Hegemony and Power in the Global War on Terrorism

Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role and power of the United States in a world of globalisation and global governance after 9/11, and specifically in the years 2001–2008. Theoretically and empirically, the Global War on Terrorism served as the background to analyze the style the United States uses its power in different forms to ‘govern’ the world in a hegemonic manner. While this governance is not comprehensive and all-encompassing, it is important in creating and influencing world affairs; it sets agendas and influences policy-making. Hegemonic governance and the use of a superior unipolar position in the international system are based on both material and ideological power. Both dimensions were needed to govern within the context of the Global War on Terrorism. This chapter will first discuss the interrelated role of ideas and matter generally, and for hegemony specifically. It will then discuss United States hegemony more broadly, and conclude with a presentation of how this hegemony was utilised to achieve participation in the GWOT by the EU and ASEAN. Parts of this chapter have been published in a former version in “Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower”, which appeared in International Relations 2010.

Keywords

International Relation International System Ideational Factor Economic Power Main Threat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beyer, C. (2009). Hegemony, equilibrium and counterpower: A synthetic approach. International Relations, 23(2), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer, C. (2010). Counterterrorism and international power relations: The EU, ASEAN and hegemonic global governance. London: IB Tauris.Google Scholar
  3. Chirot, D. (2000). How societies change. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, R. (1977). Labor and hegemony. International Organization, 31, 385–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, R. (1996). Gramsci, hegemony, and international relations: An essay in method. In R. Cox & T. Sinclair (Eds.), Approaches to world order (pp. 49–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuneo, C. (2007). Hegemony in Gramsci’s original prison notebooks. http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm. Accessed 21 Jan 2007.
  7. Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization, 43(3), 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engel, S. (2008). The world bank and neoliberal hegemony in Vietnam. In R. Howson & K. Smith (Eds.), Hegemony. Studies in consensus and coercion (pp. 159–183). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Engel, S. (2006). Where to neoliberalism? The World Bank and the post-Washington consensus in Indonesia and Vietnam. In Paper presented to the 16th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Wollongong, Australia, 26–29 June 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Galtung, J. (1978). Peace and social structure. Essays in peace research (Vol. 3). Copenhagen: Ejlers.Google Scholar
  11. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobson, J. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huntington, S. (2008). The lonely superpower. In: Foreign Affairs, March/April, http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html. Accessed 05 March 2008.
  14. Jackson, R. (2004). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics, and counterterrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kapstein, E. (1999). Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the cold war. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keohane, R. (2000). Ideas part-way down. Review of International Studies, 26, 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mearsheimer, J. (2008). Conversations in international relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I). International Relations, 20(1), 105–124.Google Scholar
  18. Moravcsik, A. (2003). Theory synthesis in international relations: Real, not metaphysical. International Studies Review, 5(1), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parsons, C. (2003). A certain idea of Europe. Ithaka: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Philpott, D. (2001). Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Simon, R. (1991). Gramsci’s political thought: An introduction. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  22. Steger, M. (2005). From market globalism to imperial globalism: Ideology and American power after 9/11. Globalizations, 2(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Wartenberg, T. (1990). The forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Interviews with the Author

  1. Kenneth Waltz (2007, New York)Google Scholar
  2. Alexander Wendt (2007, Ohio)Google Scholar
  3. Kumar Ramakrishna (2006, Singapore)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations