–43Google Scholar.

38. Young, Crawford, “Zaire: Is There a State?” Canadian Journal of African Studies 18 (1984), pp. 80–81Google Scholar.

39. Bull, and Watson, , International Society, p. 430Google Scholar.

40. Ibid.

41. See Jackson, Robert H., “Negative Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Review of International Studies 12 (10 1986), pp. 247–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Quoted by Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, third ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 74Google Scholar.

43. Ibid., p. 75.

44. See Gong, G. W., The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), chap. 2Google Scholar.

45. Gallie, W. B., “Liberal Morality and Socialist Morality,” Philosophy, Politics and Society, First Series (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979), pp. 116–33Google Scholar. Also see the brief discussion in Kratochwil, and Ruggie, , “International Organization,” pp. 763–64Google Scholar.

46. “A State is not a fact in the sense that a chair is a fact; it is a fact in the sense in which it may be said that a treaty is a fact: that is, a legal status attaching to a certain state of affairs by virtue of certain rules.” Crawford, J., “The Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law 1976–1977 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 95Google Scholar.

47. See the discussion of “effective control” in Shaw, Malcolm N., Title to Territory in Africa: International Legal Issues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. Brownlie, , Principles, p. 75Google Scholar.

49. Crawford, , “Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” pp. 116–17Google Scholar.

50. Ibid., p. 162. Also see the penetrating analysis of the Rhodesian case in James, , Sovereign Statehood, pp. 153–60Google Scholar.

51. Crawford, , “Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” p. 144Google Scholar.

52. Everyman's United Nations (New York: United Nations, 1968), pp. 370–71Google Scholar.

53. See especially UN General Assembly Resolutions 2621, 2627, and 2708 of Session XXV, 1970, and 3103 of Session XXVII, 1973.

54. The historical practice involved was expressed in early modern times by the new and radical claim: Rex est imperator in regno suo —the king is emperor within his own realm. See Mcllwain, , Political Thought, p. 268Google Scholar. Also see the brief but penetrating discussion in Wight, Martin, Power Politics, 2d ed. (Baltimore: Penguin Books and Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1986), pp. 25–26Google Scholar.

55. Wight, , Power Politics, p. 307Google Scholar. Also see Crawford, , “Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” p. 96Google Scholar.

56. Crawford, , “Criteria for Statehood in International Law,” p. 98Google Scholar.

57. Self-determination is part of the jus cogens according to Brownlie, , Principles, p. 515Google Scholar. He also notes (p. 75) that “self-determination will today be set against the concept of effective government, more particularly when the latter is used in arguments for continuation of colonial rule.”

58. See, for example, Gross, Leo, “The Right of Self-Determination in International Law,” in Kilson, M., ed., New States in the Modern World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), pp. 136–57Google Scholar.

59. The valuable distinction between solicited and unsolicited—or imposed—intervention is analyzed in Martin Wight, Power Politics, chapter 18. Nearly all foreign intervention in independent Black Africa, including that by the major external interveners, the Soviet Union and France, has been of the solicited variety. See Jackson, Robert H., and Rosberg, Carl G., “Pax Africana and Its Problems,” in Bissell, R. E. and Radu, M. S., eds., Africa in the Post-Decolonization Era, (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1984), pp. 157–82Google Scholar.

60. Wight, M., “The Origins of Our States-system: Geographical Limits,” in Systems of States (Leicester: University of Leicester Press, 1977), p. 128Google Scholar.

61. The closest to it is Bull and Watson, International Society.

62. Brownlie, Ian, “The Expansion of International Society: The Consequences for the Law of Nations,” in Bull and Watson, International Society, p. 359Google Scholar.

63. Curtin, P. D., The Image of Africa, vol. 1 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964), pp. 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. Shaw, , Title to Territory, p. 30Google Scholar.

65. Vansina, J., Kingdoms of the Savanna (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), pp. 155–56Google Scholar. Also see Mair, Lucy, African Kingdoms (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), chap. 1Google Scholar.

66. Bull, H., “European States and African Political Communities,” in Bull, and Watson, , International Society, p. 106Google Scholar.

67. See Hidemi Suganami, “Japan's Entry into International Society,” in Bull and Watson, International Society, chap. 12.

68. “[S]trong states accepted the legitimacy of colonialism and weak states would not challenge the status quo.” Puchala, and Hopkins, , “International Regimes,” p. 75Google Scholar.

69. See the perennially apposite discussion in Cobban, Alfred, The Nation State and National Self-Determination (New York: Crowell, 1969), chap. 4Google Scholar.

70. See the brilliant analysis in Jones, E. L., The European Miracle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), chaps. 6 and 7Google Scholar.

71. See Jackson, “Negative Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa.”

72. See R. J. Vincent, “Racial Equality,” in Bull and Watson, International Society, chap. 16.

73. Friedmann, Wolfgang, “The Changing Structure of International Law,” in Falk, Richard, Kratochwil, Friedrich, and Mendlovitz, Saul H., eds., International Law: A Contemporary Perspective (Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1985), p. 144Google Scholar.

74. Bedjaoui, M., “A Third World View of International Organization,” in Abi-Saab, G., ed., The Concept of International Organization (Paris: UNESCO, 1981), p. 207Google Scholar.

75. Krasner, , International Regimes, p. 367Google Scholar.

76. Bull, H., “The State's Positive Role in World Affairs,” Daedalus, The State 108 (1979), p. 121Google Scholar.

77. Miller, Lynn H., Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics (Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1985), p. 49Google Scholar.

78. See OAU Charter, Article II (3). The OAU Resolution on Border Disputes among African States (1964) “solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the frontiers existing on their achievement of national independence.”

79. Bull, H., “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations,” British Journal of International Studies 2 (1976), pp. 104–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. See, for example, the conceptual controversies surrounding the notion of “neorealism” in Keohane, Robert O., ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, especially the contributions by Richard Ashley, Robert Keohane, and Robert Gilpin.

81. See, for example, Beitz, Charles R., Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, which draws upon the neo-Kantian philosophy of John Rawls.

82. Hobbes, T., Leviathan, Oakeshott, M., ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), chap. 13Google Scholar.

83. This is a major feature of Michael Oakeshott's interpretation of Hobbes. See his Hobbes on Civil Association (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975), chap. 1Google Scholar.

84. Gilpin, Robert O., “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” in Keohane, , Neorealism, p. 304Google Scholar.

85. Hobbes, Leviathan.

86. Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli et Pacis Libri, trans. Kelsey, F. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), vol. 1Google Scholar, chap. 1, section xiv.

87. Lauterpacht, Hersch, “The Grotian Tradition in International Law,” in , Falk, , Kratochwil and M, endlovitz, International Law, p. 19Google Scholar.

88. Pufendorf, S., De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo, trans. Oldfather, C. H. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934)Google Scholar, chap. 2, section 13.

89. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill/Library of Liberal Arts, 1957), Addendum, p. 59Google Scholar.

90. Ibid., Second Article, pp. 16–20. “His cosmopolitan ideal is… a world in which the individual's rights come to transcend the boundaries of his own nation.” Gallie, W. B., Philosophers of Peace and War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see the insightful discussion in Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967), chap. 4Google Scholar.

91. Alexandrowicz, C. H., “New and Original States: The Issue of Reversion to Sovereignty,” International Affairs 45 (1969), pp. 465–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, by the same author, “The New States and International Law,” Millenium 3 (1977), pp. 226–33Google Scholar.

92. Wallace-Bruce, N. L., “Africa and International Law: The Emergence to Statehood,” Journal of Modern African Studies 23 (1985), pp. 575–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93. See Connor, Walker, “Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying,” World Politics 24, no. 3 (1972), pp. 319–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94. See Hayek, F. A., “Kinds of Rationalism,” Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), chap. 5Google Scholar.

95. See the excellent analysis of these tendencies by Robert Mortimer, A., The Third World Coalition in International Politics, 2d ed. (Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

96. Burke, Edmund, “Letter to a Noble Lord,” in Rafferty, F. W., ed., The Works of Edmund Burke, vol. VI (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928), pp. 46–7Google Scholar.

97. It is perhaps a parallel to what Wight identified as “inverted revolutionism,” which is the “pacifist stream” of international thought. See Bull, , “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations,” p. 106Google Scholar.

98. See Mortimer, Third World Coalition, especially chap. 1.

99. Ibid. Mortimer's study, as I understand it, is about “international empowerment”: what Third World states do with their sovereignty, which has been, among other things, to attempt to organize for collective action on North-South issues. This article is about the new foundation of international rights—negative sovereignty—which makes such action possible: “international entitlement.” Sovereignty has always made empowerment possible, but does not guarantee it and they are not the same thing. Historically, the reverse was more often the case. Linguistically, empowerment signifies capability, which is political-sociological and variable, whereas entitlement denotes right, which is moral-legal and categorical. Logically, the former is characteristic of realism and the latter of rationalism. For a philosophical analysis of these distinctions see Oakeshott, Michael, “The Vocabulary of a Modern European State,” Political Studies 23 (1975), pp. 319–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100. Miller, J. D. B., “The Sovereign State and Its Future,” International Journal 39 (Spring 1984), p. 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101. That this reluctance originates in Congress more than the White House and is a consequence of domestic U.S. politics, at least in part, makes no difference to the main point, which is that those who exercise the power of the American government are reluctant to use force against weak states even where the national interest is involved.

102. The skeptic might point to the recent U.S. interventions in Grenada and Libya or the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. In the former case, however, the Association of East Caribbean states solicited it and the U.S. justified it partly on these grounds. Moreover, most of the world, including many members of NATO, condemned it. In the latter case, Libya is clearly viewed widely not only in the West but also in the nonaligned world as a rogue elephant: an unpredictable international outcast that will not reciprocate. The Soviet Union also claimed that its intervention in Afghanistan was solicited—although it had evidently enthroned the communist regime which made the request.

103. The Peloponnesian War (New York: Modern Library, 1950), p. 331Google Scholar.

104. See the various selections in Keohane, Neorealism.

105. The structuralist image of international relations, Marxist or non-Marxist, in which horizontal socioeconomic divisions take precedence over vertical state divisions is a non- Kantian variant of revolutionism which I do not have the space to consider. For recent analyses see Pettman, Ralph, “Competing Paradigms in International Politics,” Review of International Studies 7 (1981), pp. 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, by the same author, State and Class: A Sociology of International Affairs (London: Croom Helm, 1979)Google Scholar. For a characteristically brilliant essay pertinent to this discussion, see Ali Mazrui, “Africa Entrapped: Between the Protestant Ethic and the Legacy of Westphalia,” in Bull and Watson, International Society, chap. 19.

106. See, for example, Shue, Henry, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

107. As quoted and discussed in Vincent, R. J., Human Rights and International Relations (New York: The Royal Institute of International Affairs and Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 118Google Scholar.

108. See Donnelly, Jack, “Humanitarian Intervention: Law, Morality and Politics,” Journal of International Affairs 37 (Winter 1984), pp. 311–28Google Scholar.

109. Vincent, , Human Rights, p. 118Google Scholar.

110. See the characteristically subtle and discerning analysis by Hoffman, Stanley, Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

111. Sieghart, Paul, The Lawful Rights of Mankind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 68Google Scholar.

112. Onuf, and Peterson, , “Human Rights from an International Regimes Perspective,” p. 338Google Scholar.

113. See Vincent, , Human Rights, pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

114. “For my part, I put my trust in the theory of what the relationships between men and states ought to be according to the principle of right. On the cosmopolitan level too, whatever reason shows to be valid in theory, is also valid in practice.” Immanuel Kant, “On the Relationship of Theory to Practice in International Right,” reprinted in Hans Reiss, ed., Kant's Political Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 92.

115. Bull, , “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations,” p. 110Google Scholar.

116. Ibid., p. 115.

117. Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration: Essays in International Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), p. 233Google Scholar.

118. The work of Friedrich Kratochwil already cited is particularly suggestive in this regard.