Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
The rise of unipolarity over the last two decades involves a shift in the distribution of
power in two respects. One is simply a shift toward more concentrated power—the disparities
between the leading state and other states are intensified. These heightened power disparities
are captured in America's dominance in economic, military, and technological capabilities.
The other shift is the disappearance of competing poles of power. The lead state no longer
has a global rival—or, to use the term of art, a peer competitor. In the modern era, there have
always been several competing poles of power. During the Cold War there were two poles.
But beginning in the 1990s there was only one. Defined in these terms, the United States
stands above all other states. This commanding position is unprecedented in the modern era.
The global system is unipolar, but this observation does not say anything in particular
about the logic of political relations surrounding the unipolar state. The political order built
around unipolarity could be coercive or consensual, legitimate or illegitimate. Describing the
system as unipolar leaves unanswered questions about the logic and character of hierarchy
and the ways in which an American-centered unipolar system operates. What is the charac-
ter of domination in a unipolar distribution of power? If world politics is always a mixture
of force and consent, does movement from bipolarity to unipolarity remove restraints and al-
ter the mix in favor of force? Will a unipolar world be built around rules and institutions,
or will it be based on the unilateral exercise of unipolar power? Does unipolarity select for
unilateralism, and will it therefore lead to an unraveling of the postwar American-led liberal
international order?
In looking at the relationship between unipolarity and liberal international order, we need
to look at the impacts of moving in both directions. We need to probe the impact that uni-
polarity—defined in terms of material capabilities—has had on international order. As we
shall see, the connections between the distribution of power and the logic and character of
political formations that surround unipolarity are not causally tight. Unipolarity can coexist
with various sorts of international orders—defined in terms of imperial and liberal forms
of hierarchy. Unipolarity does, however, shift the incentives and constraints associated with
various rulership strategies. At the same time, we need to look at the impact that liberal inter-
national order has had on the rise and durability of unipolarity. Importantly, unipolarity can
be understood not just as the concentration of material capabilities in the hands of one state,
but as a more general set of political and institutional characteristics that turn the unipolar
state into a “hub” around which other states connect and operate. The presence or absence of
other poles in the system hinges not just on whether there are other powerful states in the sys-
tem but on whether these other states are able or willing to become organizing hubs. Over the
last century, the United States—in building liberal hegemonic order—has become the most
expansive and far-reaching pole the world has seen. It is the American political formation, to-
gether with its power capabilities, that has allowed a unipolar international system to emerge.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search