Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
33
For documentation on America's power preponderance, see William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar
World,”
International Security
21, no. 1 (Summer 1999), 5-41; Barry Posen, “Command of the Commons: The Mil-
itary Foundations of U.S. Hegemony,”
International Security
28, no. 1 (Summer 2003), 5-46; and Paul Kennedy,
“The Eagle Has Landed,”
Financial Times
, 2 February 2002.
34
See Ikenberry,
America Unrivaled
.
35
Albright's remarks were: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable
nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.” NBC “Today” Show, February 19, 1998.
36
“To Paris, U.S. Looks Like a 'Hyperpower,'“
International Herald Tribune
, 5 February 1999, 5.
37
See Robert Jervis, “The Remaking of a Unipolar World,”
Washington Quarterly
29, no. 2 (2006), 7-19; and
G. John Ikenberry, “Global Security Trap,”
Democracy: A Journal of Ideas
1, no. 2 (September 2006), 8-19.
38
See John Gerard Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalisim, and Global Governance,” in Michael
Ignatieff, ed.,
American Exceptionalism and Human Rights
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005),
304-38.
39
For example, the Nonproliferation Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 2000 outlines sanctions against countries
and firms who supply weapons technology to Iran (and in 2005, it was expanded to include Syria).
40
John Lewis Gaddis,
Surprise, Security and the American Experience
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2004), 66-67.
41
As Beth Simmons observes: “[F]rom its apogee in the nineteenth century, the idea of exclusive internal sov-
ereignty has been challenged by domestic democratic movements, by international and transnational private actors,
and even by sovereigns themselves. The result today is an increasingly dense and potentially more potent set of inter-
national rules, institutions, and expectations regarding the protection of individual rights than at any point in human
history.” Simmons,
Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics
(New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 3.
42
See Mary Ann Glendon,
A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration
(New York:
Random House, 2002).
43
On the unfolding of the postwar human rights revolution and its implications for Westphalian sovereignty,
see Jack Donnelly,
Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice
, 2nd ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2002).
44
Elizabeth Borgwardt,
A New Deal for the World: America's Vision for Human Rights
(Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 2004).
45
Annan's remarks were made in a speech at Ditchey Park in June 1998. Strobe Talbott,
The Great Experiment:
The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation
(New York: Simon and Schuster,
2008), 313.
46
Kofi Annan, “Two Concepts of Sovereignty,”
Economist
, 18 September 1999.
47
See International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,
The Responsibility to Protect
(Ottawa:
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001).
48
For a statement of these views by one of the architects of this new doctrine, see Gareth Evans,
The Respons-
ibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
2008).
49
Richard Haass, “Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities,” lecture at Georgetown University,
14 January 2003.
50
Robert Keohane, “The Globalization of Informal Violence, Theories of World Politics, and 'The Liberalism of
Fear,'“ in Craig Calhoun, Paul Price, and Ashley Timmer, eds.,
Understanding September 11
(New York: Norton,
2002), 78, 80 (emphasis in original).
51
Robert Cooper, “Imperial Liberalism”
National Interest
, no. 79 (Spring 2005), 12-13.
52
“Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy,” White House
Press Release, 1 June 2002.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search