Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Introduction: Multipolarity and Unipolarity after the Cold War Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Polarity after 1990, a Historical Comparison

Author : Goedele De Keersmaeker

Published in: Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Our historical comparison shows that both the nineteenth century and the period after 1990 are difficult to describe in a polarity framework. Yet, many neorealists call the post-Cold War unipolar. This is due to the focus on material capabilities and military power, and excluding cluster polarity from the analysis. They also do not realize that during the nineteenth century there were substantial shifts in power distributions, without fixed cluster polarity. Neorealists claim that balancing became impossible after 1990, but forget that this did not happen against Britain during the nineteenth century. There definitely exists an American military unipolarity on the global level but this does not lead to a political or military dominance in regional systems.

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!

inform now

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!

inform now
previous chapter The Nineteenth Century: Multipolar, Bipolar or Unipolar?
next chapter The French Multipolarity Discourse
Literature
Bernstein, R., & Munro, R. H. (1997). China I: The coming conflict with America. Foreign Affairs, 76(2), 18–31.CrossRef
Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2002). American primacy in perspective. Foreign Affairs, 81(4), 20–33.CrossRef
Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2005). Hard times for soft balancing. International Security, 30(1), 72–108.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
Bull, H. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Originally published in 1977)
Buzan, B. (2003). Security architecture in Asia: The interplay of regional and global levels. The Pacific Review, 16(2), 143–173.CrossRef
Buzan, B. (2004a). The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buzan, B. (2011). A world order without superpowers: Decentred globalism (The Inaugural Kenneth N. Waltz Annual Lecture). International Relations, 25(1), 3–25.CrossRef
Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and Power: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Calleo, D. P. (2009). Follies of Power: America’s Unipolar Fantasy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Carrère d’Encausse, H. (2011). La Russie entre Deux Mondes. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard Pluriel.
Chan, S. (2008). China, the U.S., and the Power Transition Theory. London/New York: Routledge.
Christensen, T. J. (2001). Posing problems without catching up: China’s rise and challenge for U.S. security policy. International Security, 25(4), 5–40.CrossRef
Correlates of War Project. (2010). National Material Capabilities Dataset V4.0. (www.​correlatesofwar.​org). Originally published by Singer, J. D., Bremer, S., & Stuckey, J. (1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power wars, 1820–1965. In Bruce Russett (Ed.), Peace, War, and Numbers (pp. 19–48). Beverly Hills: Sage; revised in Singer, J. D. (1987). Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions, 14(2), 115–132.
Echard, W. E. (1983). Napoleon III and the Concert of Europe. Baton Rouge/London: Louisiana State University Press.
Emmott, B. (2009). Rivals: How the Power Struggle between China, India and Japan will Shape our Next Decade. London: Penguin Books.
Feldman, N. (2013) Cool War: The Future of Global Competition. New York: Random House.
Feng, Z., & Huang, J. (2014). China’s Strategic Partnership Diplomacy: Engaging with a Changing World. (ESPO Working Paper 8). Madrid/Brussels: Fride/Egmont.
Fischer, F. (1967). Germany’s Aims in the First World War. New York: Norton & Company. (Original title: Griff nach der Weltmacht. (1964). (4de Ausg.). Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag und Druckerei)
Gauchon, P., & Huissoud, J. M. (2007). Les Grandes Puissances du XXIe Siècle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Haas, Mark. L. (2014). Ideological polarity and balancing in great power politics. Security Studies, 23(4), 715–753.
Hobsbawm, E. (1994). The Age of Empire 1875–1914. London: Abacus.
Huntington, S. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35–50.CrossRef
Hyde-Price, A. G. V. (2007). European Security in the Twenty-First Century: The Challenge of Multipolarity. London: Routledge.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. J., Mastanduno, M., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.) (2011). International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jervis, R. (2009). Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics, 61(1), 188–216.
Kennedy, P. (1980). The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914. London/Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Kennedy, P. (1987). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
Khanna, P. (2008). The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. New York: Random House.
Kristensen, H. M. & Norris, R. S. (2010). Global nuclear weapons inventories, 1945–2010. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66(4), 77–83.
Layne, C. (1993). The unipolar illusion: Why new great powers will rise? International Security, 17(4), 5–51.CrossRef
Layne, C. (2006). The unipolar illusion revisited: The coming end of the United States’ unipolar moment. International Security, 31(2), 7–41.CrossRef
Layne, C. (2009). The waning of U.S. hegemony, myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147–172.CrossRef
Layne, C. (2011). The unipolar exit: Beyond the Pax Americana. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24(2), 149–164.CrossRef
Layne, C. (2012). This time it’s real: The end of unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 203–2013.CrossRef
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.) (409–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lo, B. (2008). Axis of Convenience: Moscow, Beijing and the New Geopolitics. London: Chatham House.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Medlicott, W. N. (1956). Bismarck, Gladstone and the Concert of Europe. London: University of London/The Athlone Press.
Monteiro, N. P. (2014). Theory of Unipolar Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Kindle edition)
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.
Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.CrossRef
Pashakhanlou, A. H. (2014). Waltz, Mearsheimer and the post-Cold War world: The rise of America and the fall of structural realism. International Politics, 51(3), 295–315.CrossRef
Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of U.S. primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–47.CrossRef
Perlo-Freeman, S., Fleuran, A., Wezeman, P., & Wezemen, S. (2016). Trends in World Military Expenditures, 2015. Stockholm: SIPRI.
Perlo-Freeman, S., & Solmirano, C. (2014). Trends in Military Expenditures, 2013. Stockholm: SIPRI.
Posen, B. R. (2003). Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46.CrossRef
Posen, B. R. (2011) From unipolarity to multipolarity: Transition in sight? In G. J. Ikenberry, M. Mastanduno & W. C. Wohlforth (Eds.), International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity, (317–341). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roy, D. (1994) Hegemon on the horizon? China’s threat to East Asian security, International Security, 19(1), 149–168.
Schroeder, P. W. (1994a). Historical reality versus neorealist theory. International Security, 19(1), 108–148.CrossRef
Schweller, R. L. (2011). The future is uncertain and the end is always near. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24(2), 175–184.CrossRef
Shambaugh, D. (2013). China Goes Global: The Partial Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperling, J. C. (2010). American perceptions of the EU: Through a glass, darkly or through a looking glass? In S. Lucarelli & L. Fioramonti (Eds.), External Perceptions of the European Union as a Global Actor (pp. 13–31). London: Routledge.
TNS Emnid (2006). World Powers in the 21st Century: The Results of a Representative Survey in Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Uyvari, B. (2016). The BRICS New Development Bank and the EU’s Options. (College of Europe Policy Paper). Bruges: College of Europe.
Voeten, E. (2005). The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force. International Organization, 59(3), 527–557.CrossRef
Walton, C. D. (2007). Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the Twenty-First Century: Multipolarity and the Revolution in Strategic Perspective. London: Routledge.
Waltz, K. N. (1964). The stability of a bipolar world. Daedalus, 93(3), 881–909.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics, International Security, 18(2), 44–79.
Waltz, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories, American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913–917.
Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War, International Security, 25(1), 5–41.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24(1), 5–41.CrossRef
Wohlforth, W. C. (2002). U.S. strategy in a unipolar world? In G. J. Ikenberry (Ed.), America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power (pp. 98–118). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wohlforth, W. C. (2007). Unipolar stability: The rules of power analysis. Harvard International Review, 29(1), 45–48.
Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics, 61(1), 28–57.CrossRef
Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Metadata
Title
Polarity after 1990, a Historical Comparison
Author
Goedele De Keersmaeker
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42651-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-42652-5

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42652-5_5