Skip to main content
Top

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

7. American Hegemony, Empire and Unipolarity

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Hegemony, empire and unipolarity are used to describe American predominance after the Cold War, both in the broader public debate and in academic literature. However, policy-makers have always refrained from using such terms, although since the middle of the 1990s foreign policy implicitly took American preponderance and leadership of the world community for granted. The G.W. Bush administration moreover implicitly accepted the rise of new great powers and aimed at preserving US predominance. Only during the 2003 dispute with France over the Iraq invasion, polarity language was explicitly used. Multipolarity was rejected but this in first instance referred to differences of view within the NATO alliances, and thus to cluster polarity. Only under the Obama administration multipolarity was accepted as a factual development, but this did not mean that the administration renounced the American leadership role.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literature
go back to reference Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Cox, M. (2003). The Empire’s back in town or America’s imperial temptations—Again. Millennium, 32, 1–27.CrossRef Cox, M. (2003). The Empire’s back in town or America’s imperial temptations—Again. Millennium, 32, 1–27.CrossRef
go back to reference Dumbrell, J. (2010). American power: Crisis or renewal? Politics, 30, 15–23.CrossRef Dumbrell, J. (2010). American power: Crisis or renewal? Politics, 30, 15–23.CrossRef
go back to reference Ferguson, N. (2004). Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. London: Penguin Books. Ferguson, N. (2004). Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. London: Penguin Books.
go back to reference Haass, R. N. (2008a). The Palmerstonian moment. The National Interest, 93 (Jan./Feb), 10–16. Haass, R. N. (2008a). The Palmerstonian moment. The National Interest, 93 (Jan./Feb), 10–16.
go back to reference Haass, R. N. (2008b). The age of nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 44–57. Haass, R. N. (2008b). The age of nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs, 87(3), 44–57.
go back to reference Hobsbawm, E. (2008). On Empire: America, War and Global Supremacy. New York: The New Press. Hobsbawm, E. (2008). On Empire: America, War and Global Supremacy. New York: The New Press.
go back to reference Holbraad, C. (1970). The Concert of Europe: A Study in German and British Theory. London: Longman. Holbraad, C. (1970). The Concert of Europe: A Study in German and British Theory. London: Longman.
go back to reference Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
go back to reference Ikenberry, G. J., Mastanduno, M., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.) (2011). International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ikenberry, G. J., Mastanduno, M., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.) (2011). International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Khanna, P. (2008). The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. New York: Random House. Khanna, P. (2008). The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. New York: Random House.
go back to reference Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33. Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33.
go back to reference Layne, C. (2009). The waning of U.S. hegemony, myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.CrossRef Layne, C. (2009). The waning of U.S. hegemony, myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.CrossRef
go back to reference Layne, C., Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2012). US decline or primacy? A debate. In M. Cox & D. Stokes (Eds.), U.S. Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Layne, C., Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2012). US decline or primacy? A debate. In M. Cox & D. Stokes (Eds.), U.S. Foreign Policy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Imperial by design. National Interest, 111, 16–34. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Imperial by design. National Interest, 111, 16–34.
go back to reference National Intelligence Council. (2004). Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Intelligence Council. (2004). Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
go back to reference National Intelligence Council. (2008). Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Intelligence Council. (2008). Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
go back to reference National Intelligence Council. (2012). Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Intelligence Council. (2012). Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
go back to reference Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
go back to reference Nye, J. S. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower can’t Go it Alone. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Nye, J. S. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower can’t Go it Alone. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Posen, B. R. (2003). Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.CrossRef Posen, B. R. (2003). Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.CrossRef
go back to reference Quinn, A. (2011). The art of declining politely: Obama’s prudent presidency and the waning of American power. International Affairs, 87(4), 803–824.CrossRef Quinn, A. (2011). The art of declining politely: Obama’s prudent presidency and the waning of American power. International Affairs, 87(4), 803–824.CrossRef
go back to reference Rice, C. (2000). Campaign 2000: Promoting the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 79(1), 45–62.CrossRef Rice, C. (2000). Campaign 2000: Promoting the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 79(1), 45–62.CrossRef
go back to reference Rice, C. (2008). Rethinking the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 2–26. Rice, C. (2008). Rethinking the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 2–26.
go back to reference Schroeder, P. W. (2004). The mirage of empire versus the promise of hegemony. In D. Wetzel, R. Jervis & J. S. Levy (Eds.), Systems, Stability and Statecraft: Essays on the International History of Modern Europe by Paul W. Schroeder (298–305). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schroeder, P. W. (2004). The mirage of empire versus the promise of hegemony. In D. Wetzel, R. Jervis & J. S. Levy (Eds.), Systems, Stability and Statecraft: Essays on the International History of Modern Europe by Paul W. Schroeder (298–305). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
go back to reference Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913–917.CrossRef Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913–917.CrossRef
go back to reference Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company. Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Metadata
Title
American Hegemony, Empire and Unipolarity
Author
Goedele De Keersmaeker
Copyright Year
2017
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42652-5_7