Join today and start reading your favorite books for Free!
Rate this book!
Write a review?
In After Victory, John Ikenberry examines the attempts of states to create lasting peace through international order after major wars. Arguing that major wars create a new distribution of power, Ikenberry contends that winning states have increasingly had incentives to exercise strategic restraint in post-war agreements to lock-in long-term influence in the international order through institutions that preserve and maintain existing power structures. Ikenberry’s empirical analysis of the instit
This was a well-written and interesting book about international politics. It's been a while since I've read it, so this is based off of memory only!The author uses historical and contemporary cases to outline his argument about what happens when an international war ends with a country powerful enough to make a power play.The argument in the book is that "after victory" in the conflict, the winner roughly 3 choices:1.) Abandonment--the winner leaves the area and actors to their own own devices
[Disclaimer: This is a snapshot of my thoughts on this book after just reading it. This is not meant to serve as a summary of main/supporting points or a critique – only as some words on how I engaged with this book for the purposes of building a theoretical framework on strategy.]Ikenberry presents his institutional theory as a means for post-war powers to negotiate their interactions with smaller states for the purposes of long-term stability once power has been gained through war. The author
After Victory attempts to develop a grand theory of how international systems are reorganized after major conflict. Specifically, it uses three cases to illustrate a theoretical framework for how the newly dominant victors in these conflicts –new hegemons – engage in institutional bargains, what Ikenberry calls the creation of constitutional orders, to secure a stable international order that maximizes the longevity of their dominance while making important concessions to the concerns and intere...
How political institutions are created and operated is one of the keys to understanding how international affairs in general and foreign policy in particular is created. In this book, Mr. Ikenberry lays out a general thesis of the three different orderings of international affairs (balance of power, hegemonic, and constitutional) and uses the examples of the post-war orderings of 1815, 1919, 1945, and the post-Cold War period up to 2000 to back up his thesis. This book is good, if not necessaril...
This study of postwar orders does a fine job of describing balance of power, hegemonic, and constitutional systems and how they have been applied after four major conflicts. This is insightful as it is real analysis of international relations seen through a historical lens. Ikenberry's definitions of the three systems are well told and his applications to historical example illustrate how each has their benefits and downfalls. The thesis centers around the merits of constitutional order as they
Excellent discussion of where institutions fit into international relations. Makes the case that, contrary to the narrow view of Realists and the overly utopian view of liberalists, institutions can be put in place for "selfish" reasons of creating a new order that benefits the contemporary power and allows that state to trade short-term power/gains/freedom of maneuver for a long-term investment in a stable, favorable system.
Ikenberry's book is a useful corrective to the current trend towards a reassertion of the Hobbesian view of relations between nations, however, it neglects certain aspects what truly makes multilateral agreements and transnational institutions functional--an Anglo-American hegemon with leaders temperamentally predisposed to be magnanimous in victory in seeing that the institutions function.
A thorough and interesting explanation of the causal variables in neoliberal IR theory, analyzed through the post-war hegemonic settlements of 1815, 1919, 1945, and 1989.
A little repetitive, but made some good points about how institutions fit into the ordering of states in contrast to the realist balance of power theory. .
I remember I had to read chunks of this for an IR class. Very interesting analysis of what to do once you have won a war.
Interesting response to realism. Still outdated though.