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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some theorists have extended this argument to suggest that the technological effects of the nuclear revolution, combined with the homogenizing effects of globalization, will lead to the emergence of a world state (c.f. Wendt, 2003; Deudney, 2010).
‘Unipolarity, then, highlights the concentration of military power in one state, the sole great power. It does not require economic preponderance,’ Monteiro argues (2014, p. 49).
Monteiro uses unipole, hegemon and great power interchangeably to refer to the preponderant power in the international system.
This point parallels Mearsheimer’s (2001) argument that the United States is a regional, but not global hegemon (p. 41).
References
Art, R. (2003) A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.
Art, R. and Waltz, K. (eds.) (2009) The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. 7th edn. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (eds.) (2005) Power in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cronin, B. (2001) The paradox of hegemony: America’s ambiguous relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 103–130.
Dahl, R.A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 202–ff.
Deudney, D. (2010) Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Digeser, P. (1992) The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 977–1007.
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.
Gallarotti, G. (2011) The Power Curse: Influence and Illusion in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Haass, R. (2008) The age of nonpolarity: What will follow us dominance. Foreign Affairs 87 (3): 44–56.
Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M. and Montgomery, A. (2009) Network analysis for international relations. International Organization 63 (3): 559–592.
Ferguson, N. (2004) A world without power. Foreign Policy 143 (July/August): 32–39.
Finnemore, M. (2009) Legitimacy, hypocrisy, and the social structure of unipolarity. World Politics 61 (1): 58–85.
Finnemore, M. and Goldstein, J. (eds.) (2013) Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jervis, R. (2009) Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics 61 (1): 188–213.
Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (2001) Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.
Krauthammer, C. (1991) The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.
Lake, D. (2011) Two cheers for bargaining theory: Assessing rationalist explanations of the Iraq war. International Security 35 (3): 7–52.
Layne, C. (1997) From preponderance to offshore balancing: America’s future grand strategy. International Security 22 (1): 86–124.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillian.
Maoz, Z. (1989) Power, capabilities, and paradoxical conflict outcomes. World Politics 41 (2): 239–266.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Mearsheimer, J. (2010) Imperial by design. The National Interest 111 (January/February): 16–34.
Mercer, J. (1996) Reputation in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Nye, J. (2011) The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
Posen, B. (2003) Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security 29 (1): 5–46.
Posen, B. (2007) After bush: The case for restraint. American Interest 3 (1): 6–32.
Posen, B. (2013) Pull back: The case of a less activist foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 92 (1): 116–128.
Posen, B. (2014) Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.
Press, D. (2005) Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
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.
Schweller, R. (2010) Ennui becomes us. The National Interest 105 (January/February): 27–39.
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.
Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sechser, T. (2010) Goliath’s curse: Coercive threats and asymmetric power. International Organization 64 (4): 627–660.
Stiglitz, J. and Bilmes, L. (2008) The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Taleb, N. (2012) Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House.
The Economist. (2013) Entitlements in America, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578385-entitlements-america, accessed 25 May 2013.
Voeten, E. (2011) Unipolar politics as usual. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (2): 121–128.
Ward, M., Stovel, K. and Sacks, A. (2011) Network analysis and political science. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 245–264.
Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.
Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A. (2003) Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations 9 (4): 491–542.
Zarkaria, F. (2008) The Post-America World: And the Rise of the Rest. New York: Penguin Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knuppe, A. Handcuffing the hegemon: The paradox of state power under unipolarity. Int Polit Rev 2, 61–71 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ipr.2014.22
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ipr.2014.22