Mainstream IR theory, especially neorealism in the tradition of Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics (1979), treats the international system as anarchic: no overarching authority sits above formally sovereign states. The concept of hierarchy pushes back against this baseline by arguing that relations among states are often stratified, with some states exercising legitimate authority over others in specific issue areas.
The most developed version comes from David Lake, particularly in Hierarchy in International Relations (2009). Lake defines hierarchy as a bargained relationship in which a dominant state provides political order (security, economic stability) in exchange for compliance from subordinate states. He measures it along two dimensions: security hierarchy (e.g., basing rights, alliance dependence) and economic hierarchy (e.g., monetary and trade dependence). On this view, the U.S.–South Korea or U.S.–Honduras relationships are not simply alliances of equals but contain real authority relations.
Other scholarship approaches hierarchy differently:
- English School writers (Hedley Bull, Adam Watson) describe historical international societies as ranging from anarchy through hegemony, suzerainty, dominion, to empire.
- Constructivists such as Ayşe Zarakol (Hierarchies in World Politics, 2017) emphasize status, stigma, and social rankings — why states care about being seen as "great powers" or "civilized."
- Postcolonial IR scholars argue that racial and civilizational hierarchies have always structured world politics, and that the formal equality of sovereignty masks deep material and normative inequalities.
Hierarchy is also relevant to debates on hegemonic stability theory, spheres of influence, and unipolarity. Critics argue the concept stretches "authority" beyond useful limits, or that observed compliance reflects coercion rather than legitimacy. Still, the literature has shifted IR's research agenda toward asking how order is produced among states, not just whether anarchy prevails.
Example
In Lake's framework, the post-1945 U.S.–Japan security relationship — with U.S. bases, extended deterrence, and constraints on Japanese rearmament — is treated as a hierarchical authority relation rather than an alliance of equals.
Frequently asked questions
Hegemony typically describes a single dominant state's preponderant power or leadership in the system. Hierarchy is broader and more relational: it refers to legitimate authority relations between specific pairs or groups of states, which may exist without system-wide dominance.
Keep learning