International Relations Theory and the Case against Unilateralism

Perspectives on Politics

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 509-524

  Brooks, Stephen G ^a   Wohlforth, William C ^a  

^a Department of Government ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847139599     PISSN: 15375927     EISSN: 15410986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1537592705050322     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abbot, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 1998. Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1):3–32.
2. Abbot, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization 54 (3):436–41.
3. Berger, Samuel R. 2004. Foreign policy for a democratic president. Foreign Affairs 83 (3):47–63.
4. Bolton, John. 2000. Should we take global governance seriously? Chicago Journal of International Law 1 (2):205–22.
5. Brenner, Michael J. 2002. Europe's new security vocation. Washington, DC: National Defense University.
6. Brooks, Stephen G. 2005. Producing security: Multinational corporations, globalization, and the changing calculus of conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2002. American primacy in perspective. Foreign Affairs 81 (4):20–33.
8. Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2005. Hard times for soft balancing. International Security 30 (1).
9. M., Byers, Michael, Preemptive self defense: Hegemony, equality and strategies of legal change, Journal of Political Philosophy, (2003), 11, 2, 171-190
10. C., Chinkin, Christine, The state that acts alone: Bully, good samaritan or iconoclast?, European Journal of International Law, (2000), 11, 2, 34-41
11. I., Claude, Inis, Swords into plowshares: The problem and progress of international organization, 4th ed., New York, Random House, (1984)
12. B., Cronin, Bruce, The paradox of hegemony: America's ambiguous relationship with the United Nations, European Journal of International Relations, (2001), 7, 1, 103-130
13. Daalder, Ivo H., and Michael E. O'Hanlon. 2000. Winning ugly: NATO's war to save Kosovo. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14. Downs, George W., and Michael Jones. 2002. Reputation, compliance, and international law. Journal of Legal Studies 31, pt. 2: S95–S114.
15. Duffield, John. 2003. The limits of rational design. International Organization 57 (2):411–30.
16. B., Emmot, Bill, Present at the creation: A survey of America's world role, The Economist, June 29, 2002, (2002)
17. Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization 52 (2):269–305.
18. N., Ferguson, Niall, L., Kotlikoff, Lawrence, Going critical: American power and the consequences of fiscal overstretch, National Interest, (2003), 73, 22-33
19. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (4):887–917.
20. Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. The neoconservative moment. National Interest (76):57–69.
21. G., Gallarotti, Giulio, The limits of international organization: Systematic failure in the management of international relations, International Organization, (1991), 45, 2, 183-211
22. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Gordon, Philip H., and Jeremy Shapiro. 2004. Allies at war: America, Europe, and the crisis over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. R., Grafstein, Robert, The failure of Weber's conception of legitimacy: Its causes and implications, The Journal of Politics, (1981), 43, 2, 456-472
25. L., Gruber, Lloyd, Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions, Princeton, Princeton University Press, (2000)
26. Hoffmann, Stanley. 2002. Clash of globalizations. Foreign Affairs 81 (4):104–14.
27. T., Hopf, Ted, The promise of constructivism in international relations theory, International Security, (1998), 23, 1, 171-200
28. Hurd, Ian. 1999. Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization 53 (2):379–408.
29. G.J., Ikenberry, G. John, After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint and the rebuilding of order after major wars, Princeton, Princeton University Press, (2001)
30. Ikenberry, G. John, ed.2002. America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
31. Ikenberry, G. John 2003 a. Is American multilateralism in decline? Perspectives on Politics 1 (3):533–50.
32. G.J., Ikenberry, G. John, U.S. Hegemony and international organizations: The United States and multilateral institutions, State power and the institutional bargain: America's ambivalent economic and security multilateralism, Rosemary, Foot, S. Neil, MacFarlane, Michael, Mastanduno, Oxford, Oxford University Press, (2003), 49-72
33. R., Jervis, Robert, Theories of war in an era of leading-power peace. Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 2001, American Political Science Review, (2002), 91, 1, 1-14
34. J., Joffe, Josef, America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power, Defying history and theory: The United States as the “last superpower.”, G. John, Ikenberry, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, (2002), 155-180
35. Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly 45 (4):487–515.
36. Kagan, Robert. 2004. America's crisis of legitimacy. Foreign Affairs 83 (2):65–87.
37. Kaplan, Lawrence. 2004. Washington's new worldview: Springtime for realism. The New Republic, June 21, 2004.
38. R.O., Keohane, Robert O., After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, (1984)
39. Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Power and governance in a partially globalized world. London: Routledge.
40. Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin. 1995. The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security 20 (1):39–52.
41. R., Keohane, Robert, L., Martin, Lisa, Progress in International Relations Theory, Institutional theory as a research program, Colin, Elman, Miriam Fendius, Elman, Cambridge, MIT Press, (2003)
42. Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncal Snidal. 2001. Rational design: Looking back to move forward. International Organization 55 (4):1051–82.
43. Koremenos, Barbara, and Duncan Snidal. 2003. Moving forward, one step at a time. International Organization 57 (2):411–44.
44. S.D., Krasner, Stephen D., Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier, World Politics, (1991), 43, 3, 336-366
45. Krauthammer, Charles. 2002–3. The unipolar moment revisited. National Interest 70: 5–18.
46. Krauthammer, Charles. 2004. In defense of democratic realism. National Interest 77: 15–26.
47. D., Lake, David, Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential?, International Studies Quarterly, (1993), 37, 4, 459-489
48. Lebow, R. Ned. 2003. The tragic vision of politics: Ethics, interests, and orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. D., Lemke, Douglas, The continuation of history: Power transition theory and the end of the Cold War, Journal of Peace Research, (1997), 34, 1, 23-36
50. J., Lindley-French, Julian, 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, (2002)
51. D.M., Malone, David M., Y.F., Khong, Yuen Foong, Unilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: International perspectives, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, (2003)
52. L., Martin, Lisa, The Iraq war and its consequences: Thoughts of Nobel peace laureates and eminent scholars, Multilateral organizations after the U.S.-Iraq war, Irwin, Abrams, Wang, Gungwu, Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Co., (2003), 359-374
53. M., Mastanduno, Michael, Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the cold war, Preserving the unipolar moment: Realist theories and U.S. grand strategy after the cold war, Ethan B., Kapstein, Michael M., Mastanduno, New York, Columbia University Press, (1999), 138-181
54. Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
55. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2003. An unnecessary war. Foreign Policy 134: 50–59.
56. Mercer, Jonathan. 1996. Reputation and international politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
57. Moens, Alexander. 2004. The foreign policy of George W. Bush: Values, strategy, and loyalty. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
58. J., Morrow, James, Modeling the forms of international cooperation: Distribution versus information, International Organization, (1994), 48, 3, 387-423
59. J.S., Nye, Joseph S., Jr., The paradox of American power: Why the world's only superpower can't go it alone, London, Oxford University Press, (2002)
60. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. 2002–3. Limits of American power. Political Science Quarterly 117 (4):545–59.
61. R., Pape, Robert, American Political Science Association 100th Annual Meeting, September 2–5, 2004. Chicago, Soft balancing: How states pursue security in a unipolar world, (2004)
62. S., Patrick, Stewart, Multilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement, Multilateralism and its discontents: The causes and consequences of U.S. ambivalence, Stewart, Patrick, Shepard, Forman, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, (2002), 1-44
63. T.V., Paul, Balance of power theory and practice in the twenty-first century, The enduring axioms of balance of power theory, T. V., Paul, James, Wirtz, Michel, Fortmann, Stanford, Stanford University Press, (2004), 1-28
64. Payne, Rodger. 2001. Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1):37–61.
65. Pond, Elizabeth. 2004. Friendly fire: The near death of the transatlantic alliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
66. D.G., Press, Daryl G., Calculating credibility: How leaders assess threats during crises, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, (2005)
67. Reus-Smit, Christian. 2004. American power and world order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
68. J.G., Ruggie, John Gerard, Multilateralism matters: The theory and praxis of an institutional form, New York, Columbia University Press, (1993)
69. Rumsfeld, Donald. 2002. Transforming the military. Foreign Affairs 81 (3):13–33.
70. Schweller, Randall L., and David Priess. 1997. A tale of two realisms: Expanding the institutions debate. Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1):1–32.
71. B.A., Simmons, Beth A., L.L., Martin, Lisa L., Handbook of international relations, International organizations and institutions, Walter, Carlsnaes, Thomas, Risse, Beth A., Simmons, London, Sage, (2002), 192-211
72. Snyder, Jack L. 2004. One world: Rival theories. Foreign Policy (145):53–62.
73. A.L., Stigler, Andrew L., A clear victory for air power: NATO's empty threat to invade Kosovo, International Security, (2002), 27, 3, 124-157
74. Tucker, Robert W., and David C. Hendrickson. 2004. The sources of American legitimacy. Foreign Affairs 83 (6):18–32.
75. Voeten, Erik. 2001. Outside options and the logic of Security Council action. American Political Science Review 95 (4):845–58.
76. Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
77. S.M., Walt, Stephen M., America unrivaled: The future of the balance of power, Keeping the world “off balance”: Self-restraint in U.S. foreign policy, G. J., Ikenberry, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, (2002), 121-154
78. Walt, Stephen M. 2004. Can the United States be balanced? If so, how? American Political Science Association Annual Convention,Chicago, September 2–4, 2004.
79. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
80. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International Security 18 (2):44–79.
81. R., Wedgewood, Ruth, Multilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement, Unilateral action in a multilateral world, Stewart, Patrick, Shephard, Forman, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, (2002), 167-189
82. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83. Wohlforth, William C. 1999. The stability of a unipolar world. International Security 24 (1):5–47.
84. W.C., Wohlforth, William C., America unrivaled: the future of the balance of power, U.S. strategy in a unipolar world, G. John, Ikenberry, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, (2002), 98-120
85. Woodward, Bob. 2002. Bush at war. New York: Simon and Shuster.
86. Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The arrogant empire. Newsweek. March 24, 2003.
87. Zelikow, Philip. 2003. The transformation of national security. National Interest 71: 17–29.