Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:58:11.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Relations Theory and the Case against Unilateralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2005

Stephen G. Brooks  and
William C. Wohlforth
Stephen G. Brooks
Affiliation:
Department of Government at Dartmouth ([email protected])
William C. Wohlforth
Affiliation:
Department of Government at Dartmouth ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the general costs associated with a U.S. shift toward unilateralism? According to the overwhelming majority of international relations (IR) scholars, the costs are very high. We evaluate the key arguments that underlie this assessment, namely that increased U.S. unilateralism will: (1) spur the formation of a coalition to check U.S. power; (2) reduce efficiency gains through lost opportunities for institutionalized cooperation; and (3) undermine the legitimacy of the American-led international order. We conclude that the theoretical arguments that IR scholars advance do not show that a shift toward unilateralism necessarily has high costs. Our analysis reveals the need to, first, distinguish clearly between criticisms of unilateral policies based on procedure and those based on substance and, second, to recognize the weakness of current procedural arguments.Stephen G. Brooks is assistant professor ([email protected]), and William C. Wohlforth is professor ([email protected]) in the Department of Government at Dartmouth. They are currently writing a book entitled The Challenge of American Primacy. The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers forPerspectives on Politics and, especially, Erik Voeten for detailed critical comments. They are also grateful to Mlada Bukovansky, Ian Hurd, Martha Finnemore, Ben Valentino, Nina Tannenwald, Alex Wendt, and participants at seminars at the Dickey Center at Dartmouth College, the Olin Institute at Harvard University, the Mershon Center at Ohio State University, and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Thanks also to Dartmouth's Rockefeller and Dickey Centers for supporting research on which this article draws.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 509 - 524
Copyright
© 2005 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbot, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 1998. Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Abbot, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization 54 (3): 436–41.Google Scholar
Berger, Samuel R. 2004. Foreign policy for a democratic president. Foreign Affairs 83 (3): 47–63.Google Scholar
Bolton, John. 2000. Should we take global governance seriously? Chicago Journal of International Law 1 (2): 205–22.Google Scholar
Brenner, Michael J. 2002. Europe's new security vocation. Washington, DC: National Defense University.
Brooks, Stephen G. 2005. Producing security: Multinational corporations, globalization, and the changing calculus of conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2002. American primacy in perspective. Foreign Affairs 81 (4): 20–33.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2005. Hard times for soft balancing. International Security 30 (1).Google Scholar
Byers, Michael. 2003. Preemptive self defense: Hegemony, equality and strategies of legal change. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (2): 171–90.Google Scholar
Chinkin, Christine. 2000. The state that acts alone: Bully, good samaritan or iconoclast? European Journal of International Law 11 (2): 34–41.Google Scholar
Claude, Inis. 1984. Swords into plowshares: The problem and progress of international organization. 4th ed. New York: Random House.
Cronin, Bruce. 2001. The paradox of hegemony: America's ambiguous relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 103–30.Google Scholar
Daalder, Ivo H., and Michael E. O'Hanlon. 2000. Winning ugly: NATO's war to save Kosovo. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Downs, George W., and Michael Jones. 2002. Reputation, compliance, and international law. Journal of Legal Studies 31, pt. 2: S95–S114.Google Scholar
Duffield, John. 2003. The limits of rational design. International Organization 57 (2): 411–30.Google Scholar
Emmot, Bill. 2002. Present at the creation: A survey of America's world role. The Economist, June 29, 2002.
Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization 52 (2): 269–305.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Niall, and Lawrence Kotlikoff. 2003. Going critical: American power and the consequences of fiscal overstretch. National Interest 73:22–33.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. The neoconservative moment. National Interest (76): 57–69.Google Scholar
Gallarotti, Giulio. 1991. The limits of international organization: Systematic failure in the management of international relations. International Organization 45 (2): 183–211.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, Philip H., and Jeremy Shapiro. 2004. Allies at war: America, Europe, and the crisis over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grafstein, Robert. 1981. The failure of Weber's conception of legitimacy: Its causes and implications. The Journal of Politics 43 (2): 456–72.Google Scholar
Gruber, Lloyd. 2000. Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hoffmann, Stanley. 2002. Clash of globalizations. Foreign Affairs 81 (4): 104–14.Google Scholar
Hopf, Ted. 1998. The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security 23 (1): 171–200.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 1999. Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization 53 (2): 379–408.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John, ed. 2002. America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John 2003a. Is American multilateralism in decline? Perspectives on Politics 1 (3): 533–50.Google Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John 2003b. State power and the institutional bargain: America's ambivalent economic and security multilateralism. In U.S. Hegemony and international organizations: The United States and multilateral institutions, ed. Rosemary Foot, S. Neil MacFarlane, and Michael Mastanduno, 49–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jervis, Robert. 2002. Theories of war in an era of leading-power peace. Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 2001. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Joffe, Josef. 2002. Defying history and theory: The United States as the “last superpower.” In America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power, ed. G. John Ikenberry, 155–80. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly 45 (4): 487–515.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert. 2004. America's crisis of legitimacy. Foreign Affairs 83 (2): 65–87.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Lawrence. 2004. Washington's new worldview: Springtime for realism. The New Republic, June 21, 2004.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Power and governance in a partially globalized world. London: Routledge.
Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin. 1995. The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security 20 (1): 39–52.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin. 2003. Institutional theory as a research program. In Progress in International Relations Theory, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncal Snidal. 2001. Rational design: Looking back to move forward. International Organization 55 (4): 1051–82.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, and Duncan Snidal. 2003. Moving forward, one step at a time. International Organization 57 (2): 411–44.Google Scholar
Krasner, Stephen D. 1991. Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier. World Politics 43 (3): 336–66.Google Scholar
Krauthammer, Charles. 2002–3. The unipolar moment revisited. National Interest 70:5–18.Google Scholar
Krauthammer, Charles. 2004. In defense of democratic realism. National Interest 77:15–26.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 1993. Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential? International Studies Quarterly 37 (4): 459–89.Google Scholar
Lebow, R. Ned. 2003. The tragic vision of politics: Ethics, interests, and orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, Douglas. 1997. The continuation of history: Power transition theory and the end of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research 34 (1): 23–36.Google Scholar
Lindley-French, Julian. 2002. Terms of engagement: The paradox of American power and the transatlantic dilemma post-11 September. Chaillot Papers, no. 52. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.
Malone, David M., and Yuen Foong Khong. 2003. Unilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: International perspectives. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Martin, Lisa. 2003. Multilateral organizations after the U.S.-Iraq war. In The Iraq war and its consequences: Thoughts of Nobel peace laureates and eminent scholars, ed. Irwin Abrams and Wang Gungwu, 359–74. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Mastanduno, Michael. 1999. Preserving the unipolar moment: Realist theories and U.S. grand strategy after the cold war. In Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the cold war, ed. Ethan B. Kapstein and Michael M. Mastanduno, 138–81. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2003. An unnecessary war. Foreign Policy 134:50–59.Google Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 1996. Reputation and international politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Moens, Alexander. 2004. The foreign policy of George W. Bush: Values, strategy, and loyalty. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
Morrow, James. 1994. Modeling the forms of international cooperation: Distribution versus information. International Organization 48 (3): 387–423.Google Scholar
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 2002. The paradox of American power: Why the world's only superpower can't go it alone. London: Oxford University Press.
Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 2002–3. Limits of American power. Political Science Quarterly 117 (4): 545–59.Google Scholar
Pape, Robert. 2004. Soft balancing: How states pursue security in a unipolar world. American Political Science Association 100th Annual Meeting, September 2–5, 2004. Chicago.
Patrick, Stewart. 2002. Multilateralism and its discontents: The causes and consequences of U.S. ambivalence. In Multilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement, ed. Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, 1–44. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Paul, T. V. 2004. The enduring axioms of balance of power theory. In Balance of power theory and practice in the twenty-first century, eds. T. V. Paul, James Wirtz, Michel Fortmann, and 1–28. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Payne, Rodger. 2001. Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 37–61.Google Scholar
Pond, Elizabeth. 2004. Friendly fire: The near death of the transatlantic alliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Press, Daryl G. 2005. Calculating credibility: How leaders assess threats during crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2004. American power and world order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ruggie, John Gerard, ed. 1993. Multilateralism matters: The theory and praxis of an institutional form. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rumsfeld, Donald. 2002. Transforming the military. Foreign Affairs 81 (3): 13–33.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L., and David Priess. 1997. A tale of two realisms: Expanding the institutions debate. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Lisa L. Martin. 2002. International organizations and institutions. In Handbook of international relations, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 192–211. London: Sage.
Snyder, Jack L. 2004. One world: Rival theories. Foreign Policy (145): 53–62.Google Scholar
Stigler, Andrew L. 2002–3. A clear victory for air power: NATO's empty threat to invade Kosovo. International Security 27 (3): 124–57.Google Scholar
Tucker, Robert W., and David C. Hendrickson. 2004. The sources of American legitimacy. Foreign Affairs 83 (6): 18–32.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2001. Outside options and the logic of Security Council action. American Political Science Review 95 (4): 845–58.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 2002. Keeping the world “off balance”: Self-restraint in U.S. foreign policy. In America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power, ed. G. J. Ikenberry, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 121–54.
Walt, Stephen M. 2004. Can the United States be balanced? If so, how? American Political Science Association Annual Convention, Chicago, September 2–4, 2004.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International Security 18 (2): 44–79.Google Scholar
Wedgewood, Ruth. 2002. Unilateral action in a multilateral world. In Multilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement, ed. Stewart Patrick and Shephard Forman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner: 167–89.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wohlforth, William C. 1999. The stability of a unipolar world. International Security 24 (1): 5–47.Google Scholar
Wohlforth, William C. 2002. U.S. strategy in a unipolar world. In America unrivaled: the future of the balance of power, ed. G. John Ikenberry, 98–120. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Woodward, Bob. 2002. Bush at war. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The arrogant empire. Newsweek. March 24, 2003.
Zelikow, Philip. 2003. The transformation of national security. National Interest 71:17–29.Google Scholar