Power and Strategies of Rule - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 55

Three
Power and Strategies of Rule
In various eras, powerful states have risen up and shaped the rules and institutions of the global
system. They have sought to use their power advantages to alter the international environment
to accord with their interests. In doing so, they have—in one way or another—created inter-
national order. In the previous chapter, I explored the varieties of international order, and I
distinguished between two types of hierarchical orders: empire and liberal hegemony. But the
question remains: when do dominant states seek to construct one type of order or the other?
This is a question about the logic and instruments of domination. How and to what extent do
powerful states, in building international order, turn power into legitimate domination? What
are the choices and circumstances that lead powerful states to engage in imperial or liberal or-
der building? Most importantly, when and to what extent do powerful states have incentives to
create and operate within a system of agreed-upon multilateral rules and institutions? It is the
strategic decision to do so—or not—that ultimately determines whether the resulting interna-
tional order is imperial or liberal.
As an international-order builder, the United States has been ambivalent about international
rules and institutions. In the decade after World War II, the United States was the leading ar-
chitect and champion of global multilateral governance. It led the way in an unprecedented
burst of global institution building—establishing the United Nations, IMF, World Bank,
NATO, and an array of other institutions and regimes. The United States pursued a “milieu”
strategy of order building, attempting to shape the setting in which other states operated.
But the United States has also been deeply reluctant—today and at various moments in the
past—to sponsor and participate in international agreements in areas as diverse as security,
arms control, human rights, and the environment. So it is necessary to explore the trade-offs