Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handcuffing the hegemon: The paradox of state power under unipolarity

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Politics Reviews Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The exercise of state power in global politics often involves a vexing paradox: strategies intended to create or project power may end up reducing it. Under unipolarity, the lack of structural constraints in the international system do as much to undermine hegemonic power as to magnify it. Through an examination of the structure and process of unipolar politics, the three works reviewed in this article investigate the unintended consequences of preponderant power, especially as it relates to American grand strategy. As such, the paradox of state power has direct implications for the durability and relative peacefulness of the unipolar politics.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some theorists have extended this argument to suggest that the technological effects of the nuclear revolution, combined with the homogenizing effects of globalization, will lead to the emergence of a world state (c.f. Wendt, 2003; Deudney, 2010).

  2. ‘Unipolarity, then, highlights the concentration of military power in one state, the sole great power. It does not require economic preponderance,’ Monteiro argues (2014, p. 49).

  3. Monteiro uses unipole, hegemon and great power interchangeably to refer to the preponderant power in the international system.

  4. This point parallels Mearsheimer’s (2001) argument that the United States is a regional, but not global hegemon (p. 41).

References

  • Art, R. (2003) A Grand Strategy for America. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Art, R. and Waltz, K. (eds.) (2009) The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. 7th edn. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (eds.) (2005) Power in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremmer, I. and Roubini, R. (2011) A G-zero world: The new economic club will produce conflict, not cooperation. Foreign Affairs 90 (2): 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001) The paradox of hegemony: America’s ambiguous relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 202–ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deudney, D. (2010) Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Digeser, P. (1992) The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics 54 (4): 977–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilperin, J. (2014) Obama lays out his foreign policy doctrine: Singles, doubles and the occasional home run, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-lays-out-his-foreign-policy-doctrine-singles-doubles-and-the-occasional-home-run/2014/04/28/e34ec058-ceb5-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html, accessed 28 April 2014.

  • Gallarotti, G. (2011) The Power Curse: Influence and Illusion in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. (2008) The age of nonpolarity: What will follow us dominance. Foreign Affairs 87 (3): 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M. and Montgomery, A. (2009) Network analysis for international relations. International Organization 63 (3): 559–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, N. (2004) A world without power. Foreign Policy 143 (July/August): 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (2009) Legitimacy, hypocrisy, and the social structure of unipolarity. World Politics 61 (1): 58–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. and Goldstein, J. (eds.) (2013) Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. (2009) Unipolarity: A structural perspective. World Politics 61 (1): 188–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Border: Advocacy Networks in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (2001) Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, C. (1991) The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. (2011) Two cheers for bargaining theory: Assessing rationalist explanations of the Iraq war. International Security 35 (3): 7–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (1997) From preponderance to offshore balancing: America’s future grand strategy. International Security 22 (1): 86–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. (1989) Power, capabilities, and paradoxical conflict outcomes. World Politics 41 (2): 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. (2010) Imperial by design. The National Interest 111 (January/February): 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, J. (1996) Reputation in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J. (2011) The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. (2003) Command of the commons: The military foundation of US hegemony. International Security 29 (1): 5–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. (2007) After bush: The case for restraint. American Interest 3 (1): 6–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. (2013) Pull back: The case of a less activist foreign policy. Foreign Affairs 92 (1): 116–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B. (2014) Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, D. (2005) Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. (2013) US grand strategy, the rise of China, and US national security strategy for East Asia. Strategic Studies Quarterly 7 (2): 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R. (2010) Ennui becomes us. The National Interest 105 (January/February): 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R. (2014) The age of entropy: Why the new world order won’t be orderly. Foreign Affairs Online, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141568/randall-l-schweller/the-age-of-entropy.

  • Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechser, T. (2010) Goliath’s curse: Coercive threats and asymmetric power. International Organization 64 (4): 627–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. and Bilmes, L. (2008) The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. (2012) Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2013) Entitlements in America, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578385-entitlements-america, accessed 25 May 2013.

  • Voeten, E. (2011) Unipolar politics as usual. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (2): 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M., Stovel, K. and Sacks, A. (2011) Network analysis and political science. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (2003) Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations 9 (4): 491–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarkaria, F. (2008) The Post-America World: And the Rise of the Rest. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Austin J Knuppe

Authors
  1. Austin J Knuppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knuppe, A. Handcuffing the hegemon: The paradox of state power under unipolarity. Int Polit Rev 2, 61–71 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ipr.2014.22

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ipr.2014.22

Keywords

Search

Navigation