Advertisement

International Politics Reviews

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 61–71 | Cite as

Handcuffing the hegemon: The paradox of state power under unipolarity

  • Austin J Knuppe
Review Article

Abstract

The exercise of state power in global politics often involves a vexing paradox: strategies intended to create or project power may end up reducing it. Under unipolarity, the lack of structural constraints in the international system do as much to undermine hegemonic power as to magnify it. Through an examination of the structure and process of unipolar politics, the three works reviewed in this article investigate the unintended consequences of preponderant power, especially as it relates to American grand strategy. As such, the paradox of state power has direct implications for the durability and relative peacefulness of the unipolar politics.

Keywords

paradox of power structural realism American grand strategy hegemony primacy 

References

  1. Art, R. (2003) A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Art, R. and Waltz, K. (eds.) (2009) The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. 7th edn. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (eds.) (2005) Power in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bremmer, I. and Roubini, R. (2011) A G-zero world: The new economic club will produce conflict, not cooperation. Foreign Affairs 90 (2): 2–7.Google Scholar
  5. Cronin, B. (2001) The paradox of hegemony: America’s ambiguous relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl, R.A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 202–ff.Google Scholar
  7. Deudney, D. (2010) Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Digeser, P. (1992) The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 977–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eilperin, J. (2014) Obama lays out his foreign policy doctrine: Singles, doubles and the occasional home run, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-lays-out-his-foreign-policy-doctrine-singles-doubles-and-the-occasional-home-run/2014/04/28/e34ec058-ceb5-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html, accessed 28 April 2014.
  10. Gallarotti, G. (2011) The Power Curse: Influence and Illusion in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Haass, R. (2008) The age of nonpolarity: What will follow us dominance. Foreign Affairs 87 (3): 44–56.Google Scholar
  12. Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M. and Montgomery, A. (2009) Network analysis for international relations. International Organization 63 (3): 559–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson, N. (2004) A world without power. Foreign Policy 143 (July/August): 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finnemore, M. (2009) Legitimacy, hypocrisy, and the social structure of unipolarity. World Politics 61 (1): 58–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finnemore, M. and Goldstein, J. (eds.) (2013) Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jervis, R. (2009) Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics 61 (1): 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (2001) Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Krauthammer, C. (1991) The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lake, D. (2011) Two cheers for bargaining theory: Assessing rationalist explanations of the Iraq war. International Security 35 (3): 7–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Layne, C. (1997) From preponderance to offshore balancing: America’s future grand strategy. International Security 22 (1): 86–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maoz, Z. (1989) Power, capabilities, and paradoxical conflict outcomes. World Politics 41 (2): 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  25. Mearsheimer, J. (2010) Imperial by design. The National Interest 111 (January/February): 16–34.Google Scholar
  26. Mercer, J. (1996) Reputation in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nye, J. (2011) The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  28. Posen, B. (2003) Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security 29 (1): 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Posen, B. (2007) After bush: The case for restraint. American Interest 3 (1): 6–32.Google Scholar
  30. Posen, B. (2013) Pull back: The case of a less activist foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 92 (1): 116–128.Google Scholar
  31. Posen, B. (2014) Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Press, D. (2005) Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ross, R. (2013) US grand strategy, the rise of China, and US national security strategy for East Asia. Strategic Studies Quarterly 7 (2): 20–40.Google Scholar
  34. Schweller, R. (2010) Ennui becomes us. The National Interest 105 (January/February): 27–39.Google Scholar
  35. Schweller, R. (2014) The age of entropy: Why the new world order won’t be orderly. Foreign Affairs Online, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141568/randall-l-schweller/the-age-of-entropy.
  36. Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sechser, T. (2010) Goliath’s curse: Coercive threats and asymmetric power. International Organization 64 (4): 627–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stiglitz, J. and Bilmes, L. (2008) The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  39. Taleb, N. (2012) Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  40. The Economist. (2013) Entitlements in America, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578385-entitlements-america, accessed 25 May 2013.
  41. Voeten, E. (2011) Unipolar politics as usual. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (2): 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward, M., Stovel, K. and Sacks, A. (2011) Network analysis and political science. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wendt, A. (2003) Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations 9 (4): 491–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zarkaria, F. (2008) The Post-America World: And the Rise of the Rest. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Austin J Knuppe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations