Assess hegemonic stability theory and how this relates to US foreign policy during the Clinton to G.W.Bush administrations

Résumé du document

In 1970 Liberalism tried to create a revolution: international relations should be thought of using the study of economic interdependence, a key concept where states are affected by decisions taken by others. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye insisted on economic facts of the early 1970s as the crisis of the international monetary system, the oil shocks... Until the 1970s the economy was not an important subject in the study of international relations. Since this period the rise of international political economy brought new outlooks to the study of international relations. The realist family, firstly concentrated on the military power, and then tried gradually to focus on economic effects. Thus, there is a new formulation of realism during the 80s where the main objective is to think about change. This new point of view tries to think moderate change in order to consider cooperation between States. The balance of power is still the essential tool for some realists like Kenneth Waltz or Stephen Walt who think the stability of the international system thanks to a multipolar world.

Extraits

[...] Kegley, Jr., James M. Scott,'American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process',6th ed, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning P.81. Fraser Cameron,'US foreign policy after the cold war: Global Hegemon Or Reluctant Sheriff?' ,London : Routledge P.26 Chomsky, Noam, 'Hegemony or survival? America's quest for global dominance'. London: Hamish Hamilton P.14. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., James M. Scott,'American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process',6th ed, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning P.522. Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch, The Iraq causes and consequences war Lynne Rienner Publishers P.306. [...]

[...] The limits of the theory The HST was also used during the 1980s to explain US relative decline in the 1970s. Theorists of the hegemonic stability saw the US economy weakness like a sign of a future decline. Many arguments were developed to prove the US future decline as the strong impact of the oil shocks on the United-States (because of their deep dependence on foreign sources of energy), the decline of dollar's value on foreign exchange markets[9] and an important challenge after the second world war which would be too expensive: the US had to finance the cost of reviving the world economy, continuing the struggle with the Soviet -Union and bore baring the costs of US consumption. [...]

[...] In order to illustrate this paradox and to test the HST it could be interesting to compare Clinton and Bush administration through both hegemon's definition. The paradox of hegemony through Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations First of all, the paradox of hegemony can be illustrated by the great number of conflicts between the United-Nations and US. The UN is largely the product of the US. For instance the first draft of the UN charter was inspired by a US document called 'The essential Points in the Charter of the International Organization'. [...]

[...] America's quest for global dominance'. London, Hamish Hamilton Eugene R. Wittkopf, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., James M. Scott,'American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process',6th ed, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Fraser Cameron,'US foreign policy after the cold war: Global Hegemon Or Reluctant Sheriff?',London : Routledge John Baylis and Steve Smith, ' The Globaliztion of world politics: an introduction to international relations', Third edition, Oxford university press Michael Webb and Stephen Krasner, Hegemonic stabolity theory: an empirical assessment review of International Studies Nye Joseph (1988), 'Understating US Strenght', in Foreign Policy, Paul R. [...]

[...] The most famous one is the Hegemonic stability theory (HST). A hegemon is the most powerful state in an international system, it influences the other states to cohere and establish the rules by which international relations have to be conducted in various issue areas. These sets of rules are called 'regimes', it includes international organisation[1]. For instance, The United -States from 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference decided to play an important role to promote a new economic order. The World Bank , the International Monetary fund (IMF) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trad (GATT) were created in order to build this new system[2]. [...]