Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Hegemony; US; International relations / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Hegemony; US; International relations.

Journal articles on the topic 'Hegemony; US; International relations'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 15 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Hegemony; US; International relations.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

HE, KAI. "The hegemon's choice between power and security: explaining US policy toward Asia after the Cold War." Review of International Studies 36, no. 04 (May 21, 2010): 1121–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510000227.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAfter the Cold War, US strategists have suggested four strategies for the hegemon: hegemonic dominion, selective engagement, offshore balancing, and multilateralism. Rather than debating which strategy is the best for the US at all times, this article focuses on examining which policy is more likely to be chosen by the hegemon – the US – under different strategic conditions. Through a neoclassical realist argument – the power-perception hegemonic model, I argue that US foreign policy depends on how US policymakers perceive US hegemonic status in the international system. Under rising and stable hegemony, selective engagement and hegemonic dominion are two possible power-maximisation strategies given the weak security constraints from the system. Under declining hegemony, offshore balancing and multilateralism are more likely to be chosen by US policymakers to pursue security because of a resumed security imperative from anarchy. US policy toward Asia after the Cold War is a case study to test the validity of the power-perception hegemonic model. I conclude that US policymakers should prepare for life after Pax-Americana, and early implementation of offshore balancing and multilateralism may facilitate the soft-landing of declining US hegemony.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Subotin, A. "FUTURE OF US HEGEMONY." Actual Problems of International Relations, no. 139 (2019): 4–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2019.139.0.4-12.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Nexon, Daniel H., and Iver B. Neumann. "Hegemonic-order theory: A field-theoretic account." European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (July 4, 2017): 662–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354066117716524.

Full text

Abstract:

This article outlines a field-theoretic variation of hegemonic-order theory — one inspired primarily by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. We argue that hegemony derives from the possession of a plurality of meta-capital in world politics; hegemons exercise “a power over other species of power, and particularly over their rate of exchange.” Recasting conventional hegemonic-order theories along these lines carries with it at least three advantages: it helps bridge the differences between realist and neo-Gramscian approaches to hegemony; it provides scaffolding for exploring the workings of hegemony and hegemonic ordering across different scales; and it better addresses the fact that hegemonic powers are enabled and constrained by international order itself. After reviewing some of the major variants of hegemonic-order theory, we explore Bourdieu’s understanding of hegemony and cognate concepts. We then elaborate on our field-theoretic approach, with examples drawn from US foreign relations and the Roman Empire. Finally, we provide a longer illustrative sketch in the form of a discussion of Roman ordering and its longue durée influence on social, political, and cultural fields in world politics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Maya-Ambia, Carlos. "Globalisierung der Ökonomie, Polarisierung der Macht." PROKLA. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft 34, no. 137 (December 1, 2004): 621–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.32387/prokla.v34i137.615.

Full text

Abstract:

Beginning with the contemporary "unipolar situation" the rise and decline of US-American hegemony is discussed. Against misunderstandings and simplifications of the concept of hegemony the approach of the neo-gramscian school of international relations is presented. Using the tools of this approach the internal and external obstacles of USAmerican hegemony and especially the relation between the US and Latin America are analyzed.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

FLORIG, DENNIS. "Hegemonic overreach vs. imperial overstretch." Review of International Studies 36, no. 04 (April 30, 2010): 1103–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510000197.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThe concept of hegemonic overreach proposes a revision of Kennedy's notion of imperial overstretch that puts more emphasis on policy choices of hegemonic states. Previous long-cycle theories of hegemonic breakdown have focused on the contradiction between the hegemon's growing military-political commitments and its slipping economic capability relative to rising challenger states. Another key contradiction in US foreign policy is between the imperatives of hegemony and the ideology of messianic mission developed long before the US stepped up to its current global role. Hegemonic overreach, driven by this sense of messianic mission, is a major cause of failure in US foreign policy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

G. Misalucha, Charmaine. "Southeast Asia-US Relations: Hegemony or Hierarchy?" CONTEMPORARY SOUTHEAST ASIA 33, no. 2 (2011): 209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1355/cs33-2c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Rezaei, Alireza. "Book Review: International Relations: America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation." Political Studies Review 10, no. 2 (April 4, 2012): 260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00262_17.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Kasantzev, A. A., and V. M. Sergeev. "The Crisis of US-centric Globalization: Causes, Trends and Scenarios of Development." MGIMO Review of International Relations 13, no. 2 (April 28, 2020): 40–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-2-71-40-69.

Full text

Abstract:

Traditionally the processes of globalization and the issues of world politics related to hegemony are studied separately in the scientific literature. In this article the authors propose the synthesis of both of these approaches based on the model of transactional and innovative economy spatially structured as a system of “global gateways”. The globalization is conceived in the article as a process of reinforcement of network connections of different parts of the globe. The network is distributed unevenly around the world. The increase of globalization processes stimulates the strengthening of the network interactions and saturation of it with resources. The decline of the globalization we are witnessing at the moment results in the weakening of network relations. Spatial heterogeneity of globalization produces inequality in resource distribution on social as well as regional and country level. Due to this fact the system of global economy based on these gateways requires the stability of political institutes. In the 19th-20th centuries the system of maintenance of global stability (known in IR as hegemonic stability) was established. Increasing globalization provides the effective interaction between economic and political spheres. Declining globalization produces a gap between gateways’ demands for political stability and a hegemon’s ability to provide it. Recently the USA’s abilities as global hegemon have shrunk dramatically in relative terms as well as American electorate’s willingness to bear the costs of hegemony. Washington is unable to maintain stable functioning of “the rules of the game” neither separately, nor with its allies. This situation may be described as “the crisis of US-centric globalization”. The crisis of globalization relates to decline of international regimes, rise of uncertainty and conflicts on all levels of world politics. Presumably, it’s a long-term process. And at the end it may cause the establishment of new political form of economic globalization (e.g. transition to the model of hegemony of a group of superpowers, a scenario mostly close to generally accepted in Russia idea of multi-polar world), or emergence of a new hegemon (e.g. China).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Norrlöf, Carla. "Is COVID-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony." International Affairs 96, no. 5 (September 1, 2020): 1281–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa134.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Rein, Marlen. "Power Asymmetry in the Mekong River Basin: The Impact of Hydro-Hegemony on Sharing Transboundary Water." Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 8, no. 1 (December 20, 2017): 127–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/vjeas-2016-0005.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Does the allocation of transboundary water strengthen cooperation among states or cause international conflicts? This is a question that is highly disputed among several scholars, whereas the arguments of both sides seem equally rational. An analogous dissent can be seen in the research area of the Mekong River. For that reason, it is rational to avoid engaging in this everlasting disagreement and rather look at the problematic question from another viewpoint. This article deals with the Mekong case from a relatively new angle by combining the concepts of power, hydro-hegemony, and coexistence of conflict and cooperation as proposed by the London Water Research Group for analysing the impacts of hydro-hegemony on water allocation. This approach enables us to observe that the power asymmetry deriving from four types of power (geographic, material, bargaining, and ideational power) gives China the position of the hydro-hegemon that is followed by five weaker non-hegemons in the following order: Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Despite the great number of collaborative groups, the non-hegemons have not been able to resist the hydro-hegemony of China effectively, as the unity of non-hegemons is mostly hampered by different national interests. Therefore, the bilateral relations of China with the other riparian states individually-especially with Laos and Cambodia-have been stronger than on the multilateral basis with the Mekong River Commission.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Blum, Samantha. "Chinese Views of US Hegemony." Journal of Contemporary China 12, no. 35 (May 2003): 239–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1067056022000054597.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Long, Tom. "US hegemony and the Americas: power and economic statecraft in International Relations." International Affairs 96, no. 5 (September 1, 2020): 1434–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa141.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Híjar-Chiapa, Miguel. "US Hegemony and the Americas: Power and Economic Statecraft in International Relations." México y la Cuenca del Pacífico 9, no. 26 (May 1, 2020): 177–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.32870/mycp.v9i26.695.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Kostic, Marina. "Whose hegemony? The world in the context of competition for the new global rule." Medjunarodni problemi 70, no. 4 (2018): 391–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/medjp1804391k.

Full text

Abstract:

The subject of this article is the relation between hegemony and the world order in which hegemony (understood as leadership of a certain country or group of countries through the consent of others), and not a mere change of balance of power, represents a key for the change of the world order (understood as establishing a new leadership and rules in the world). This means that changes in the distribution of power do not necessarily mean the change of the existing world order, i.e. leadership and rules of conduct in international relations, but that this requires counter-hegemony too, which can be described as the collapse of the foundations on which the existing consent for leadership and the world order is based upon and creation of the foundations of a new world order. This means a criticism of the existing liberal-democratic paradigm, its crisis and establishing of a new paradigm of international relations, as well as the attitude towards the domestic affairs of the countries. Just as the engagement of the United States after the World War II and then after the Cold War represented the establishment and expansion of American hegemony, the activities of Russia and China today can be best understood and seen through the concept of counter-hegemony. It includes three elements: the desire for reform of those international institutions that still maintain US hegemony and/or the creation of new ones in which there is no US participation; working with elements of civil society such as non-governmental organizations, scientific and other expert organizations, the media and churches; as well as the prevalence of different principles regulating international relations (multipolarity and noninterference in domestic affairs instead of global leadership and interventionism under the guise of responsibility to protect and democracy promotion). We approach this issue within the framework of neo-Marxist, precisely neGramscian, theoretical perspective on international relations, and use literature review and content analysis as research methods.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Foot, Rosemary. "China’s rise and US hegemony: Renegotiating hegemonic order in East Asia?" International Politics 57, no. 2 (September 4, 2019): 150–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00189-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Akaha, Tsuneo. "Japan's Security Policy After US Hegemony." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18, no. 3 (December 1989): 435–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03058298890180030901.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Kim, Min-hyung. "A real driver of US–China trade conflict." International Trade, Politics and Development 3, no. 1 (February 4, 2019): 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/itpd-02-2019-003.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively efficiently, free trade is largely beneficial for everyone involved. Then, why are the world’s two largest economies (i.e. the USA and China) currently engaged in a trade war, which is likely to hurt their own economies? What is the driving force for the trade war between the two economic giants? The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of the underlying cause of the US–China trade war. Design/methodology/approach In an effort to make sense of the trade war between the USA and China, the paper draws the insights from the two international relations theories – i.e. hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory. Findings As China continues to threaten US hegemony in the world in general and East Asia in particular, the Sino–US competition for hegemony will intensify over time. As a result, the trade war between the two countries may persist longer than many anticipate. Further, even if the trade war between the two superpowers ends soon, a similar type of conflict is likely to occur later as long as the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry continues. Originality/value The central thesis of this paper is that “US fear” about its declining hegemony and China’s rapid rise as a challenger of US hegemony is driving a US-launched trade war with China. Since the underlying cause of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is political (i.e. the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry) rather than economic (e.g. US attempts to improve the trade balance with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods), the paper contends that the full understanding of the trade war requires close attention to the importance of power competition between the two superpowers.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Willard, Andrew R. "US Hegemony and International Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions." Perspectives on Politics 2, no. 04 (December 2004): 892–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592704790581.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Mastanduno, Michael. "Liberal hegemony, international order, and US foreign policy: A reconsideration." British Journal of Politics and International Relations 21, no. 1 (August 10, 2018): 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1369148118791961.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Heisbourg, F. "American hegemony? Perceptions of the US abroad." Survival 41, no. 4 (January 1999): 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713660132.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Layne, Christopher. "US hegemony and the perpetuation of NATO." Journal of Strategic Studies 23, no. 3 (September 2000): 59–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390008437800.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Chapman, Dennis. "US Hegemony in Latin America and Beyond." International Studies Review 7, no. 2 (June 2005): 317–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2005.00496.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Biegon, Rubrick. "US Hegemony and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Consensus, Crisis, and Common Sense." Chinese Journal of International Politics 13, no. 1 (2020): 69–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poaa001.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract This article provides a critical analysis of the agency of the United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Building on neo-Gramscian theory, it contextualises the US decision to withdraw from the TPP as an expression of hegemonic crisis. Through an examination of the strategic and geoeconomic logics and objectives of the trade agreement in US foreign economic policy, it maintains that the TPP was intended primarily to expand the structural and consensual power of the United States in the international political economy. Partly an attempt to kick-start a stalled neoliberal agenda, the TPP was also an effort to respond to China’s growing influence in trade governance. The article argues that, despite the revival of the TPP in the form of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the inability of elite networks in the United States to implement the original accord is illustrative of a crisis of hegemony driven largely by the collapse of the ‘common sense’ in favour of economic globalisation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Taylor, Ian. "Transnationalizing Capitalist Hegemony." Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 42, no. 1 (February 2017): 26–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0304375417732849.

Full text

Abstract:

The international political economy is increasingly underpinned by transnationalizing social and class forces that exercise their interests utilizing nation-states and institutions. Whereas the previous “world economy” was typified by interactions between distinct national economies, in the current “global economy,” service and production chains are ever more transnationalizing. In some readings, the notion of a “transnational state” has been advanced, with the state having broken out of its national limitations and become transnationalized. The transnational state thesis, however, is a concept too far. It denies the critical role played by the state in the internationalization process. Utilizing Poulantzas’ notion of an interior bourgeoisie, an alternative framework is offered that gives us an insight into the ongoing transnationalizing processes that mark the current contemporary stage of capitalism.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Dannreuther, Roland, and James Kennedy. "Historical Sociology in Sociology: British Decline and US Hegemony with Lessons for International Relations." International Politics 44, no. 4 (June 21, 2007): 369–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800196.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Itayama, Mayumi. "Hegemony and the US–Japan Alliance." International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19, no. 3 (September 1, 2019): 557–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz012.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Carvalho, Patrícia Nasser de, and Elói Martins Senhoras. "The impact of COVID-19 Crisis on the Global Economy and the North American Hegemonic Cycle: A reading." Agenda Internacional 27, no. 38 (October 16, 2020): 9–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.18800/agenda.202001.001.

Full text

Abstract:

Based on the theorical framework that considers contextual and structural long-term perspectives of world hegemonic cycles and transitions of global powers, the aim of this reading is to critically analyze the ongoing and potential impact of the pandemic in the light of a conjunctural and historical perspective. The hypothesis is that although the COVID-19 crisis has already had deep negative impact on the global economy and represents a perfect storm for the US hegemony, seeing as the country is being challenged by many factors with strong magnitude and adverse effects, indeed it would not generate an immediate terminal crisis of the North American hegemony. Just in the long run the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to trigger another world hegemonic power. The reading is based on the theoretical perspectives of world hegemonic cycles in international relations and is methodologically characterized as an explanatory and descriptive study and is built on a bibliographic review for the collection of theoretical and historical data.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Payne, Anthony. "US hegemony and the reconfiguration of the Caribbean." Review of International Studies 20, no. 2 (April 1994): 149–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500117863.

Full text

Abstract:

Like every other part of the world, the Caribbean is having to come to terms with the deep-seated changes in the nature of the world order manifest at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. These changes have set in train a process which is beginning to constitute a reconfiguration of what is meant by and included within the concept of the Caribbean. Conventionally, the Caribbean has been defined by a blend of its geography and history. From a simple geographical viewpoint, it consists of all the islands in the Caribbean Sea, making up a huge archipelago which runs some 2,500 miles from the southern tip of Florida in the north to the coast of Venezuela in the south, facing Central America to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. From a more complex historical viewpoint which emphasizes the common, searing impact of slave-based European imperialism, it also includes Belize on the Central American isthmus and the three ‘Guianas’ on the South American coast: Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. Conceived in this way, the region has widely been said to possess an intellectual coherence that makes it possible to analyse its modern politics and economics within a single framework.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Schenoni, Luis L., and Scott Mainwaring. "US hegemony and regime change in Latin America." Democratization 26, no. 2 (September 12, 2018): 269–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2018.1516754.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Chengqiu, Wu. "Ideational Differences, Perception Gaps, and the Emerging Sino–US Rivalry." Chinese Journal of International Politics 13, no. 1 (2020): 27–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poz020.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Bilateral relations between China and the United States have evolved over the past two decades from the ‘same bed, different dreams’ of the 1990s when, despite different interests and perceptions, globalisation and multilateralism drew them closer, to the potential ‘different beds, same nightmare’ scenario where their economies draw further apart and their governments are locked in hegemonic rivalry. Drawing on Wendtian constructivism and cognitive psychology, this article proposes a systematic and dynamic theoretical framework and a review of the evolution of Sino–US relations to explain how and why the above changes happened. We subdivide Sino–US relations since the early 1990s into five periods that describe the United States’ China strategy in four aspects and China’s US strategy in three aspects. Our findings are that the United States’ China strategy has changed dramatically while China’s US strategy has remained relatively stable, and that Sino–US relations from the early 1990s to mid-2010 were characterised by cooperation borne of strategic compatibility, whereas those ensuing were characterised by competition due to strategic incompatibility. We argue that rivalry between the two countries stems from their fundamentally different ideas, namely, Chinese statist nationalism and American liberal hegemony, and that gaps in perception have exacerbated the differences. Simply put, their ‘different dreams’ have led to the ‘same nightmare’.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

BEESON, MARK. "Hegemonic transition in East Asia? The dynamics of Chinese and American power." Review of International Studies 35, no. 1 (January 2009): 95–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210509008341.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThe ‘rise of China’ is seen by some observers as a precursor of inevitable hegemonic competition in East Asia. At the very least, it seems likely that China’s influence in East Asia will grow at the expense of the United States. Whether this will eventually amount to a form of ‘hegemonic transition’ is far less clear. It is, therefore, an opportune moment to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of China and the US in East Asia. This paper suggests that the nature of hegemonic competition and transition is more uncertain and complex than some of the most influential theoretical understandings of hegemony would have us believe.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Pattugalan, Gina Rivas. "US Hegemony and Multilateralism: The Case of Asia Pacific Regional Security." Philippine Political Science Journal 19, no. 1-4 (December 8, 1998): 127–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2165025x-0190104005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Saunders, Natasha. "How middle power leadership defied US hegemony, by Ronald M Behringer." International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis 68, no. 3 (September 2013): 513–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020702013505731.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Burges, Sean W. "Latin America in international politics: challenging US hegemony. By Joseph S. Tulchin." International Affairs 92, no. 4 (June 20, 2016): 1035–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12692.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Michishita *, Narushige. "Coercing to reconcile: North Korea's response to US ‘hegemony’." Journal of Strategic Studies 29, no. 6 (December 2006): 1015–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390601016576.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Dunne, Michael. "US Foreign Relations in the Twentieth Century: from World Power to Global Hegemony." International Affairs 76, no. 1 (January 2000): 25–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00117.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Stallings, Barbara. "The Reluctant Giant: Japan and the Latin American Debt Crisis." Journal of Latin American Studies 22, no. 1-2 (March 1990): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x00015091.

Full text

Abstract:

The debt crisis has been the dominant feature of Latin American economic and political life since 1982. While the Reagan Administration gave greater priority to Central America, it nevertheless managed the international response to the debt crisis. US management initially seemed logical for several reasons: US hegemony worldwide, the traditionally close relationship between the United States and Latin America, and the leading exposure of US banks in Latin American debt. During the period since 1982, however, two of these three elements have changed. Japan has challenged US hegemony, although it certainly has not displaced the United States, and Japanese banks have caught up with their US counterparts as holders of Latin American debt.2 Despite their lack of traditional relations with Latin America, then, the Japanese are becoming increasingly – although perhaps reluctantly – involved in the region.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

van der Pijl, Kees. "Historicising the International: Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy." Historical Materialism 18, no. 2 (May 20, 2010): 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156920610x512426.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper is based on the Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial-Prize Lecture given at SOAS in London, on 27 November 2009. It claims that Marxism remains built around a critique of political economy (‘economics’) but lacks a parallel critique of international relations (IR). IR naturalises the organisation of inter-state relations along lines comparable to the naturalisation of the capitalist economy by economics. The paper argues that the disciplinary organisation of Western academia is part of the class-discipline in society at large. It was triggered by the abstraction of economics from the field of the broader social sciences. IR, in turn, was codified in the slipstream of Woodrow Wilson’s response to the Russian Revolution that followed on from the US-intervention in World-War I. The discipline was built around a founding myth of global liberalism and national self-determination. It served, among other things, to disqualify the claims of the theory of imperialism on disciplinary grounds, and its initial connections with Western hegemony, capital, and the national-security state remain in place today. Distinguishing modes of foreign relations, and specifying the occupation of space, protection, and exchange for tribal and empire/nomad foreign relations, as well as sovereign equality and global governance, on the other hand make it possible to understand the rise and continuing hegemony of the West in its own right, rather than as a superstructure of the transnationalisation of capital.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Lebow, Richard Ned, and Robert Kelly. "Thucydides and hegemony: Athens and the United States." Review of International Studies 27, no. 4 (October 2001): 593–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210501005939.

Full text

Abstract:

Fifth century Greeks distinguished between hegemonia (legitimated leadership) and arkhe (control). Thucydides employed this distinction to track the changing nature of the Athenian Empire during the Peloponnesian War, and the ways in which a diminishing concern for balancing self-interest against justice corroded Athenian authority, made survival of the empire increasingly problematic and encouraged the disastrous expedition to Sicily. The Melian Dialogue—often cited by realists to justify a power-based approach to foreign policy—is intended to symbolize this decay. Building on our analysis of Thucydides, we examine the British, Soviet and American experiences with hegemony. A striking feature of the contemporary American situation is the extent to which American leaders claim hegemonia but deny any interest in arkhe. Rightly or wrongly, much of the rest of the world has the reverse perception. This seeming contradiction has important implications for US foreign policy and world politics more generally.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Vermeiren, Mattias. "The global imbalances and the contradictions of US monetary hegemony." Journal of International Relations and Development 13, no. 2 (May 31, 2010): 105–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.36.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Kivimäki, Timo. "How Does Nationalist Selfishness Creep into Cosmopolitan Protection?" Global Responsibility to Protect 11, no. 1 (January 14, 2019): 42–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875984x-01101004.

Full text

Abstract:

This article investigates how selfish justifications enter cosmopolitan rationales in the political plane of the discourse. It makes sense of the ways in which selfish ideas are allowed to meddle in and merge with morally-based cosmopolitan norms. The article commits to the ontological and epistemological premises of critical discourse analysis, and focuses on us presidential papers since 1989. It substantiates the claims it makes by using computer-assisted discursive process tracing method as a supporting tool for qualitative analysis of texts. The computerised analysis of discursive entanglements reveals that cosmopolitan protective operations are in fact mainly framed nationalistically. The roots of such selfish nationalistic arguments for international protective military operations can be traced in the realist and hegemonic fallacies that emphasise the naturality of national selfishness and the need for global hegemony. Furthermore, the article shows how the entanglement of discourse strands about ‘protection’ and ‘innocent victimhood’ as well as the entanglement between ‘crime prevention’ and ‘terrorism prevention’ legitimate selfish internationalist arguments in the us political debate.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Nayak, Meghana V., and Christopher Malone. "American Orientalism and American Exceptionalism: A Critical Rethinking of US Hegemony." International Studies Review 11, no. 2 (June 2009): 253–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00848.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Goh, Evelyn. "US Dominance and American Bias in International Relations Scholarship: A View from the Outside." Journal of Global Security Studies 4, no. 3 (June 21, 2019): 402–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz029.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article responds to the Journal of Global Security Studies special issue on “American Perspectives and Blind Spots on World Politics,” edited by Jeff Colgan. It applauds their significant achievement in offering positivist demonstrations of the bias generated by American assumptions, coding, and preferences, and quantitative demonstration of the systemic and systematic impact of this bias in skewing key assumptions and theories in mainstream US international relations (IR), by selectivizing attention and compromising accuracy. The article pushes the envelope further by arguing that the call to arms is more urgent and more significant than Colgan et al. express. As US hegemony is diluted, the discipline of IR must increasingly account for other parts of the world. Here, cultural bias generates deeper problems with both ontology and epistemology. The article reviews the wider IR field that shows how IR is at once more global and less easily generalizable, driving the imperative to expand the universe of cases for qualitative research. It warns that the problem of US bias and the wider issue of insularity is accentuated by the growing distance between IR scholarship as expressed in top journal publications and “real-world” puzzles and empirical reality—and by ongoing changes in how governments provide state support and funding for IR research and training.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Abdullah, Harith Qahtan, and Muthanna Faiq Meri. "International competition for oil and natural gas and its impact on international relations." Tikrit Journal For Political Science 1, no. 1 (February 28, 2019): 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.25130/poltic.v1i1.95.

Full text

Abstract:

Energy sources Oil and natural gas are of great importance in international competition and its impact on international relations, as well as the importance of oil and natural gas in maintaining the position of countries in the hegemony and the global economy as well as the level of economic development. Which calls on the major economic powers to pay attention to this type of energy sources and try to obtain more, whether through bilateral economic agreements and attention to the investment process or through wars, as happened in the US war on Iraq in 2003, which indicates the importance of obtaining On oil in various ways and push the international forces to compete for this vital product, especially in light of the inability of alternative energy sources to compensate oil in industries and at least to reduce the importance of consuming countries by this on the one hand, and on the other hand, the rise in the price of global markets made The producing countries are of importance to the industrial countries, and in maintaining access roads without obstacles or problems that may hinder their arrival, creating another economic crisis in light of the economic and financial crises witnessed by the global economic system

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Zaidi, Syed Muhammad Saad, and Adam Saud. "Future of US-China Relations: Conflict, Competition or Cooperation?" Asian Social Science 16, no. 7 (June 12, 2020): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v16n7p1.

Full text

Abstract:

In contemporary times, the geo-political agenda and geo-economic strategy of the world is being dominated by the ongoing US-China hegemonic competition. Where the United States is trying to prolong the ‘unipolar moment’ and deter the rise of China; China is trying to establish itself as the hegemon in the Eastern hemisphere, an alternate to the US. The entirely opposite interests of the two Great Powers have initiated a hostile confrontational competition for domination. This paper seeks to determine the future nature of the US-China relations; will history repeat itself and a bloody war be fought to determine the leader of the pack? or another prolonged Cold War will be fought, which will end when one side significantly weakens and collapses? Both dominant paradigms of International Relations, Realism and Liberalism, are used to analyze the future nature of the US-China relations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Tamaki, Nobuhiko. "Japan’s quest for a rules-based international order: the Japan-US alliance and the decline of US liberal hegemony." Contemporary Politics 26, no. 4 (June 12, 2020): 384–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1777041.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Hirsch, Joachim. "Globalisierung und Terror." PROKLA. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft 31, no. 125 (December 1, 2001): 511–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.32387/prokla.v31i125.720.

Full text

Abstract:

The new form of international terrorism shows complex relations to the capitalist globalization process. It is argued that the present international system – despite of the absolute economic and military dominance of the „strong states” under US-leadership – is marked by a fundamental lack of political hegemony. The crisis of politics resulting from this „non hegemonial” situation is based in a fundamental contradiction of the neoliberal globalization project. The reactions of the dominant states to the terrorist attacks are suited to deepen and to intensify this political crisis.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Golub, Philip. "Imperial politics, imperial will and the crisis of US hegemony." Review of International Political Economy 11, no. 4 (August 2004): 763–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969229042000279784.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Kurtbaǧ, Ömer. "Empire in the Age of Globalisation: US Hegemony and Neoliberal Disorder." Journal of International Relations and Development 10, no. 2 (June 2007): 207–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800118.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Roden, Mark. "US–China Relations in the Contemporary Era: An International Political Economy Perspective." Politics 23, no. 3 (September 2003): 192–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00196.

Full text

Abstract:

The subject of US–China relations has been examined from a number of perspectives but has rarely been exposed to a critical theory approach. This article argues that US–China relations must be understood at the structural/global level as well as in terms of the interaction of political actors. In this way a broader understanding of US hegemonic power and its relation to China can be developed. This also requires moving beyond viewing the relationship in bilateral terms and taking into account the role of ideas and institutions in the international political economy (IPE).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!