Introduction to Part I

  • Takashi Inoguchi
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
Part of the Trust book series (TRUST, volume 3)


The key concept utilized in this book to understand the international system is neither hegemony, hierarchy, nuclear bipolarity, nor pecking order; instead it is the global social contract. Lamenting the lack of a global polling study on the basis of global sampling theory and the lack of a global quasi-legislative study covering all the multilateral treaties, we have decided to study the link between the citizens’ preferences in values and norms and sovereign states’ participation in multilateral treaties systematically and empirically. By providing the empirical evidence that global citizens’ preference about values and norms converges approximately with sovereign states’ participation in multilateral treaties, it can be concluded that the global social contract could be imagined and minimally envisaged. Part I describes how our initial hunch-cum-hypothesis has developed into the conceptual formulation of the problem: Rousseau and Locke Writ Global. Deploying the World Value Survey (R. Inglehart et al) and the Multilateral Treaties Survey (Lien T.Q. Le and Takashi Inoguchi), we present the degree of association between citizens’ preference in value orientation and states’ preference in treaty participation and argue that our initial hunch-cum-hypothesis has been approximately validated when we formulate states’ participation in multilateral treaties as a bundle of global quasi-legislative contracts.


  1. Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belem Lopes, D. (2017). Polyarchies, competitive oligarchies or inclusive hegemonies? A comparison of 23 global intergovernmental organizations based on Robert A. Dahl’s political theory. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(4), 1233–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahl, R. (2006). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gilani, I. (2017). How global are global polls? Proposal for hybrid samples of world populations to blend policy concerns (favoring sample of 100 countries) and theoretical concerns (favoring sample of 100,000 people). In Paper presented at WAPOR annual conference, Lisbon, July 15–17, 2017.Google Scholar
  5. Gilani, I. S. & Gilani, B. (2013). Global and regional polls: A paradigmatic shift in from “state-centric” to “global-centric.” In Paper presented at WAPOR annual conference at Boston, May 14–16, 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Gilpin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Inoguchi, T. (2011). Political theory. In B. Badie, D. Berk-Schlosser, & L. Morlino (Eds.), International encyclopedia of political science (Vol. 6, pp. 2050–2063). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Inoguchi, T. (2015). Social science infrastructure: East Asia and the Pacific (Research and Teaching). In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral science (Vol. 22, 2nd ed., pp. 631–636). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Inoguchi, T. (2018). Theoretical underpinnings of global social contract. In W. Thompson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Oxford empirical international relations theory (Vol. 4, pp. 223–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Inoguchi, T., & Le, L. T. Q. (2016). Toward modelling a global social contract: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, M. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Krasner, S. D. (Ed.). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Krasner, S. D. (2009). Power, the state and sovereignty: Essays on international relations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lake, D. A. (2011). Hierarchy in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Le, T. Q. L., Mikami, Y., & Inoguchi, T. (2014). Global leadership and international regime: Empirical testing of cooperation without hegemony paradigm on the basis of 120 multilateral conventions data deposited to the United Nations System. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(4), 523–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nye, J. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  17. Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  18. Pouliot, V. (2016). International pecking orders: The politics and practice of multilateral diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steffek, J. (2017). Max Weber, modernity and the project of international organization. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(4), 1502–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Waltz, K. (1957/2001). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, Revised edition.Google Scholar
  21. Zunz, O. (1998). Why the American century? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Inoguchi
    • 1
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Asian CulturesJ.F. Oberlin UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.College of EconomicsHue UniversityHueVietnam

Personalised recommendations