Much of my IR theory research focuses on how diplomatic practice and institutions have evolved over time, how they have contributed to international order or disorder, and how and when they empower or constrain states’ activities. Empirically, much of my work analyzes the evolution and transformation of international society, and especially the politics and position of European and non-European polities from the 18th to the 20th century.
This research agenda requires being conscious of the distinct nuances of different time-periods, systems, and actors, while also trying to identify those practices and processes that carry across time and space. I spend much of my time continually expanding my historical knowledge and am literate in all historical eras from antiquity onward, with special expertise in global (not European) history from 1500. This research agenda also often require reading outside of political science, and drawing on the disciplines of history, sociology, and anthropology.
My most recent research projects are interested in how and why some empires gain the support of subordinate units.
"Symbolic Amplification and Suboptimal Weapons Procurement: Explaining Turkey’s S-400 Program." (with Lisel Hintz). (2022) Symbolic Amplification and Suboptimal Weapons Procurement: Explaining Turkey’s S-400 Program, Security Studies, 31:5, 826-856, DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2022.2153733
“The Diplomatic Presentation of the State in International Crises: Diplomatic Collaboration during the US-Iran Hostage Crisis.” 2019. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz055 - Winner of ISA Diplomatic Studies Section’s Best Article Award, 2020
“Fields of Practice: Symbolic Binding and the Qing Defense of Sinocentric Diplomacy.” 2019. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz054
“Rejecting Westphalia: Maintaining the Sinocentric System, to the End.” In Daniel Green (ed). The Two Worlds of Nineteenth Century International Relations, Routledge, 2018.
“The Rise of Dark Power: An Unforeseen Threat to International Order.” 2018. National Intelligence Research Short, May 2018.
"The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: The View from Graduate School." 2010 (with Joseph P. O’Mahoney) Qualitative & Multi-Method Research: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 8 (Spring) 2010.
“Aminah McCloud: The Voice of African American Islam.” 2006. Muslim Public Affairs Journal. July 2006.
This book builds on my existing work regarding the symbolic binding of Qing diplomatic practice and evaluates the role that this mechanism played in explaining the dynamics of 19th century Siamese, early Soviet, and revolutionary Iranian diplomatic practice. In addressing this broader set of cases, the argument contributes not only to our understanding of how practices can intersect in political ways, but also helps us to better understand why some ‘outsider’ states struggled to integrate into a European-dominated international society, while others were able to more readily adapt.
This paper analyzes relations between the Habsburg monarchy and its citizens and subjects in the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867-1914 and offers an explanation for why these relations were more or less stable at different times and in different regions. In particular, I explore why some dominant polities (metropoles) and subordinate polities (peripheries) in hierarchical relationships individually or simultaneously engage in practices that either stabilize or destabilize their relationships. In explaining this variation, I draw attention to two factors: (i) whether peripheries rely on the dominant polity (the metropole) to guarantee their security from other peripheries or from outside actors, and (ii) whether these peripheries have access to crucial networks that ensure their political significance in the hierarchical relationship with the metropole. Different configurations of these factors allow me to identify four different types of hierarchical-subordinate relationships: accommodative, collaborative, loyal, and assertive. Using this typology, I explain the stability or instability of Habsburgs relations with Cisleithania, Hungary, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Jewish population in the Empire. This model has implications for our understanding why imperial relationships vary, and why traditional stories regarding nationalism or centralization do not necessarily explain why imperial relations remain stable.
Salami tactics are frequently invoked as a way for states to make incremental gains at the expense of others without provoking a major response. But why do salami tactics work? Existing accounts explain success in terms of low costs, ambiguity and misperception, or insufficient resolve. However, these accounts ignore the rhetorical dynamics by which salami tactics dissipate resistance. We provide a theory of the construction of terminality, in which actions are justified as part of a political narrative with a clear, limited end goal. The more this narrative is convincing and legitimate, the harder it is to build a coalition of resistance, and thus the less likely it is that the actions making up salami tactics will provoke a major response from other states. We demonstrate the utility of the theory using Adolf Hitler’s strategy during the 1930s. Hitler’s appeals to overturning the injustices of the Versailles Treaty and to incorporating ethnic Germans into the Reich constructed his aims as terminal and thus disrupted collective resistance.
Why did the Concert of Europe succeed in preventing great power war? In this paper I look at the last successful instance of great power management prior to WWI - the Balkan Crises of 1912/1913 - and explain how war was avoided. I argue that the Concert succeeded not because of information-exchanges or a prior collective identity, but due to the “Concert” practices that diplomatic representatives engaged in. These practices led wider international society to understand the great powers as the “Concert.” This understanding had three linked effects. First, inside the conference, negotiators pursued proposals or solutions consistent with Concert behavior, and downplayed or ignored alternative approaches. Second, these concert practices led observers outside of the conference to increasingly interpret events through a “Concert” prism and, by doing so, reinforce the Concert identity inside the conference. This had a third effect of empowering the negotiators inside the conference, who came to dominate international diplomatic proceedings even over the heads of their own governments. I demonstrate this argument by showing how the practices of the initially-minor ambassadors’ conference in London in 1912 came to embody the Concert and, by doing so, helped the great powers to avert a general war.
This paper catalogues and analyses the ‘empire diplomacy’ practiced by European imperial powers from 1857-1914. I unpack the core features of ‘empire diplomacy,’ distinguishing between those that obtained between empires, those that occurred within empires. I use these observations to suggest a theory that explains why some empires were more successful practitioners of empire diplomacy than others. I propose that by considering the reliance of imperial cores on their peripheries, and by determining whether these peripheries were ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the European ‘family of nations’ in this period, we can understand the diplomatic priorities and strategies of European empires.
This article introduces the concept of 'Dark Power' to help categorize and explain the strategic impact of the types of hybrid and cyber security threats being increasingly used by actors such as Russia. 'Dark Power' is offered as unifying concept that highlights some core characteristics of the shadowy operations that the US and its allies find themselves repeatedly subject to. This form of power is 'Dark' as it is (a) ideologically nihilistic, (b) offers its users partial anonymity, and (c) it is not readily reflected against its most-likely user. It presents a severe threat to the West as its increased use corrodes social and political trust both within and between democracies, and thus jeopardizes the foundations of the liberal order.
Diplomatic ceremonial and protocol is part of the everyday of international diplomacy but what purpose does it serve? To understand the role of diplomatic ceremonial and protocol in international society I ask two interlocking questions: (1) what does it do, and (2) why does it persist? To answer these questions, I conduct a genealogy of the writings of eight prominent diplomatic theorists from 15th to the 20th century. From this I ascertain how the meanings, purposes, and obligations, and audiences associated diplomatic ceremonial protocol varied over time. I explain this variation by identifying three periods in the development of international society: a monarchical/absolutist era; a post-Napoleonic era; and a modern media era. I show that the transition from one era to another occurred when the extant system of legitimation was threatened by new actors or ideas. As each era shifted to the next, diplomatic ceremonial and protocol was put to new political uses, and obliged and constrained different political behaviors.