Liberal, John Ikenberry And The American Liberal World Order

In Paul Johnson’s “American Idealism and Realpolitik Critique” about American involvement in political battles in foreign countries, he brings forth the idea that the American government plays a vital role when it comes to mediating and facilitating conflict. Their importance can often be overshadowed by some opinions that the government, specifically the army, has over stepped its boundaries by intruding on countries and excessively becoming involved in hostility. Johnson notes that without American intervention, there would be cause for a considerable diminish in aid and possibly a rise in disputes. Johnson compares to America’s duties to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in which the lack of control over the discord between countries results in an anarchy that would leave the world’s population to “‘continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (Johnson 387) Although he does put a stress on the significance of the American government, he does not ignore the obvious moral flaws that sometimes tarnish this reputation. When adding up the pros and cons of the United States authority, Johnson’s writing favours the positive aspects but also has hints of neutrality; this attitude is quite fitting considering America’s actions.

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

In the chapter “Foreign Policy” in the book, “The Politics of Power” by Ira Katznelson, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper, describes in detail of the events leading to America’s great level of dominance. Throughout the chapter, a few key points were made. The main three points that were observed in this chapter consisted of America’s influence and global expansion, the transition into the globalization era, and environmental problems. From the beginning of the exploration era, to the globalization ear, foreign policy never escaped existence. The use of foreign policy continued into the beginning of World War II, after the war, and through present day. Between each date in history, foreign policy increasingly has played a major role in the turning tides within each event. The importance of foreign policy instructed the world into what it is today and has continued to do so. The relationship pertaining to the United States and its foreign policies have aimlessly been altered through good and bad times. At its birth, America’s international involvement began. Through time, its foreign policy has gained great interest and provided immense dominant reputation. Within the ordinance of America’s global dominance, speculation estimates that no nation truly is dominant as other problems counter true dominance. These problems consist of global warming, human rights, and ecological crisis. These problems will challenge nations in the future to answer the question: “What nation is truly

“The expectation is not that a balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that a balance once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Balances of power recurrently form.” (Waltz, 1979, p. 128) Donnelly successfully critices Waltz conclusion by identifying that in a multipolar world, the existence of at least two potential threats dramatically attenuates the link between external capabilities and threat. Therefore, Waltz balancing concept is primarily a logic of bipolar orders not of international relations in

This essay argues that 1991 was the peak of American power. The Berlin wall had fallen in 1989, and then the USSR had disbanded in 1991, making the US the only superpower in the world. In 1991 America had military and financial power of that other nations could only dream of. Cox then argues that American power declined from that point because nations have a finite lifespan. As a realist he argued that all great nations go into decline and no matter how “singular and exceptional a powerful nations qualities might be, it cannot, for ever, determine the way in which the international system operates”. Williams reviewed Cox and almost instantly argued against his theory. Cox states the traditional realist view of a rise and fall of national power, but Williams argues a more liberal view, that American power, while not being as dominant, is still a

The United States of America proudly present themselves as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the main liberal architect whose role, became more significant in the post-Cold War world, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the institution of the so called “New World Order”₁ paired with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy in a global scale and pursue “(…) America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace.” ₂

One of the major realist dimensions for the Western political order is American hegemony. With the end of the Cold War, American hegemony appeared to be the supreme power of the world (Deudney and Ikenberry, 1999). It can be seen, American economic power revealed in international financial institutions such as IMF, WB and WTO. As a dominant member in WTO, the United States Forced the weaker states to accept the organization’s rules on international trade, otherwise, they will lose if they choose not to follow the rules (Hawthorn, 1999). In addition, Deudney and Ikenberry (1999) state that liberals see transnational relations as the establishment of alternative system that will

After the Cold War, the United States emerged victorious and became the sole super power in the international system. Since then, the US has been a champion of liberal democratic values such as very strong institutional protections of individual civil rights, free-market economy, governmental leaders who are elected by the people in fair and balance elections who make the choices concerning peace and war and a secular political order. However, in recent years there are debates and talks of what role the United States as a country should play in the future, especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The debate on what path the nation should follow has led to debates with those who argue that we should revert back to isolationism and to others who believe the United States should submit its power to the United Nations and an international system of laws. But I argue for a different approach, an approach that the nation has used in the past and that is primacy.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

In a country of complicated decisions made by politicians about far away places and the people that live there, it's only a guess as to the motives behind each of these decisions. In Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance", Noam gives a scrupulously researched critique of America's quest for dominance at any cost that not only has cast us in the role of a rogue superpower but also jeopardizes the very survival of humanity. From reading this book, I will give an account as to what Chomsky says about American hegemonic ideals and give him credit for the attempt that he has made to expose historical truth.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.