The Return Of Hegemonic Theory : Dominant States And The Origins Of International Cooperation

Globalization is the process by which the markets of different countries become integrated due to the exchange of goods, services, technology, and capital. Globalization depends on social, economic, and political factors, and continuously alters the way that the world works. All the vital components of the evolving global, political, economic and social institutions being examined seem to constantly converge and to perpetually intertwine during the day to day administration of global affairs. Diplomacy is employed to keep a measured balance between conflict and cooperation. The global guarantees of international law are placed in sharp contrast to the grim reality of human rights on daily basis and policy is dictated by the scales of political power and the urgent priorities of economic necessity. To understand how the globe functioned in the past and how it wishes to function in the future, we must study each factor separately and observe its inevitable interactivity with the other factors that occur. It is important to note that none of the dynamics can be given greater weight in comparison to the other crucial instrumentalities.

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

Hegemony is the ability to act in any foreign area one needs to, without significant resistance from rival states (Gaddis at 26). The two hegemonies that America was involved in the twentieth century were controlling part of Germany and all of Japan. America gained the power to rule over them in the Paris Peace treaties following World War II. Germany, whose overseers included multiple countries, including the United States, did not unite again until more than forty years after the World War II (Gaddis at 47). In contrast, America had sole power over Japan. America was able to resurrect Japan’s ruined economy just five years after the war because they focused Japan’s industries on two things, automobile and electronic manufacturing.

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

Robert O. Keohane, “From After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,” in

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,

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Hegemonic internationalism by definition is a paradox within itself. Internationalism suggests cooperation among nations for common good, while hegemony is an instance when one nation has power over another nation. This leads to the belief that hegemonic internationalism is, in reality, one nation pursuing its own national interests at the expense of other nation. Nazi Germany, Iran and the United States are all examples of a nation pursuing hegemonic internationalism.

The main interest of this work is to analyse this trade alliance from three different points of view to outline the similarities and differences in contrast to the European Union. To figure out about the initially mentioned question it is planned to start with the economic point of view in the first part. The second part will deal with the political aspects whilst

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

For this sense when weaker states join organizations, great powers gain from interactions because they do not have common interest as those of weaker states. Such Realist thinking has occurred thousands of years ago. The Melian Dialogue supports the theory by summing up all of realism, stating “the strong will dictate the term of interaction between states”(Melian Dialogue). Liberals also benefit from international organizations as well. They believe that repeated interactions with other states will be an effective way to collaborate with them and prevent one state from cheating on the other. Transparency, information, and monitoring will provide states to strengthen “global economic ties”(Snyder.59).

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).

In “Biographies of Hegemony” by Karen Ho, she emphasizes that it is “only through the small and the everyday that we can understand the criteria of hegemony in all its particularity and contextuality” (168). To fully understand and evaluate someone or a group, people must look at the small qualities they have and the everyday stories each person has lived or seen. Smallness can be defined as certain experiences and individual characteristics that are overlooked, especially by big businesses and corporations such as Wall Street. By knowing a person down to their core and reviewing their small stories and individual experiences, people can begin to unravel and fully understand hegemony and how it came to be. Smallness tends to be overlooked and