Years ago, I saw an excellent presentation at MPSA by Katrina Browne, then a grad student at @cornellgov. Here is the working paper (which I kept because I thought the paper was so cool).
The paper highlights some of the famous instances of land sales, such as...
Louisiana Purchase (a personal favorite, since Napoleon needed the money for war financing purposes)
Spain's sale of colonies to Germany in 1899
Seward's 1867 purchase of Alaska from Russia (which Russia considered "Siberia's Siberia)
Here's the $7.2million check!
But there are also relatively recent examples, such as Tajikistan's sale/lease/ceding of land to China reuters.com/article/us-taj…
And land sale was even a way for Greece to address its debt problems (as described in this 2011 @WSJ article)
The idea is that land sales aren't more common because, well, you don't want a lemon.
Think of Alaska. Russia viewed it as "Siberia's Siberia". People called it "Seward's folly". Only later did we discover that it had oil. LOTS OF OIL
So land purchases are rare because such asymmetric information over quality prevents the transactions.
Though straight out land sales are now rare, land "renting" is not. After all, how do you think the US government acquires the land for all of it's overseas bases?
So definitely a need for more international relations work related to land sales.
It was more common in the past than today. But the act isn't unprecedented, even in the 21st century.
[END]
Addendum: Historian Dominic Alessio has published a number of pieces in IR journals related to US land purchases as empire building (h/t @MDRBrown & @The_RickMc)
These include...
...a @FPA_Jrnl piece published this year (on US purchases in Micronesia)
@dimmerwahr Addendum 2: @jonasbunte, Burak Giray, & @patrickshea_ps have a working paper on sovereign land leases -- long term leases are rampant in IR (ties nicely back to the above point about basing):
Which of these two men is most responsible for World War II?
Short answer: not Churchill
Long answer: [THREAD]
To be clear, in this thread I am dealing with the onset of the war in Europe. The War in Asia was just as important and obviously connected to Europe. But that is for another thread. For now, I do highly recommend Paine's book "The Wars for Asia"
Solving the "Europe Problem" has vexed US foreign policy since the beginning.
[THREAD]
As I wrote last week, a key trait of US "grand strategy" since the founding of the Republic was "Go West" either by expanding US territory west or seeking to maintain trade with China.
Since the founding of the republic, US foreign policy has been about one thing:
Go west (and don't let Europe get in the way).
[THREAD]
I'll write more about "don't let Europe get in the way" in another 🧵. This one will focus on the "Go west" part (which will also touch on the Europe part).
One could go so far as to argue that the Republic itself was founded because of a desire to go west. Specifically, the colonials were forbidden to go west of the 1763 Proclamation line.
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"
[THREAD]
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions.... cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s.
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics. worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.