Show Less

US Hegemony

Global Ambitions and Decline- Emergence of the Interregional Asian Triangle and the Relegation of the US as a Hegemonic Power. The Reorientation of Europe

Reinhard Hildebrandt

With the end of the ‘East-West’ conflict in 1990, an entirely new constellation seemed to emerge for the first time in the history of mankind. This was perceived by the power elite in the USA as a useful challenge to lend its – until then territorially restricted – hegemony a global dimension. From the perspective of the US elites (Francis Fukuyama), a period of indefinite American control over the rest of the world, in which there would be no more scope for potential rivals to emerge, would characterize the end of history. But some years later, the USA had to accept that the dual hegemony it had built up together with the Soviet Union was fundamental to the continued existence of American hegemony. Its inability to sustain a global hegemony revealed itself in the severe setbacks it suffered in the three wars waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and against the so-called international terrorists. Undeterred by the USA’s imminent isolation, influential US experts insisted that US policies were still in line with the US’ general perception of its role in the world: firstly to work for the good of the world and, secondly, to exercise its military might even when the rest of the world opposed it. Ignored for a long time by these very experts were the emergence of the interregional Asian triangle (China, India, Russia), Europe’s reorientation and, in consequence, the USA’s relegation as a hegemonic power.


Show Summary Details
Restricted access

15. Bibliography 109


109 15. Bibliography Albert, Matthias, Zur Politik der Weltgesellschaft, Weilerswist, 2002. Barber, Benjamin R., ‘Imperialism or Interdependence?’, Security Dialogue, PRIO 2004, Vol.35(2): 237-242, 2004 PRIO. ‘Clarifying the System Concept by Means of Methodological Pluralism’, Paper for the Panel ‘ES Theory Debates’ WISC Conference, Istanbul, August 2005. Barnett, M., ‘Power in International Politics’/M. Barnett, R. Duvall, International Organization, 59(1) Winter 2005: 39-75. Boot, Max, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, New York, 2002: Basic, xx and 428 pp. Brooks, Th., ‘Hegel’s theory of international politics: a reply to Jaeger’, Review of International Studies, 30(1), January 2004: 149-152. Buzan, Barry, From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. xviii, 294 p. (B-O 172). Checkel, J.T., ‘Social constructivism in global and European politics: a review essay’, Review of International Studies 6(1) March 2004: 49-244. Cox, Michael, ‘Empire by Denial? Debating US Power’, Security Dialog, PRIO 2004, Vol. 35(2), p. 230. Ferguson, Niall, ‘Hegemony or Empire?’ Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003. Goodenough, Patrick, International Editor, September 12, 2005: ‘India Wants Closer Ties With US – But Also With Iran’. Gowan, Peter, ‘Empire as Superstructure’, Oslo, 2004, Security Dialogue, PRIO 2004, Vol.35(2): 258-261. Haller, Gret, Die Grenzen der Solidarität: Europa und die USA im Umgang mit Staat, Nation und Religion, 2nd ed., Berlin 2002. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm, Friedrich, Phänomenologie des Geistes, Frankfurt/Main, 1973. Hildebrandt, Reinhard, Kampf um Weltmacht...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.