Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT: Polarity is an often used and yet frequently under-analyzed term in International Relations. It is designed in its usage to shed light on the distribution of power in the global system. This paper seeks to understand the order of the world at the systemic level in a descriptive manner while recognizing the challenges that arise from attempting to do so. It comes to the conclusion that the hierarchical structure remains unipolar in form – dominated both materially and ideationally by the United States. Moreover, this unipolarity is likely to continue over the next half a century and see a whole host of nations become more and more organized under the direction of one global power. Whether or not this is desirable remains to be seen.

For at least the past thirty years, scholarship on international relations has been bewitched by a simple proposition: the polarity of the international system is a central cause of great power strategies and politics. The number of "poles" (dominant countries) in the system is like an invisible fence that shapes states as if they were dogs with electronic collars or a Skinner box that conditions national "rats." States can choose to ignore the fence or box, but if they do, they must pay the consequences. The polarity of the international system as defined by the number of great powers - involving more than two (multipolarity), two (bipolarity), or one (unipolarity) - is expected to mold states and international politics in different predictable ways. The central place of polarity in IR theory is such that it is commonly assumed that the appropriate way to study the world is to examine the impact of polarity first and then move on to other lesser factors to mop up any unexplained variance.

This working paper deals with the claim that the decline of multilateralism is but a logical outcome of the present distribution of international power. In a first part, it analyses a double causal claim, namely that the distribution of international power (unipolarity) determines the nature of US foreign policy (primacy-plus-unilateralism) which is antithetical to multilateralism as an institution. On the basis of recent conceptual analyses of power, which challenges the assumptions necessary to make such aggregate power analysis, I argue that the general thesis of a causal relationship between unipolarity and a decline of multilateralism does not hold. A second part argues applies a constructivist twist to the conceptual analysis of power in order to assess whether a particular conception of power, if shared, has an actual effect on world order. Precisely because the distribution of power resources does not determinate outcomes, but are often understood to do so, the capacity to shape the definitions of power is not mere semantics, but has political effect. This move reverses the relationship between the two central concepts. Rather than seeing unprecedented preponderance as the cause of unilateralism, it shows how a successful (neoconservative) policy of US unilateralism could foster a certain understanding of power which, if it becomes shared by the international society, will have real power effects akin to the alleged effects of unipolarity.

After the end of the Cold war the unipolar international system was established and during recent decade it was transformated from strickt unipolarity (1990-2000) to modified unipolarity (2001-2010). Exceptional and multidimensional power with the global reach of the USA was the reason for naming structure of international system as strict unipolar till terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the USA. After September 11th the USA started to act less unilaterally than before temporary changing the unilateralism to multilateralism for collective actions against terrorism in Afghanistan. The multilateral response to September 11th terrorist attacks became the first stage of transformation of strict unipolarity based on Article 5 of Washington Treaty. Years of 2001-2003 could be named as the beginning of modified unipolarity: sole superpower acted multilaterally in war against terrorism and at the same time it promoted the enlargement of its influence with NATO enlargement to the post soviet area. Formation of transformed unipolar structure allows speaking about the necessity of defining a new type of unipolarity – modified unipolarity which is theoretically balancing on the dividing lines of unipolarity, multipolarity and nonpolarity concepts. This article consists of broad definition of modified unipolarity, theoretical analysis of polarity and its transformation, also, some preliminary conclusions and insights are made concerning possible transformation of modified unipolarity in the foreseen future.

After the end of the Cold war the unipolar international system was established and during recent decade it was transformated from strickt unipolarity (1990-2000) to modified unipolarity (2001-2010). Exceptional and multidimensional power with the global reach of the USA was the reason for naming structure of international system as strict unipolar till terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the USA. After September 11th the USA started to act less unilaterally than before temporary changing the unilateralism to multilateralism for collective actions against terrorism in Afghanistan. The multilateral response to September 11th terrorist attacks became the first stage of transformation of strict unipolarity based on Article 5 of Washington Treaty. Years of 2001-2003 could be named as the beginning of modified unipolarity: sole superpower acted multilaterally in war against terrorism and at the same time it promoted the enlargement of its influence with NATO enlargement to the post soviet area. Formation of transformed unipolar structure allows speaking about the necessity of defining a new type of unipolarity – modified unipolarity which is theoretically balancing on the dividing lines of unipolarity, multipolarity and nonpolarity concepts. This article consists of broad definition of modified unipolarity, theoretical analysis of polarity and its transformation, also, some preliminary conclusions and insights are made concerning possible transformation of modified unipolarity in the foreseen future.

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

What motivates the United States, the world's most powerful country, to seek multilateral approval from the United Nations or NATO for its military interventions? Drawing on interviews with top-level US policymakers and combining process tracing with a structured-focused comparison of several cases, this article reveals that American leaders do not value multilateral approval primarily to avert negative issue linkage, or 'soft balancing' in other policy domains. Instead, they are motivated by narrower concerns. Their main goal is to facilitate sustained military and financial burden sharing on the prospective intervention, in the expectation that this will assuage congressional concerns about resource costs, reducing the risk that Congress might withdraw its support once American troops are deployed. The article therefore demonstrates that (1) US policymakers worry less about issue linkage than many International Relations theorists, as policymakers are confident that overall, US power inclines other countries to bandwagon with the United States, and (2) contrary to widespread belief, executive-branch concerns about congressional opposition do significantly influence US military intervention decision-making. ; This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047117815593137

From the perspective of a historical political analysis in the International Relations' field, it is shown that after the Post Cold War Era, the well-known global power of the United States has not been enough to create a "new international order", and on the contrary, it has opened a geopolitical competition in which an important group of powers have appeared, along with large size societies and political games which are beyond the Western world's understanding. In this context, despite of its economic and military power, the United States requires the need to create an active diplomatic structure that allows it to build a consensus in order to be able to act internationally, provided that unilateral actions create isolated actions easily, which could easily become the target of critics and the opponents' animadversion against the United States' lonely power. ; Desde un análisis histórico político en el campo de las relaciones internacionales se muestra que después de la Posguerra Fría, la reconocida potencia global de los Estados Unidos no ha bastado para crear un "nuevo orden internacional", y por el contrario, ha abierto una competencia geopolítica en la que han aparecido un grupo importante de potencias, de sociedades de gran tamaño y de juegos políticos que están más allá de la comprensión del mundo occidental. En este contexto, a pesar de su poderío económico y militar, Estados Unidos precisa la necesidad de crear una estructura diplomática activa que le permita construir consensos para actuar internacionalmente, dado que las acciones unilaterales generan acciones aisladas fácilmente convertibles en objeto de crítica y animadversión de los opositores a este poder en solitario.

Since the end of the Cold War, military interventions under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO have become a prominent tool of transatlantic security policy. Yet, these military missions against third countries have not been a prerequisite for harmony among transatlantic allies. In light of these differences the thesis asks how and under which conditions are European allies able to influence US policies of military intervention? I explore this question by analyzing the interactions between the United States and France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in four case studies, namely the intervention in Bosnia (1992—1995), Kosovo (1998—1999), Iraq (1998) and Iraq (2002—2003). The thesis starts from the observation that neither structural realism nor the security community literature can account for the variance in European influence. The thesis develops a fine-grained measurement for the concept of influence, differentiating between the principle, political and tactical influence. The thesis set forth a two-step analytical framework of alliance politics. I design a typology mapping strategies of influence-seeking. Europeans tap into three sources of influence: the United States' sensitivity to the costs of military interventions, the United States' interest in the preservation of institutionalized cooperation, and the United States' quest for legitimacy. Lastly, thesis tests three scope conditions for allied influence: the intensity of threat, the unity of US domestic politics, and the degree of unity among European allies. I find that European allies had limited influence over the timing in all four cases but that influence varies among the European allies and with the different dimensions of military interventions. Regarding the strategies of European influence-seeking, more than one way leads to Rome: each case shows that a distinct mixture of strategies are employed by European allies and different instruments may thus lead to success. The analysis of the four cases reveals that Europeans can ...

The expectation that state voice drives perceptions of the legitimacy of international institutions is a common theme in academic scholarship and policy discourse on global power shifts. This article tests this expectation empirically, using novel and unique survey data on legitimacy perceptions toward eight international institutions among political and societal elites in six countries, comprising both rising and established powers. The article finds only limited support for a link between a state's voice in an international institution and elite perceptions of legitimacy. Differences in formal state representation are only partly reflected in patterns of perceived legitimacy across the six countries. In addition, there is no evidence at the individual level that assessments of state voice shape elites' perceptions of institutional legitimacy. Instead, considerations of good governance best predict whether elites perceive of international institutions as more or less legitimate. These findings suggest that only institutional reforms which are seen to favor general qualities of good governance, and not narrow demands for state voice, are likely to be rewarded with greater legitimacy.

From establishing the European Coal and Steel and so far, European economic integration has seen remarkable success. There are however a number of difficult issues unresolved. Will EU succeed to move forward towards a political union and to shape a foreign policy that would enable a major role in international relations? The new confrontation that is taking place at the international level is not based on political-military conflict anymore, but rather on economic and technological competition to get a bigger part in the global economy. But will the acquisition of a world economic power status will allow them to remove American hegemony?

World is transforming again from unipolar to multipolar. Many regional powers are emerging on the canvas of international politics. Complex interdependence has taken its place and due to this phenomenon old rivals are now making alliances and friendships. Not even a single state can afford to exist in isolation. Keeping this entire scenario in view this study analyses the future of world politics at extent of political interaction and the next power structure of 21st century. In Past, the order of polarity shifted from bipolar to Unipolar as considered the transition of power in international world. The increasing trends of multipolarity have been allied with these three factors: The end of US hegemony, the peaceful rise of China and other emerging states in different regions, and the shifting nature of power structure from Unipolarity to Multipolarity. This study is qualitative and analytical predictive which is employed to develop and substantiate arguments. The spectacles of modern-day noticed that the peaceful raise of China as foremost new power effect the configuration of international politics. Last decades showed the most rapid economic rate of China. Revivalism of Russia and rise of other states including China will soon overtake the US hegemony. The theoretical framework provides the basic assumptions of this transition of Unipolarity to Multipolarity due to emerging trends of international relations.

World is transforming again from unipolar to multipolar. Many regional powers are emerging on the canvas of international politics. Complex interdependence has taken its place and due to this phenomenon old rivals are now making alliances and friendships. Not even a single state can afford to exist in isolation. Keeping this entire scenario in view this study analyses the future of world politics at extent of political interaction and the next power structure of 21st century. In Past, the order of polarity shifted from bipolar to Unipolar as considered the transition of power in international world. The increasing trends of multipolarity have been allied with these three factors: The end of US hegemony, the peaceful rise of China and other emerging states in different regions, and the shifting nature of power structure from Unipolarity to Multipolarity. This study is qualitative and analytical predictive which is employed to develop and substantiate arguments. The spectacles of modern-day noticed that the peaceful raise of China as foremost new power effect the configuration of international politics. Last decades showed the most rapid economic rate of China. Revivalism of Russia and rise of other states including China will soon overtake the US hegemony. The theoretical framework provides the basic assumptions of this transition of Unipolarity to Multipolarity due to emerging trends of international relations.