Skip to main content

Europe May Be Done with Power, but Power Is Not Done with Europe: Europe During an Era of American Unipolarity and of Relative Decline

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fear and Uncertainty in Europe

Part of the book series: Global Issues ((GLOISS))

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, realism has received little serious attention within the European International Relations literature and has been dismissed as insufficient to explain the most important developments and events in Europe and the world. We argue that this treatment has been unfair. In fact, we consider realism a powerful theory that explains broad, long-term patterns of state behavior, as well as systemic outcomes. The key contribution of realism is its understanding of the constraining and enabling role of the international distribution of power, which represents a decisive initial sorting stage for the choices that states can make. However, in line with neoclassical realist authors, we argue that to explain and predict state behaviour more precisely, the domestic distribution of power, ideas, interests, and institutions need to be taken into account. In any case, power disciplines states and other actors when their leaders fail to adequately recognise their place in the international system. Unlike rival theories, the attention of realists to the impact of the disproportionate power of the United States on the international system allows them to explain a series of developments: the end of the Cold War; the transformation of the global order; the lack of major power conflict; and the re-emergence of inter-state competition in Europe and globally. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of considerations of power for policymaking within Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It should be noted that realism was never out of fashion in Central and Eastern Europe. Yet voices from there were by and large not taken seriously in the rest of the European scholarly or policy communities.

  2. 2.

    See Feng (2009) on China’s position in the East Asian order from the 15th to the 19th centuries for a discussion of how globally unique American preeminence was.

  3. 3.

    Madeleine K. Albright, “The Right Balance Will Secure NATO ’s Future,” Financial Times, December 7, 1998.

  4. 4.

    We will return to this point in the second half of the chapter, when we bring on board neoclassical realist insights.

  5. 5.

    French foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine referred to the US as a hyperpower in 1999. “To Paris, US Looks Like a ‘Hyperpower’,” New York Times, February 5, 1999.

  6. 6.

    Jan Puhl, “Poles React: Warsaw Fears Washington Losing Interest in Eastern Allies,” Spiegel, September 17, 2009.

  7. 7.

    “‘Reset’ Sought on Relations with Russia , Biden Says,” Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, February 8, 2009. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was dismissive of attempts by the U.S. government to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine, which have been major irritants to Russia.

  8. 8.

    “Six days that broke one country—and reshaped the world order,” Ian Traynor, The Guardian, August 16, 2008. “Don’t ask us who’s good and who’s bad here,” said Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, “We shouldn’t make any moral judgments on this war. Stopping the war, that’s what we’re interested in.”

  9. 9.

    “Report: Polish minister calls US ties worthless,” Vanessa Gera and Monika Scislowska, Associated Press, June 23, 2014. Recordings of a private conversation in 2014 caught Polish foreign minister Sikorski describing Poland’s strong alliance with the US as worthless and “even harmful because it creates a false sense of security.”

  10. 10.

    Though Jack Snyder might take some issue with being included among the neoclassical realists.

  11. 11.

    US embassy in the Netherlands, “Ambassador’s Parting Thoughts on Taking the Dutch to the Next Level,” Date: August 22, 2005 (05THEHAGUE2309, Wikileaks 2011).

  12. 12.

    US embassy in the Netherlands, “Netherlands/Afghanistan: Engaging Labor Party Leader Bos—Part of the ‘Getting to Yes’ Strategy for Extending Dutch Deployments in Afghanistan Post-2010,” Date: September 18, 2009 (09THEHAGUE567, Wikileaks 2011).

  13. 13.

    Anonymous French Ministry of Defense official, interview with one of the authors, February 2016.

References

  • Art, Robert J. 1996a. “American Foreign Policy and the Fungibility of Force.” Security Studies 5 (4): 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996b. “Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO.” Political Science Quarterly 111 (1): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Thomas U. 1998. Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calleo, David P. 2011. Rethinking Europe’s Future. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Thomas J. 1996. Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dueck, Colin. 2008. Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, John S. 1999. “Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism.” International Organization 53 (4): 765–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein, David M. 2002. “Managing Uncertainty: Beliefs About Intentions and the Rise of Great Powers.” Security Studies 12 (1): 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, Zhang. 2009. “Rethinking the ‘Tribute System’: Broadening the Conceptual Horizon of Historical East Asian Politics.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 (4): 545–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freyberg-Inan, Annette. 2018. “Global Governance and the Continuing Relevance of Power.” Forum on Power Politics. International Institutions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyberg-Inan, Annette, Ewan Harrison, and Patrick James. 2009. Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Germany. White Paper 1994.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://www.resdal.org.ar/Archivo/d0000066.htm.

  • Howorth, Jolyon, and Anand Menon. 2009. “Still Not Pushing Back: Why the European Union Is Not Balancing the United States.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (5): 727–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G. John. 2002. America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Seth G. 2007. The Rise of European Security Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judt, Tony. 2006. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kier, Elizabeth. 2017. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1993. “The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-Realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics.” Review of International Studies 19 (1): 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühn, Ulrich, Tristan Volpe, and Bert Thompson. 2017. “Tracking the German Nuclear Debate.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/09/07/tracking-german-nuclear-debate-pub-72884.

  • Kydd, Andrew. 1997. “Sheep in Sheep’s Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other.” Security Studies 7 (1): 114–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, Christopher. 1993. “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise.” International Security 17 (4): 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy.” International Security 22 (1): 86–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, Richard Ned. 1994. “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.” International Organization 48 (2): 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2010. “Balancing on Land and at Sea: Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?” International Security 35 (1): 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, Qiao, and Wang Xiangsui. 1999. Unrestricted Warfare. Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastanduno, Michael. 1997. “Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and US Grand Strategy After the Cold War.” International Security 21 (4): 49–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War.” International Security 15 (1): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, Hugo, and Marco Wijss, eds. 2018. The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Defence. 1998. “Strategic Defence Review.” HM Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narizny, Kevin. 2017. “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism.” International Security 42 (2): 155–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, Barry R. 1986. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of US Hegemony.” International Security 28 (1): 5–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. “European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity?” Security Studies 15 (2): 149–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Quadrennial Defense Review.” 2014. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/Quadrennial-Defense-Review/.

  • Rathbun, Brian. 2008. “A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism.” Security Studies 17 (2): 294–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, and Steven E. Lobell. 2016. Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization 48 (2): 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosato, Sebastian. 2015. “The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers.” International Security 39 (3): 48–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosecrance, Richard. 2006. “Power and International Relations: The Rise of China and Its Effects.” International Studies Perspectives 7 (1): 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Russia’s 2000 Military Doctrine | NTI.” 2000. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russias-2000-military-doctrine/.

  • Rynning, Sten. 2002. Changing Military Doctrine: Presidents and Military Power in Fifth Republic France, 1958–2000. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, Randall L. 2006. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, Randall L., and William C. Wohlforth. 2000. “Power Test: Evaluating Realism in Response to the End of the Cold War.” Security Studies 9 (3): 60–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, James J. 2009. Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?: The Transformation of Modern Europe. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silove, Nina. 2016. “The Pivot Before the Pivot: US Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia.” International Security 40 (4): 45–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2013. Making Sense of International Relations Theory. In Neoclassical Realism: Domestic Opportunities for Great Power Intervention, ed. J.W. Taliaferro and R.W. Wishart. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Bruce. 2017. “NATO’s Image Improves on Both Sides of Atlantic.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project (blog). May 23, 2017. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/05/23/natos-image-improves-on-both-sides-of-atlantic/.

  • Tang, Shiping. 2010. A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism. Basingstoke: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • “Text of Newly-Approved Russian Military Doctrine.” 2010. http://carnegieendowment.org/2010/02/05/text-of-newly-approved-russian-military-doctrine-pub-40266.

  • “The 2011 Defense Policy Guidelines.” n.d. Accessed January 31, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toje, Asle, and Barbara Kunz. 2012. Neoclassical Realism in European Politics: Bringing Power Back In. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft, Paul. 2015. “The Future in the Past: Victory, Defeat, and Grand Strategy in the US, UK, France and Germany.” Unpublished, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. In preparation. The Future in the Past: Victory, Defeat, and Comparative Grand Strategy.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen Deutschlands Beim Umgang Mit Kernwaffen Deutsche Und Europäische Ko-Finanzierung Ausländischer Nuklearwaffenpotentiale (013/17) — wd2 — Sehrgutachten.” 2017. Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Deutscher Bundestag. Accessed January 15, 2018. https://sehrgutachten.de/bt/wd2/013-17-voelkerrechtliche-verpflichtungen-deutschlands-beim-umgang-mit-kernwaffen-deutsche-und-europaeische-ko.

  • Volpe, Tristan, and Ulrich Kühn. 2017. “Germany’s Nuclear Education: Why a Few Elites Are Testing a Taboo.” The Washington Quarterly 40 (3): 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth N. 1996. “International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy.” Security Studies 6 (1): 54–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000a. “NATO Expansion: A Realist’s View.” Contemporary Security Policy 21 (2): 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. “Structural Realism After the Cold War.” International Security 25 (1): 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William C. 1999. “The Stability of a Unipolar World.” International Security 24 (1): 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, Fareed. 1999. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Van Hooft .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Hooft, P., Freyberg-Inan, A. (2019). Europe May Be Done with Power, but Power Is Not Done with Europe: Europe During an Era of American Unipolarity and of Relative Decline. In: Belloni, R., Della Sala, V., Viotti, P. (eds) Fear and Uncertainty in Europe . Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91965-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics