Reviews

Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village, Daniel H. Deudney (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006), 384 pp., $35 cloth, $24.95 paper.

With Bounding Power, Daniel Deudney Long in gestation, Bounding Power is a makes a masterly contribution to the ren- vigorously argued and sophisticated book, aissance of classical political theory in which contains a number of important contemporary thought about world poli- strands of discussion that combine to tics; in this regard he follows Michael make the case for what Deudney labels ‘‘re- Doyle and others in demonstrating how a publican security theory.’’ One important fresh reading of the historical traditions strand of the book is its reconstruction of that lie behind contemporary theoretical the concepts of anarchy (an absence of formulations can generate new per- authoritative order) and hierarchy (order spectives on both theory and practice. In established through subordination), and the case of Doyle’s work, a key theme has their reorientation around Deudney’s new been exploring the intellectual roots of formulation, ‘‘negarchy,’’ characterized by liberalism in international relations and the presence of mutual restraints with a thecontoursofliberalpeacetheory—the primary role in generating ordered rela- idea that liberal democracies are not tionships. Two of the heroes of Deudney’s disposed to go to war against each other. intellectual reconstruction are Hobbes and For Deudney, meanwhile, the central Locke. Hobbes develops his argument for subject is republicanism, and in particular sovereign power as a means by which to the idea that the republican tradition depart from anarchy, whereas Locke ar- of thought about security—with its re- gues for the need to enhance freedom cognition of the interplay of changing without jeopardizing law and order. In material contexts (geographical and tech- other words, Hobbes moves to one ex- nological) and the conditions that en- treme, absolutism, and Locke to the other, gender mutual restraint—ought to be liberalism. Deudney argues that repub- takenfarmoreseriouslyincontemporary licanism—which recognizes both the inter- debates about global security. An im- ests of governments and the need to portant insight generated by Deudney’s preserve public sovereignty—resolves the reconstruction of the republication tradi- dilemma of having to opt for either ex- tion, with consequences for foreign policy treme by combining different degrees of and the practice of world politics, is that anarchy and hierarchy at different levels of in the ‘‘global village’’ changing technol- political life. Deudney is particularly suc- ogy invites and even compels the notion cessful in this effort to trace the arguments of political organization and ‘‘union’’ at of classical political theorists as if they the global level. were engaged in a single, historic debate

Ó 2008 Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

331 around the republican security model, a thinking that negates perspectives beyond theoretical formulation that might most one particular tradition. Moreover, one broadly be expressed through the ideas has to wonder whether the most fitting that (1) security and insecurity are gen- way to combat the current primacy of real- erated, respectively, by the presence or ab- ist thinking is to argue instead simply for sence of restraints on violence; and (2) that the primacy of republicanism. In his con- such ‘‘restraints’’ may be provided either cluding chapter, Deudney correctly points by material contexts (such as the presence out that in the United States both the of a geographical barrier or the absence of Westphalian and Philadelphian models re- advanced weaponry) or have to be actively main strong, with the former anachronisti- constructed by political agents. cally and atavistically reasserting itself It should come as no surprise, therefore, while the rest of the world becomes more that Deudney’s ultimate interest is in the Philadelphian. In my view such competi- contemporary evolution of global gover- tion among diverging images of the global nance and the role of the republican model village must be captured not by elevating in this process. In this regard, Bounding republican security theory above all other Power parallels some of my own work. In a models but by elucidating the ways in 1999 article in International Studies Review, which such divergence is generated. I argued that three models are in competi- Deudney has certainly opened new vis- tion for predominance in the global system. tas of classical political theory to inter- These models—the Westphalian, the Phila- national relations scholars: Aristotle, delphian, and the Anti-Utopian—highlight Montesquieu, Ibn Khaldun, Machiavelli, three separate trends: state sovereignty, Mahan, Kant, and others are all reinter- popular sovereignty, and loss of sover- preted within the frame of republican se- eignty. The article associated each trend curity theory. To Deudney, the debate with a different key variable. Thus, I argued between realism and liberalism has been that the vitality of nation-states helps to too narrowly focused, and only by taking mobilize symbolic and cultural identities in advantage of the more comprehensive the Westphalian direction; technological in- vantage provided by republicanism can novations push the globe in the Philadel- one see the full picture, historical and con- phian direction; while demographic and temporary. The contemporary interna- environmental degradations pull the earth tional political landscape is drawn as one in the Anti-Utopian direction. of increasing interdependence, with pro- Up to a point, Deudney’s argument jections of a move toward government at maps onto my own intellectual terrain. the global level. At least in this book, However, what he downplays is that West- Deudney leaves his answer to how future phalian, Philadelphian, Anti-Utopian, and, revolutions in terms of communications by extension, republican thoughts are evi- and weapons technologies might facilitate dent in the political and intellectual histor- increasing interdependence and world ies of many non-Western countries, as well government for interested readers to spec- as in his reconstructed Western tradition. ulate. But some will be unsatisfied that the Deudney’s approach may therefore itself process by which we get to world govern- be challenged for its effort to originate a ment is not made clear. In particular, how fresh template for international security can such an outcome be reached while

332 recent books on ethics and international affairs avoiding too much violence and too stiff- Queen Elizabeth I, the sovereign queen ening a hierarchy, the avoidance of which who established absolutism, enfeebling are after all the very aims of republican se- medieval actors in England and beyond? curity theory? Hopefully the logic of republican security Take nuclear weapons and the possibil- theory can play out without too much ity of nuclear terrorism: How do we pre- bloodshed or imposition. vent further nuclear proliferation? Once —TAKASHI INOGUCHI proliferation is accommodated, or not suf- The reviewer is Professor of Political Science at Chuo ficiently strongly punished, it encourages University and Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University, nuclear weapons acquisition. So how do Japan. His recent books include Japanese Politics: An 2005 we persuade nuclear weapons states to give Introduction ( ), Political Cultures in Asia and Europe (with Jean Blondel, 2006), and The Uses of In- up their weapons? Will the United States stitutions: The U.S., Japan, and Governance in East lead the way? Will it follow in the steps of Asia (edited with John Ikenberry, 2007).

recent books on ethics and international affairs 333