Unipolarity and Its Consequences - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 101

want to hold on to the rules and institutions of this order and make them last for the long term.
But there is also a logic of revision. With the shift to unipolarity, the leading state now has a
new opportunity to reshape the international system in a way that was unavailable to it during
the period of bipolarity. It has unrivaled power capabilities and seemingly few constraints on
reshaping its environment. Robert Jervis takes this argument several steps further, arguing
that while the unipolar state has power and opportunity—it also has new sorts of threats and
insecurities that might lead it to favor a revisionist orientation toward the international sys-
tem. 43
Jervis argues that unipolarity does create incentives for revisionism. A state's definition of
its interests tends to expand with its power. “Increasing capabilities make it possible to pur-
sue a whole host of objectives that were out of reach when the state's security was in doubt
and all efforts had to be directed to primary objectives.” The disappearance of balancing con-
straints and rival geopolitical poles gives the unipolar state new opportunities to “re-make the
world in its own image, or rather in its desired self-image.” 44 At the same time, the unipolar
state also has the entire world to worry about. It no longer is threatened by a rival superpower,
but it has a stake in what happens everywhere. Jervis notes that “the growth of power and
influence leads to new positions that have to be defended.” 45 At the very least, unipolarity
will generate pressures for the leading state to think—and perhaps rethink—its strategies of
rule. It no longer has a bipolar rival; it confronts a more diffuse and global array of worries.
A revisionist agenda is one possible pathway for a newly powerful but also newly challenged
lead state.
Unipolarity, as a structure of power, may not necessarily by itself favor either conser-
vativism or revisionism. More circumstantial factors—such as the character of the state, its
ideas about international order and change, and the prevailing rules and institutions of the
system—will matter when shaping incentives and choices. The fact that power is so highly
concentrated and unbalanced suggests that the leading state has a great deal of discretion in
making grand strategic choices. As Jervis notes, “unipolarity takes states out of anarchy and
transforms if not dissolves international politics.” In particular, “security concerns are greatly
reduced for the superpower and others it protects (although the superpower itself may be a
source of threat as well as of protection). Since such concerns are the main drivers of tradi-
tional international politics, the implications are likely to be far-reaching.” 46 More so than in
bipolar or multipolar systems, the leading state has capacities and opportunities to shape the
international system. Its range of options is greater. The constraints and discipline generated
by the pressures of anarchy are radically abated under conditions of unipolarity. Because of
this, it will matter greatly who leads the unipolar state—and the ideas that these leaders have
about their security, interests, and what constitutes a desirable international order.