Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Spheres of influence as negotiated hegemony – the case of Central Asia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In the nineteenth century, as well as during the Cold War, spheres of influence were created and legitimized to pursue and sustain order in world politics, as well as to avoid direct confrontation between the great powers. Nowadays, they are considered as belonging to a past characterized by confrontation, power politics, balance of power and coercion. Yet, spheres of influence still constitute part of the present-day political vocabulary, and several regional dynamics are in fact framed and analysed by using this concept. Are spheres of influence returning, or have they simply evolved? How do spheres of influence look like in contemporary international relations? With a specific focus on Russia and Central Asia, this article adopts an English School approach to the study of spheres of influence and offers a conceptualization of contemporary spheres of influence as structures of negotiated hegemony between the ‘influencer’ and the ‘influenced’ where norms and rules of coexistence are debated, contested and compromised on. The implications of this are multiple. First, the approach allows for seeing spheres of influence as social structures where norms and rules of coexistence are in play. Second, it allows for an analysis of the implementation and the legitimacy of spheres of influence through history. Third, by stressing the evolutionary character of spheres of influence, it puts the notion of their ‘return’ into question.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)378-403
JournalGeopolitics
Volume23
Issue number2
Early online date26 Dec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Aug 2018

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Il concetto di sovranitá in Asia Centrale

    Costa Buranelli, F., Dec 2019, In : Eurasiatica.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Regionalism

    Costa Buranelli, F. & Tskhay, A., 29 Aug 2019, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Marlin-Bennett, R. (ed.). Oxford University Press

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

  3. Russia and the CIS in 2018: regionalism or transregionalism?

    Kuhrt, N. & Costa Buranelli, F., 26 Feb 2019, In : Asian Survey. 59, 1, p. 44-53 10 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Russia and the cis in 2017. Russia in Asia: succumbing to China's embrace?

    Kuhrt, N. & Buranelli, F. C., 22 Feb 2018, In : Asian Survey. 58, 1, p. 55-64 10 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Familial geopolitics and ontological security: intergenerational relations, migration and minority youth (in)securities in Scotland

    Botterill, K., Hopkins, P. & Sanghera, G., 15 Oct 2018, In : Geopolitics. Latest Articles, 26 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Flexigemony and force in China's resource diplomacy in Africa: Sudan and Zambia compared

    Carmody, P. & Taylor, I., 2 Sep 2010, In : Geopolitics. 15, 3, p. 496-515 20 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Indigestible geopolitics: The many readings of the digest

    Sharp, J., 2003, In : Geopolitics. 8, 2

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. A polish bridge?

    Dawson, A. H., 2001, In : Geopolitics. 6, 1, p. 91-106

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 246705906

Top