In 1970 Liberalism tried to create a revolution: international relations should be thought of using the study of economic interdependence, a key concept where states are affected by decisions taken by others. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye insisted on economic facts of the early 1970s as the crisis of the international monetary system, the oil shocks... Until the 1970s the economy was not an important subject in the study of international relations. Since this period the rise of international political economy brought new outlooks to the study of international relations. The realist family, firstly concentrated on the military power, and then tried gradually to focus on economic effects. Thus, there is a new formulation of realism during the 80s where the main objective is to think about change. This new point of view tries to think moderate change in order to consider cooperation between States. The balance of power is still the essential tool for some realists like Kenneth Waltz or Stephen Walt who think the stability of the international system thanks to a multipolar world.
[...] In order to illustrate this paradox and to test the HST it could be interesting to compare Clinton and Bush administration through both hegemon's definition. The paradox of hegemony through Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations First of all, the paradox of hegemony can be illustrated by the great number of conflicts between the United-Nations and US. The UN is largely the product of the US. For instance the first draft of the UN charter was inspired by a US document called 'The essential Points in the Charter of the International Organization'. [...]
[...] This senseless war denotes that, first of all the US became a partisan player in the Middle East instead of a balancer, and second of all it underlines a new reality: the Middle East is the cockpit of global instability, putting global energy security at risk, encouraging terrorism Consequently, the HST is possible only if the hegemon is satisfied with the configuration of the world power, it will not hesitate to disturb the system and risk global stability if a state is placed across its path. [...]
[...] The limits of the theory The HST was also used during the 1980s to explain US relative decline in the 1970s. Theorists of the hegemonic stability saw the US economy weakness like a sign of a future decline. Many arguments were developed to prove the US future decline as the strong impact of the oil shocks on the United-States (because of their deep dependence on foreign sources of energy), the decline of dollar's value on foreign exchange markets[9] and an important challenge after the second world war which would be too expensive: the US had to finance the cost of reviving the world economy, continuing the struggle with the Soviet -Union and bore baring the costs of US consumption. [...]
[...] Scott,'American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process',6th ed, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Fraser Cameron,'US foreign policy after the cold war: Global Hegemon Or Reluctant Sheriff?',London : Routledge John Baylis and Steve Smith, ' The Globaliztion of world politics: an introduction to international relations', Third edition, Oxford university press Michael Webb and Stephen Krasner, Hegemonic stabolity theory: an empirical assessment review of International Studies Nye Joseph (1988), 'Understating US Strenght', in Foreign Policy, Paul R. Viotti and Mark V.Kauppi, 'International Relations Theory: realism, pluralism, globalism',Macmillan Publishing Company, New york Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch, The Iraq causes and consequences war Lynne Rienner Publishers Robert Gilpin, 'War and Change in world politics', London: Cambridge university Press, chapter Samir Amin, 'La deconnexion' Snidal, Duncan, 'The limits of the hegemonic stability theory', International Organization (39),1985. [...]
[...] According to this theory, cooperation can be achieved only through the hegemon (the hegemon provides cooperation and stability). However, this logic destroyed one of the key concepts of realism: cooperation thanks to the lack of a central authority in international politics. According to realism states are actors which pursue their self-interest. In order to achieve it sates can decided to create collective actions because nothing in realism's assumptions about states would rule out collective action For instance, there are some collective actions which were built without the hegemon as the European Community or the Warsaw Pact. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
