Suchergebnisse

Unipolarity is more peaceful than what theorists predict. In causal terms, its dynamics might be less unidirectional than what is often assumed. First, contrary to Monteiro's assumption, the character of today's aggregation mechanisms is not adversarial. This is because the nature of polarity has changed over time. Second, in contrast to domestic alliance aspects, Monteiro's structural inclinations lead him to overlook the importance of domestic politics when analyzing the targets of the unipole's 'temptation to re-engineer the system'. Third, since Monteiro believes that wars against smaller states are very likely, he seems to assume a deterministic stance, thereby leaving no room for US diplomacy to reject such determinism at opportune moments. Finally, neglecting economic aspects, Monteiro does not recognize the socio-political effects of the security-economics nexus on smaller states.

In analyzing the current unipolar system, it is useful to begin with structure. No other state or plausible coalition can challenge the unipole's core security, but this does not mean that all its values are safe or that it can get everything that it wants. Contrary to what is often claimed, standard balance of power arguments do not imply that a coalition will form to challenge the unipole. Realism also indicates that rather than seeking to maintain the system, the unipole may seek further expansion. To understand the current system requires combining structural analysis with an appreciation of the particular characteristics of the current era, the United States, and its leaders. Doing so shows further incentives to change the system and highlights the role of nuclear proliferation in modifying existing arrangements. Adapted from the source document.

In analyzing the current unipolar system, it is useful to begin with structure. No other state or plausible coalition can challenge the unipole's core security, but this does not mean that all its values are safe or that it can get everything that it wants. Contrary to what is often claimed, standard balance of power arguments do not imply that a coalition will form to challenge the unipole. Realism also indicates that rather than seeking to maintain the system, the unipole may seek further expansion. To understand the current system requires combining structural analysis with an appreciation of the particular characteristics of the current era, the United States, and its leaders. Doing so shows further incentives to change the system and highlights the role of nuclear proliferation in modifying existing arrangements.

Abstract
Scholars, state practitioners, and pundits believe the international system is becoming multipolar. These assessments are wrong. I advance three arguments against this view. First, contemporary polarity is best measured via military capabilities. Wealth and demography should be restricted to indicate latent and not realized power. Second, using a new measure for sophisticated military capabilities, I show that the world is still unipolar. While the United States' share of capabilities among major powers has dropped in the latter part of the century, it is still by far the most powerful state. Third, a bipolar world is possible, and a multipolar world or a non-polar world is unlikely. If China maintains its meteoric rise, which is far from certain, the next system is likely to be bipolar. The second- and third-tier powers share only a fraction of the major power military capabilities, making multipolarity and non-polarity improbable.