Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
The postwar American-led order plays havoc with prevailing understandings of interna-
tional relations. The traditional image of world politics is one in which a group of roughly
equally capable states—so-called great powers—shape the system as they compete, cooper-
ate, and balance with each other. States operate in a decentralized system where order is es-
tablished through an equilibrium of power among the major states. The anarchical character
of the international system is manifest in the decentralization of power and authority. States
are sovereign and formally equal. No state—not even a powerful one—“rules” the global or-
der under conditions of anarchy. The insecurity and competition that flow from this anarch-
ical situation drives state behavior and gives international politics its distinctive and enduring
features.
This theoretical perspective, however, has a hard time making sense of the American-led
international order. This is true in several respects. First, the relations between states with-
in this order are not based on a balance-of-power logic or even overtly marked by anarchy-
driven power politics. Bargains, institutions, and deeply intertwined political and economic
relations give the American-led order its shape and character. The extensiveness of interde-
pendence, specialization of functions, and shared governance arrangements are not easily un-
derstood in terms of anarchy and power balancing. Second, the end of the Cold War did not
return international order to a multipolar great-power system, but rather it led to a unipolar
system in which a single state overshadows and dominates the functioning and patterns of
global politics. States—both those inside the American-led order and outside—have not re-
sponded to unipolarity with clear and determined efforts to balance against the United States.
The result has been several decades of world politics marked by the commanding presence
of a leading state and the absence of a return to a multipolar balance-of-power system.
In effect, the anarchy problematic misses two features of the American-led international
order—hierarchy and democratic community. First, the order does in fact look more like a
hierarchy than like an anarchy. In critical respects, the order is organized around superor-
dinate and subordinate relationships. States have differentiated roles and capacities. Several
leading states—Japan and Germany—do not possess the full military capacities of traditional
great powers. Rules and institutions in the global system provide special roles and responsib-
ilities for a leading state. Although a formal governance structure does not exist, power and
authority is informally manifest in hierarchical ways. The United States is situated at the top
of the order and other states are organized below it in various ways as allies, partners, and cli-
ents. Second, the order is marked by the pervasiveness of liberal relationships. At least in the
Western core of this order, other liberal democratic states engage in reciprocal and bargained
relations with the United States. The order is organized around an expanding array of rules
and institutions that reduce and constrain the prevalence of power politics. The United States
shares governance responsibilities with other states. In these various ways, the American-led
order has characteristics of a hierarchy with liberal features.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search