Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:42:16.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Exploring Relations of Rule and Resistance in Global Politics

from Part III - Resisting Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

By
Christopher Daase  and
Nicole Deitelhoff
Edited by
Christopher Daase ,
Nicole Deitelhoff  and
Antonia Witt
Christopher Daase
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Nicole Deitelhoff
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Antonia Witt
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Get access

Summary

This chapter introduces a conception of rule that takes resistance rather than obedience as the constitutive element of rule. Based on an eclectic reading of different theories of rule, we argue that there is no rule without resistance. Even though rule might aim at suppressing resistance or might take such a subtle shape that it hardly encounters resistance, conceptually, rule is bound to resistance. Without a minimum of opposition, a recourse to rule would not be necessary. Even legitimate rule, which Weber calls authority, is legitimate only to a certain degree. As a consequence, not only obedience and the will to comply, but also dissent and the will to resist are part of rule. This chapter therefore sheds light on the relational dimension of rule, by analyzing the dynamic relationship between (forms of) rule and (forms of) resistance at the global level. To this end, we distinguish between two forms of resistance – opposition and dissidence – in order to show how resistance and rule implicate and influence each other. To demonstrate this relationship, we discuss four illustrative case studies on state and non-state forms of resistance and how they indicate and influence different forms of rule.

Keywords

Ruleauthorityresistanceoppositiondissidencenon-proliferationInternational Whaling CommissionICCalterglobalization
Type
Chapter
Information
Rule in International Politics , pp. 189 - 213
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Gary A. 2003. “Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front.” Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andretta, Massimiliano, della Porta, Donatella, Mosca, Lorenzo, and Reiter, Herbert. 2006. Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Networks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. San Diego, CA/New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1977. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1986 [1951]. Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft. München: Piper.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David, Farrell, Theo, and Maiguashca, Bice (eds.). 2003. Governance and Resistance in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
AU. 2009. Decision on the Meeting of African State Parties to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC), https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/decision-meeting-african-state-parties-rome-statue-international-criminal-court-icc-doc [last access 05/28/19].Google Scholar
Ayres, Jeffrey M. 2003. “Global Governance and Civil Society Collective Action: The Challenge of Complex Transnationalism.” International Journal of Political Economy 33(4): 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badescu, Christina G., and Weiss, Thomas G.. 2010. “Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral?” International Studies Perspectives 11(4): 354–374.Google Scholar
Bailey, Jennifer L. 2008. “Arrested Development: The Fight to End Commercial Whaling as a Case of Failed Norm Change.” European Journal of International Relations 14(2): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Jennifer L. 2009. “Norway, the United States, and Commercial Whaling: Political Culture and Social Movement Framing.” The Journal of Environment & Development 18(1): 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59(1): 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiker, Roland. 2005. “Seattle and the Struggle for a Global Democratic Ethos,” in Eschle, Catherine, and Maiguashca, Bice (eds.), Critical Theories, International Relations and “Anti-Globalisation Movement.” Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
Brands, Hal. 2007. “Non-proliferation and the Dynamic of the Middle Cold War: The Superpowers, the MLF, and the NPT.” Cold War History 7(3): 389–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckel, Sonja, and Fischer-Lescano, Andreas. 2007. “Hegemonie im globalen Recht – Zur Aktualität der Gramscianischen Rechtstheorie,” in Buckel, Sonja, and Fischer-Lescano, Andreas (eds.), Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 84–105.Google Scholar
Caygill, Howard. 2013. On Resistance: A Philosophy of Defiance. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Chacko, Priya, and Davis, Alexander E. 2018. “Resignifying ‘Responsibility’: India, Exceptionalism and Nuclear Non-proliferation.” Asian Journal of Political Science 26 (3): 352–370.Google Scholar
Clark, John D., and Themudo, Nuno S.. 2006. “Linking the Web and the Street: Internet-Based ‘Dotcauses’ and the ‘Anti-globalization’ movement.” World Development 34(1): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Nick. 2002. “Global Anti-corporate Struggle: A Preliminary Analysis.” British Journal of Sociology 53(4): 667–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daase, Christopher. 2003. “Der Anfang vom Ende des nuklearen Tabus. Zur Legitimitätskrise der Weltnuklearordnung” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 10(1): 7–41.Google Scholar
Daase, Christopher, and Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2019. “Opposition and Dissidence: Two Modes of Resistance against International Rule.” Journal of International Political Theory 15(1): 11–30.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1965. “Reflections on Opposition in Western Democracies.” Government and Opposition 1(1): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (ed.). 1966. Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2006. Überzeugung in der Politik: Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie Internationalen Regierens, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2009. “The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case.” International Organization 63(1): 33–65.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2020. “What’s in a Name? Contestation and Backlash against International Norms and Institutions.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22 (4): 715–727.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, Anderl, Felix, and Hack, Regina. 2019. “Divide and Rule: The Politics of Self-Legitimation in the WTO,” in Anderl, Felix, Christopher Daase, , Deitelhoff, Nicole, Jannik Pfister, , Kempf, Victor, and Wallmeier, Philip (eds.), The Transnationalization of Rule and Resistance: Contestation, Escalation, Exit. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Zimmermann, Lisbeth. 2020. “Things We Lost in the Fire. How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Validity of Norms.” International Studies Review 22(1): 51–76.Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella. 1995. Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2009. “Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘Ordering Principles’ to ‘Vertical Differentiation’ – and Beyond.” International Theory 1(1): 49–86.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Du Plessis, M. 2010. “The International Criminal Court That Africa Wants.” ISS Monograph 172. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
Egeland, Kjolv. 2017. The Road to Prohibition: Nuclear Hierarchy and Disarmament, 1968–2017. DPhil Dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Falk, Richard. 2000. “Resisting ‘Globalization-from-Above’ through Globalization-from-Below,” in Gills, Barry K. (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 46–56.Google Scholar
Gibson, John. 2008. “The Myth of the Multitude: The Endogenous Demise of Alter-Globalist Politics.” Global Society 22(2): 253–275.Google Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 2000. “Toward a Postmodern Prince? The Battle of Seattle as a Moment in the New Politics of Globalisation.” Millennium 29(1): 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Stephen. 2003. Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Guzzini, Stefano. 2005. “The Concept of Power. A Constructivist Analysis.” Millennium 33(3): 495–521.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael, and Negri, Antonio. 2000: Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hedlund, Gunnar, and Rolander, Dag. 1990. “Actions in Heterarchies: New Approaches to Manage the MNC,” in Bartlett, Christopher, Yves Doz, , and Hedlund, Gunnar (eds.), Managing the Global Firm, London: Routledge, pp. 15–46.Google Scholar
Helms, Ludger. 2004. “Five Ways of Institutionalizing Political Opposition: Lessons from the Advanced Democracies.” Government and Opposition 39(1): 22–54.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Higgott, Richard. 2000. “Contested Globalization: The Changing Context and Normative Challenges.” Review of International Studies 26: 131–153.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2015. “Delegation and Pooling in International Organizations,” Review of International Organizations 10(3): 305–328.Google Scholar
Hoover, Dean, and Kovalewski, David. 1992. “Dynamic Models of Dissent and Repression.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36(1): 150–182.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2007. After Anarchy. Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2012. “Almost Saving Whales: The Ambiguity of Success at the International Whaling Commission.” Ethics & International Affairs 26(1): 103–112.Google Scholar
Jain, Jagdish P. (ed.). 1974. India and Disarmament: Nehru Era, Vol. I. New Dehli: Radiant Publisher.Google Scholar
Jalloh, Charles C. 2017. “The African Union, the Security Council, and the International Criminal Court,” in Jalloh, Charles C., and Bantekas, Ilias (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–213.Google Scholar
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2005. “Violence Performed and Imagined: Militant Action, the Black Bloc and the Mass Media in Genoa.” Critique of Anthropology 25(4): 413–432.Google Scholar
Kalland, Arne. 2009. Unveiling the Whale: Discourses on Whales and Whaling. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Kapur, Ashok. 1978. “The Canada-India Nuclear Negotiations: Some Hypotheses and Lessons.” The World Today 34(8): 311–320.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith. 2007. “Who Keeps International Commitments and Why? The International Criminal Court and Bilateral Nonsurrender Agreements.” American Political Science Review 101(3): 573–589.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957. “The Waning of Political Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes.” Social Research 25: 381–414.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Langbein, Hermann. 1986. “Dem brutalsten Terror zum Trotz. Widerstand in den nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslagern 1939–1945,” in politische Bildung, Bundeszentrale für (ed.), Widerstand und Exil 1933–1945, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, pp. 159–168.Google Scholar
Sarah, Lieberman, Tim, Gray, Groom, A. J. R. 2011. “Moratoria in International Politics: A Comparative Analysis of the Moratoria on Genetically Modified Products and Commercial Whaling.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 14(4): 518–533.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Paul, and Sauer, Tom. 2018. “The Nuclear Ban Treaty: A Sign of Global Impatience.” Survival, 60(2): 61–72.Google Scholar
Mills, Kurt, and Bloomfield, Allan. 2017. “African Resistance to the International Criminal Court: Halting the Advance of the Anti-impunity Norm.” Review of International Studies 44(1): 101–127.Google Scholar
Nagtzaam, Gary. 2017. From Environmental Action to Ecoterrrorism? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Robert, Goetz, Amme M., Scxholte, Jan A., and Williams, Marc. 2000. Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus, and Preuss, Ulrich K.. 2006. “The Problem of Legitimacy in the European Polity: Is Democratization the Answer?” Conweb Papers 6: 1–37.Google Scholar
O’Grady, Siobhán. 2016. “Gambia: The ICC Should Be Called the International Caucasian Court: Gambia Is the Latest Country to Leave the ICC.” Foreign Policy 10/26/16, https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/26/gambia-the-icc-should-be-called-the-international-caucasian-court/ [last access 05/28/19].Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas, and Klink, Frank F.. 1989. “Anarchy, Authority, Rule.” International Studies Quarterly 33(2):149–173.Google Scholar
Ottaway, Marina. 2001. “Corporatism Goes Global: International Organizations, Nongovernmental Organization Networks, and Transnational Business.” Global Governance 7: 265–292.Google Scholar
Paul, T. V. 2009. The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sakaguchi, Isao. 2013. “The Roles of Activist NGOs in the Development and Transformation of IWC Regime: The Interaction of Norms and Power.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3(2), 194–208.Google Scholar
Schabas, William A. 2017. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–65.Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 1983 [1908]. Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Ssenyonjo, Manisuli. 2017. “State Withdrawals of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court,” in Jalloh, Charles C., and Ilias Bantekas, I (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–246.Google Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas, Sommerer, Thomas, Squatrito, Theresa, and Jönsson, Christer. 2013. The Opening up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo. The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2014. A Theory of Contestation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Worth, Owen, and Buckley, Karen. 2009. “The World Social Forum: Postmodern Prince or Court Jester?” Third World Quarterly 30(4): 649–661.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2012. “Autorität und Legitimität in der postnationalen Konstellation,” in Anna Geis, Anna, Nullmeier, Frank, Daase, Christopher (eds.), Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2015. “Jenseits der Anarchie: Autorität und Herrschaft in der Global Governance.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56(2): 319–333.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias. 2012. “International Authority and Its Politicization.” International Theory 4(1): 69–106.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×