Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)

Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University

Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: Organized

Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University Press

By: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi*

Book Summary
This is a book review of Sovereignty; Organized Hypocrisy authored by
Stephen David Krasner. This book review seeks to analyze the man,
message, meaning, and method adopted by the author in the book in arriving
at the catchy title organized hypocrisy. First the man, Stephen David Krasner
is the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations and a Senior
Fellow in the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.
Stephen was born in 1942, became an academic and a practicing diplomat in
the United States1. He is the author of Defending the National Interest: Raw
Material Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton) and Structural
Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism and is the editor of
International Regimes2. He was the Director of Policy Planning in the State
Department nominated the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He
has been regarded as a realist whose contribution has travelled along way the
international relations landscape introducing concepts such as punctuated
equilibrium, regime theory, hegemonic stability theory and critical juncture
theory3. Robert Keohane, one of his contemporaries, considers him as the
subversive realist an institutional theorist and constructivist who show that
these three ideas are not mutually exclusive 4 . To this end, international

*
PhD International Relations Candidate at USIU-A, MA Peace and Conflict
Management, Post-Graduate Dip in Law from Kenya School of Law, LLB,
Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
London.
1
Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public
Affairs. "Krasner, Stephen". 2001-2009.state.gov.
2
See back page
3
Benjamin J. Cohen “International Political Economy : An Intellectual History”
4
(Keohane 2013)
150
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

relations scholars and enthusiast would find it extremely difficult to ignore

the ideas put forward in the book.

The Message
Second, the message of sovereignty is contained in eight chapters running
from page 3-238 of exiting discourse that should be read out, internalized,
and analyzed by all the international relations students at all academic levels.
Chapter one5 is perhaps one of the most interesting chapters as it discusses
the idea of sovereignty and its discontent. Chapter two 6 discusses the theories
of institutions in the context of international politics pitting together the
debates between realist, liberalist and all their contemporary discourses. The
idea of sovereignty is considered alongside minority rights and human rights
where the book considers the idea of the ruler and the ruled 7. In terms of
international political economy, the issue of lending and borrowing has
attracted the attention in the book by considering sovereign debt and the
challenges that it poses especially for developing countries 8. Chapter six and
seven consider the debates on constitutional structures of states in the 19 th
century and after 1945. For the chess enthusiast, the book concludes with an
interesting discussion with the imagery of the game of chess, summarizing
the debates raised in the chapters of the book.

The Meaning
Third, the book brings out very curious ideas on the meaning sovereignty
which is to be understood as being grouped into (1) domestic 9 , (2)
interdependence 10 , (3) international legal 11 and Westphalian sovereignty 12
and how it has been practiced (pg.5). The focus is largely on the last two
which are more prominent in the rest of the book. The central argument

5
Page 3-42
6
Page 43-72
7
Chapter 3 and 4
8
Chapter 5
9
Relates to the public authority within a state and ability of the State to have control
over its territory.
10
This refers to the ability of states to control the movement across its borders
11
Here the idea of recognition by other nation states within the international society.
12
Where there is exclusion of external actors from entering into domestic authority.
151
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

made in the book is found in the sociologist James March and Johan Olsen 13
idea that the in the international system, the logic of consequences is
dominated by the logic of appropriateness. In other words, states do what is
appropriate regardless the consequences and that they are not as sovereign
as they ought to. The assumption made is that first, the rulers is the head of
state, and they are the decision makers within the state 14(pg.7). Second, the
ruler wants to stay in power with the aim of promoting security, prosperity,
and values of their constituent. With this in mind, the book argues that the
ruler (the main actor), is driven by local factors more than the international
system.

The ruler may by invitation or intervention allow the idea of sovereignty to

be easily compromised. Allowing external actors (institutional or otherwise)
makes it easy for rulers to make choices that allow multiple norms that in
some instances does not allow maximization of the utility of the state. To
this end, the ruler ends up making decisions that have consequences within
in the international system, but are driven by calculated material and
ideational interest, not to be taken for granted by some overarching structure
which is what is referred to as organized hypocrisy. In other words, some
rulers will be whipped into a position by the international system without
knowing the consequence of what happens locally (as hoped in the
Westphalia sovereignty).

Some of the discontents of sovereignty are based on several compromises

that leaders enter into including contracts, convention, coercion, and
imposition. Although a ruler is bound by conventions in the international
law, they may enter into contracts by way of coercion or imposition. This
makes it a quagmire for the ruler to assert sovereignty based on the
contingent factors such as actions by previous rulers that bound the states.

13
March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (2011). "The Logic of Appropriateness". In
Goodin, Robert E. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford
University Press. March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (1996). "Institutional
Perspectives on Political Institutions". Governance. 9 (3): 247–264.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491. 1996.tb00242.x. ISSN 1468-0491.
14
This is one of the arguments that would not sit well with the Liberalist
152
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

The book then adopts a constructivist angle to consider the idea of minority
and human rights as occupying a critical role in the international financial
institutions. The debate on minority rights has been aptly demonstrated in
age of international financial institutions. The idea is that political leaders
have not always honored international egal sovereignty as they should and
have treated violation to it in a cavalier manner as such not exploiting its
potential.

The Method
The method deployed in arriving at these finding is equally fascinating. Since
Krasner focuses on the Westphalia sovereignty, he deploys a creative and
convincing historical approach to the Ottoman empires and how they were
extinguished. The book navigates the lackluster approach adopted by
international relations scholars with historical clarity and precision to
account for the need to live the ideals of Westphalia 15. Second, the book
exploits an excellent combination of theoretical and practical approach
toward sovereignty while adopting empirical data through case studies. Here
the author considers instances where states are coerced into accepting
intervention while they ought to be sovereign. Third, thematic approach to
sovereignty has been explored to a great extent focusing on the ruler which
appears to be a Hobbesian approach to power. The idea of Westphalia came
before Hobbes and Locke but as correctly pointed out by Krasner, most
forget that the 1648 treaty related to the end of the Roman Empire and was
a new constitution for the Catholic Church16. This thematic approach points
to the idea that rulers play a critical part in the formulation of practice of
sovereignty. Although in the Hobbesian state of nature power is with an
absolute monarch17, the relationship between the ruler and ruled according
to Krasner is one of collegiality and compromise where the ruler does what
the ruled aspires (benevolent dictator).

15
(Joffe 1999)
16
(Krasner, Sovereignty 2001)
17
(Hobbes 1588-1679)
153
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

Fourth, the theoretical and practical methodological approach gives

prominence to the discussion on logic of consequences (theory) which
explains why leaders act as they do (sovereignty in practice). This gives a
challenge to the dominant theory on logic of consequences that focuses
mainly on identities, roles, and norms as the main shapers of foreign policy
behavior. Instead, Krasner contends that power and interest in international
relations explain the appropriateness of actions taken by states (practice) as
opposed to the norms and institutions of international system (culture and
tradition) as the main influencer to behavior (theory). In other words, he
argues that the practice of international relations cannot be explained only
by considering norms and institutions.

Critical Appraisal
Although the book is well written and congruently organized, there are some
areas that can be challenged successfully. First, the book places premium on
the individual actor (ruler) and gives prominence to their role without
considering that rulers may vary in different context, personality,
predilections, and predisposition. In other words, there may be instances
where different variables influence the leaders view of sovereignty based on
context or personality. There are different frames for analyzing the ruler as
an actor including the rational actor model, bureaucratic model, and actor-
specific model18. Although this is not what the book set out to do, it would
offer better and deeper analytical frameworks as opposed to sweeping
commitments to a general view of rulers.

Second, there is an abundance of evidence that the author is a realist

presenting himself as a neorealist. The consistent reference to interest and
power are the hallmark or realist. Although he uses constructivist frames
when considering the minority rights and human rights perspective, there end
result is that the state has not maximized sovereignty (power). The
organizing principle under the realist frames is power19. The book falls in the

18
Valerie M. Hudson “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the
Ground of International Relations” Foreign Policy Analysis (2005) 1, 1 – 30
19
(Waltz, Man State and War 1959 ) (Keohane 2013) (Waltz, Theory of
International Politics 1979)
154
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

trap most realist fall into by placing the individual at the center of all
activities of state and in his case sovereignty. This view ignores that there
are other approaches to reality including institutions help frame the
conversation of the individual and cooperation is the currency of liberalist.
Although the book was written about 20 years ago, the idea of power then as
it is now not necessarily domiciled in the ruler only. Since sovereignty is a
social construct as admitted by Krasner, each individual ruler adopts one
style or the other not merely based on the coercive powers that exist in the
international system.

Third, the book fails to consider the difference between certain concepts
which would have enriched the discourse more. These include influence and
authority where the later focuses on the rights, obligations and status of
States which creates the norms for sovereignty and the former is more on
leadership20. It must be pointed out that sovereignty is not absolute and is
often circumscribed by political expediency and the exercise of power is not
particularly enlightening21. For one to be sovereign they would be willing to
accept certain constraints otherwise they would not be sovereign. The
constraints are viewed by Krasner as being a violation of the Westphalian
model of sovereignty. The fact that states are autonomous does not indeed
mean that when the act in a particular way they are violating the idea of
sovereignty. This challenge arises because of the lack of distinction between
authority and autonomy that is dominated in the book.

Another area that is undeveloped is the term organized hypocrisy. Although

these are very attractive attributes of international relations discourse for
realist, they are not given prominent attention. For instance, the organizing
principle in the international system is anarchy 22, which would explain the
word organized. While hypocrisy would explain the reason why the
international system positively discriminated.

20
(Kingsbury 2000) (Oros 2000)
21
(Goldsmith 2000)
22
(Waltz, Man State and War 1959 )
155
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

Fourth, as correctly pointed out the sovereignty project is a continuous one

that ought to be tested in as many domains of knowledge as possible. These
include the are of recognition which is one of the building blocks of
sovereignty. Recognition is however not an automatic indicator of
sovereignty as it could exist without governance or autonomy and the
converse governance without recognition and autonomy23. Krasner argues
that the idea of sovereignty is not going to be influenced/affected by
globalization and those who hold such view take lightly the idea of an
autonomous State 24 . The idea here is that contending with the idea of
sovereignty is not flogging a dead horse especially because it cannot be
ignored nor is it the final authority on all matters to do with statehood.
However, globalization is admittedly changing the control of sovereignty
which is a nightmare for the realist adherent who insist on domains such as
power and interests, a problem that Krasner’s though cannot surmount.

Conclusion
The discussions that Krasner introduced in the field of international relations
continue to dominate the study of international relations to date. Although
sovereignty was a major subject for discussion in the nineteenth century,
Krasner judiciously delineates four meanings of the term sovereignty as has
been employed in the international relations and law literatures. The
discourse in the book does not conclude the debate on sovereignty however,
it contributes to the discourse of international relations.

23
(Krasner 2013)
24
(Krasner, Sovereignty 2001)
156
Book Review: Stephen David Krasner “Sovereignty: (2022) Journalofcmsd Volume 8(5)
Organized Hypocrisy” 1999, Princeton University
Press: Henry Kinyanjui Murigi

References

Goldsmith, Jack. 2000. "Sovereignty, International Relations Theory, and

International Law Reviewed Work." Stanford Law Review 959-986.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1588-1679. Leviathian . Baltimore : Penguin Books .

Joffe, Josef. 1999. "Rethinking the Nation-State: The Many Meanings of

Sovereignty- A Review of Sovereignty :Organised Hypocrisy ."
Foreign Affairs 122-127.

Keohane, Robert. 2013. "Stephen Kranser: Subversive Realist." In Back to

Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World, by Martha
Finnemore and Judith Goldstein. Oxford : Oxford University Press .
doi:DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.001.0001.

Kingsbury, Benedict. 2000. "Article Review Soverignty: Oraganised

Hypocrisy ." The American Journal of International LAw 591-595.

Krasner, Stephen D. 2013. Recongition: Organised Hypocrisy. London :

Cambridge University Press .

Krasner, Stephen D. 2001. "Sovereignty ." Foreign Policy 20-29.

Oros, Andrew. 2000. "Book Reviews ; Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty:

Organized Hypocrisy." Japanese Journal of Political Science 157-
172.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1959 . Man State and War . New York: Columbia
University Press .

—. 1979. Theory of International Politics . Long Groove : Waveland Press .

WIvel, Ander. 2014. "Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world
." International Affiars 702-703.

157
158