The United States’ Hegemony and the Problem of Legitimizing Dominance in International Politics: Reframing the Western Theories
https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2022.03.03
Abstract
As the rising powers exhibit determination to challenge the United States’ hegemony, the problem of legitimizing dominance in international politics becomes increasingly significant. At the same time, the mainstream currents of IR theory (neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, social constructivism, neo-Marxism) examine this topic either on the “unit” level (actions and properties of the separate states) or on the level of “structure” (material, social, or ideological), serving to ensure reproduction of political inequity. This situation produces substantial methodological complications with respect to shaping comprehensive understanding of the legitimizing tools of international dominance. Seeking to overcome this duality, the author engages theoretical insights of the English school to explore the United States’ legitimation strategies, whereby Washington has sought to ensure recognition of its privileged standing within the existing international society. The author focuses on the hegemonic roles of the United States – “leader”, “enforcer”, “security guarantor”, and “prosperity guarantor” – to expose the tools, ensuring connection between Washington’s policies and “primary goals” of the international society. Application of this approach allows to engage in the investigation important variables of both “unitary” (actions and ideas of the hegemonic state) and “structural” levels (role prescriptions and collective goals of the community of states) and, thus, to shape more integrative vision of the mechanisms of legitimizing the United States’ post-Cold War hegemony. The author concludes that the role practices of legitimacy, pursued by
the U.S., ensure reproduction of power relations, and contain the source of tension, undermining the “American hegemony” under conditions of growing rivalry with the rising powers.
About the Author
A. N. Bogdanov
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexey N. Bogdanov, PhD (Political Science), Associate Professor at the American Studies Department
Universitetskaya Embankment, 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034
References
1. Beckley M. (2015). The Myth of Entangling Alliances. Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts. International Security, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 7–48. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00197.
2. Bull H. (1995). The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. 2nd ed., New York : Columbia University Press, xviii + 329 pp.
3. Clark I. (2011). Hegemony in International Society. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 276 pp.
4. Clark I. (2005). Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford : Oxford University Press, viii + 278 pp.
5. Cox R. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York : Columbia University Press, 500 pp.
6. Cox R., Sinclair T. (1996). Approaches to World Order. New York : Cambridge University Press, 552 pp.
7. Cronin B. (2001). The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 103–130. DOI: 10.1177%2F1354066101007001004.
8. Doran Ch. (2003). Economics, Philosophy of History, and the “Single Dynamic” of Power Cycle Theory: Expectations, Conception, and Statecraft. International Political Science Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 13–49. DOI: 10.1177/0192512103024001002.
9. Doran Ch. (1991). Systems in Crisis: New Imperatives of High Politics at 21st Century’s End. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, xviii + 294 pp.
10. Finnemore M. (2009). Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity. Why Being a Unipole Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be. World Politics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 58–85. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887109000082.
11. Gilpin R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, Xiv + 272 pp.
12. Goh E. (2019). Contesting Hegemonic Order: China in East Asia. Security Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 614–644. DOI: 10. 1080/09636412.2019.1604989.
13. Goldstein A. (2020). China’s Grand Strategy under Xi Jinping. Reassurance, Reform, and Resistance, International Security, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 164–201. DOI: 10.1162/isec_a_00383.
14. Hopf T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 171–200. DOI: 10.2307/2539267.
15. Hurd I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 379–408. DOI: 10.1162/002081899550913.
16. Ikenberry J. (2006). Getting Hegemony Right. In Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition. Essays on American Power and World Politics, pp. 186–196.
17. Ikenberry J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan. The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 392 pp.
18. Ikenberry J. (2010). The Liberal International Order and Its Discontents. Millennium, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 509–521. DOI: 10.1177%2F0305829810366477.
19. Ikenberry J., Nexon D. (2019). Hegemony Studies 3.0.: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders. Security Studies, vol. 28, no.3, pp.395–421.DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604981.
20. Kang D. (2010). Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: The Tribute System in Early Modern East Asia. Security Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 591–622. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2010.524079.
21. Keohane R., Nye-jr. J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston, Massachussetts : Little Brown, 300 pp.
22. Krisch N. (2005). International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order. European Journal of International Law, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 369–408. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chi123.
23. Kupchan Ch. (2014). Unpacking Hegemony: The Social Foundations of Hierarchical Order. In Power, Order, and Change in World Politics. Ed. by J. Ikenberry. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–60.
24. Lahneman W. (2003). Changing Power Cycles and Foreign Policy Role-Power Realignments: Asia, Europe, and North America. International Political Science Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 97–111. DOI: 10. 1177%2F0192512103024001006.
25. Lake D. (2009). Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 248 pp.
26. Lake D. (2013). Legitimating Power: The Domestic Politics of U.S. International Hierarchy. International Security, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 74–111. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00139.
27. Lake D. (2009). Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order. Review of International Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 35–58. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210509008420.
28. Lake D., Martin L., Risse Th. (2021). Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization. International Organization, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 225–257. DOI: 10.1017//S0020818320000636.
29. Lemke D. (2002). Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, xii + 235 pp.
30. Mastanduno M. (2019). Partner Politics: Russia, China, and the Challenge of Extending U.S. Hegemony after the Cold War. Security Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 479–504. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604984.
31. Mastanduno M. (2009). System Maker and Privilege Taker. U.S. Power and the International Political Economy. World Politics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 121–154. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887109000057.
32. Meijer H., Brooks S. (2021). Illusions of Autonomy. Why Europe Cannot Provide Its Security If the United States Pulls Back. International Security, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 7–43. DOI: 10.1162/isec_a_00405.
33. National Security Strategy for a New Century (1999), Washington, D.C. : The White House, 52 pp.
34. National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement (1996), Washington, D.C. : The White House, 49 pp.
35. National Security Strategy of the United States of America (1991), Washington, D.C. : The White House, 35 pp.
36. National Security Strategy of the United States of America (1993), Washington, D.C. : The White House, 23 pp.
37. National Security Strategy of the United States (2006). The White House. Available at: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/, accessed 08.02.2022.
38. National Security Strategy of the United States (2017), Washington, D.C. : The White House, 68 pp.
39. Nicholls D. (2020). All Hegemons Are Not the Same: The Role(s) of Relational Structures and Modes of Control // International Studies Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 600–625. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viz028.
40. Organski A. (1969) World Politics. 2nd edition. New York : Knopf, 473 pp.
41. Organski A., Kugler J. (1980) The War Ledger. Chicago : Chicago University Press, xii + 292 pp.
42. Posen B. (2014) Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 256 pp.
43. Rapkin D., Braaten D. (2009). Conceptualizing Hegemonic Legitimacy. Review of International Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 113–149. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210509008353.
44. Reus-Smith Ch. (2004) American Power and World Order. Cambridge : Polity Press, xii + 184 pp.
45. Reus-Smith Ch. (2007) International Crises of Legitimacy. International Politics, vol. 44, no. 2/3, pp. 157–174. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800182.
46. Reus-Smith Ch. (1997). The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions. International Organization, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 555–589. DOI: 10.1162/002081897550456.
47. Sewall S. (2001). Multilateral Peace Operations. In Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement. Ed. by S. Patrick and S. Forman. London : Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 191–224.
48. Special Responsibilities: Global power and American Power (2012). Bukovansky M., Reus-Smith Ch., Wheeler N., Price R., Clark I., Eckersley R. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, xii + 290 pp.
49. Stokes D. (2018). Trump, American Hegemony, and the Future of the Liberal International Order. International Affairs, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 133–150. DOI: 10.1093/ia/iix238.
50. Suchman M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Appoaches. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 571–610. DOI: 10.2307/258788.
51. Wight C. (2006). Agents, Structures, and International Relations. Politics as Ontology. New York : Cambridge University Press, 360 pp.
52. Wight M. (1991). International Theory: The Three Traditions by Martin Wight. Ed. by G. Wight and B. Porter. Leicester : Leicester University Press, 286 pp.
Review
For citations:
Bogdanov A.N. The United States’ Hegemony and the Problem of Legitimizing Dominance in International Politics: Reframing the Western Theories. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2022;15(3):47-68. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2022.03.03
Views:
901
Email this article 