DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategy and Two-Level Games U.S. Domestic Politics and the Road to a Separate Peace, 1977–1978

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategy and Two-Level Games U.S. Domestic Politics and the Road to a Separate Peace, 1977–1978 Strategy and Two-Level Games U.S. Domestic Politics and the Road to a Separate Peace, 1977–1978 ✣ Galen E. Jackson How and to what extent do domestic political factors influence U.S. foreign policy? Are U.S. decision-makers more or less free to operate as they please, or does the political context at home impose real constraints on their freedom of action? How limiting is public opinion as a check on presidential authority in the realm of international affairs? How important are the views of other domestic political elites, such as influential members of Congress, the media, issue-specific experts, and special interest groups? What role do these various influences play in shaping the manner in which the White House approaches policy choices in the particular case of the Arab-Israeli conflict? According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the answer is straight- forward. In their view, the existence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which they define as “a loose coalition of individuals and or- ganizations that actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel di- rection,” is what explains U.S. policy toward the Middle East dispute. “Were it not for the lobby’s efforts,” they write, “the strategic and moral arguments that are commonly invoked to justify unconditional American support [for Israel] would be called into question more frequently and U.S. policy in the Middle East would be significantly different than it is today.” Mearsheimer and Walt insist that, in the absence of the lobby, the United States would be much more willing to exert pressure on Israel to reach a peace settlement with its Arab neighbors. “But,” they conclude, “this will not happen as long as the lobby makes it impossible for U.S. leaders to use the leverage at their disposal to pressure Israel into ending the occupation and creating a viable Palestinian state.”1 1. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2007), pp. 5, 112, 346. For the authors’ original publication on the topic, Journal of Cold War Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, Summer 2017, pp. 160–195, doi:10.1162/JCWS_a_00757 © 2017 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 160 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/JCWS_a_00757 by guest on 29 September 2021 Strategy and Two-Level Games Unsurprisingly, these claims sparked a major debate. “Although neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt speaks much Gaelic,” Douglas Little wrote in a review of their book, “they touched off the academic equivalent of an Irish bar brawl.”2 “Seldom,” L. Carl Brown similarly observed, “have just over40pagesoftext...kickedupsuchastorm.”3 The two scholars’ work, Gideon Rose commented, “produced the foreign-policy equivalent of a cable TV shout fest.”4 The controversy over this issue carries with it implications that are of fundamental importance for debates among scholars of international relations theory and U.S. foreign policy. The extent to which domestic political con- straints influence strategic decision-making bears directly on the question of whether international politics is to be understood mainly in structural realist terms. Structural realism’s most basic assumption is that the anarchic struc- ture of the international system generates strong pressures on leaders to make choices based on power politics. Politics at home, in this perspective, is usually of minimal importance.5 Of perhaps even greater importance, the Israel lobby debate profoundly affects arguments over how domestic political factors shape U.S. foreign pol- icy. If correct, the idea that the actions of small, well-organized groups—rather than the contours of mass public opinion—determine outcomes suggests con- sequences of a far-reaching nature both for democratic theory and for the way in which the United States conducts its foreign relations.6 More broadly, such see John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” The London Review of Books,23 March 2006, pp. 3–12. 2. Douglas Little, “David or Goliath? The Israel Lobby and Its Critics,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 123, No. 1 (Spring 2008), p. 151. 3. L. Carl Brown, Review of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, September/ October 2006, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2006-09-01/israel-lobby-and -us-foreign-policy. 4. Deborah Amos, “Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate,” Morning Edition (National Pub- lic Radio), 21 April 2006, available online at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =5353855. 5. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). For this reason, the argument by Mearsheimer and Walt about the Israel lobby is somewhat surprising. Both scholars are prominent proponents of structural realist theory. See John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001); and Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987). 6. For the Mearsheimer-Walt discussion of this point, see Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, pp. 111, 140; and “Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt,” YouTube video, 1:01:02, posted by “UC Berkeley Events,” 21 September 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSXZNm2jGVE, at 6:16–10:03. Mearsheimer and Walt derive this conclusion from the literature on collective action, particularly Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collec- tive Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965). 161 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/JCWS_a_00757 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jackson a finding would imply that domestic political structure affects, to an almost deterministic degree, the way democracies behave in international politics.7 This issue, however, has not been adequately addressed in the political science literature. On the one hand, prominent American politics scholars like John Zaller assert that one cannot study this question effectively using case studies. There is little to be gleaned, he claims, from testimonial evidence because leaders are unlikely to admit that their foreign policy decisions are “politically motivated.” If politicians do talk about such factors, they will be sure to limit the discussion to their “closest aides, who would then remain loyally silent.” Social scientists are, he thus concludes, “properly skeptical” of studies that attempt to infer, via process tracing, that domestic political considerations affect statecraft, for they “rely on unsystematic data. It is too easy for someone with an active imagination and any talent for writing to spin out alluring stories.”8 Because it is so difficult to operationalize the “policy impact” of special interest group influence, Robert Trice similarly argues, any attempt to study this question “is likely to be a difficult if not impossible task given current social science methods.” The degree to which such organizations affect decision-making, he claims, “is very often impossible to measure.”9 At the same time, Zaller has significantly qualified his initial beliefs about the viability of large-N observational approaches to the study of this issue. Scholars of public opinion, he points out, must pay more attention to the 7. On the interaction between domestic political structure and international bargaining outcomes, see Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 427–460. The issue also has important implications for debates pertaining to the literatures on audience costs and regime type. On this point, see Elizabeth N. Saunders, “War and the Inner Circle: Democratic Elites and the Politics of Using Force,” Security Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July/September 2015), pp. 469–473, 497–500. On audience costs, see James D. Fearon, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September 1994), pp. 577–592; and Marc Trachtenberg, “Audience Costs: An Historical Analysis,” Security Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (January/March 2012), pp. 3–42. 8. John Zaller, “Strategic Politicians, Public Opinion, and the Gulf Crisis,” in Lance Bennett and David Paletz, eds., Taken by Storm: The News Media, U.S. Foreign Policy, and the Gulf War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 254, 270. See also John Zaller, “Coming to Grips with V. O. Key’s Concept of Latent Opinion,” in Michael B. MacKuen and George Rabinowtiz, eds., Electoral Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998), p. 320. 9. Robert H. Trice, Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: U.S. Policy in the Middle East (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976), pp. 51, 72. Note also James Lindsay’s pessimism regarding the ability of researchers to investigate how presidents’ consideration of the “anticipated reaction” from Congress to their for- eign policy proposals influences U.S. diplomacy. James Lindsay, “Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 107, No. 4 (Winter 1992–1993), p. 615. On “antic- ipated reaction” and U.S. policy toward the Middle East, see William B. Quandt, Decade of Decisions: American Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1967–1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 20; and Dan Fleshler, Transforming America’s Israel Lobby: The Limits
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John J. Mearsheimer: an Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power
    John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power Peter Toft Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Østerfarimagsgade 5, DK 1019 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer’s main innovation is his theory of ‘offensive realism’ that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist theory to explain from a struc- tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz’s more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer’s theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz’s theory. Mearsheimer’s workis remarkablyclear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development (2005) 8, 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065 Keywords: great power politics; international security; John J. Mearsheimer; offensive realism; realism; security studies Introduction Dangerous security competition will inevitably re-emerge in post-Cold War Europe and Asia.1 International institutions cannot produce peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions
    Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization 52(4): 729-757. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081898550734 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3382862 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Theoriesand EmpiricalStudies of International Institutions Lisa L.Martin and Beth A.Simmons Therole of internationalinstitutions has beencentral to thestudy of worldpolitics at leastsince the conclusion of WorldW ar II. Muchof thisresearch was, andcontinues tobe, pioneered in the pages of InternationalOrganization .Inthis article we take stockof pastwork on internationalinstitutions, trace the evolution of majorthemes inscholarship over time, and highlight areas for productivenew research. Our cen- tralargument is that research should increasingly turn to thequestion of howinstitu- tionsmatter in shaping the behavior of importantactors in world politics. New re- searchefforts shouldemphasize observable implications of alternative theories of institutions.W eadvocateapproaching international institutions as boththe object of strategicchoice and a constrainton actors’ behavior, an ideathat is familiarto schol- ars ofdomestic institutions but has been neglected in much of the debate between realistand institutionalist scholars of internationalrelations. Thearticle is organized into three major sections. The rst sectionprovides an analyticalreview of the development of studies of international institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Accords Anwar Sadat
    WMHSMUN XXXIV After the Accords: Anwar Sadat’s Cabinet Background Guide “Unprecedented committees. Unparalleled debate. Unmatched fun.” Letters From the Directors Dear Delegates, Welcome to WMHSMUN XXXIV! My name is Hank Hermens and I am excited to be the in-room Director for Anwar Sadat’s Cabinet. I’m a junior at the College double majoring in International Relations and History. I have done model UN since my sophomore year of high school, and since then I have become increasingly involved. I compete as part of W&M’s travel team, staff our conferences, and have served as the Director of Media for our college level conference, &MUN. Right now, I’m a member of our Conference Team, planning travel and training delegates. Outside of MUN, I play trumpet in the Wind Ensemble, do research with AidData and for a professor, looking at the influence of Islamic institutions on electoral outcomes in Tunisia. In my admittedly limited free time, I enjoy reading, running, and hanging out with my friends around campus. As members of Anwar Sadat’s cabinet, you’ll have to deal with the fallout of Egypt’s recent peace with Israel, in Egypt, the greater Middle East and North Africa, and the world. You’ll also meet economic challenges, rising national political tensions, and more. Some of the problems you come up against will be easily solved, with only short-term solutions necessary. Others will require complex, long term solutions, or risk the possibility of further crises arising. No matter what, we will favor creative, outside-the-box ideas as well as collaboration and diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate on American Hegemony
    The USS Vandegrift. (Credit: Expert Comment meunierd/Bigstockphoto.com) The debate on American hegemony Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Brian C. Schmidt to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The debate on American hegemony Brian C. Schmidt Ian Clark is correct when he writes that “the present state of the ‘hegemony debate’ is, to say the least, confusing” (Clark, 2009, p.24). The aim of this paper is to provide some conceptual and theoretical clarity on the diverse means by which the field of International Relations (IR) understands the concept of hegemony. A secondary aim is to consider what these different theoretical accounts of hegemony have to say about the debate on American hegemony. After reviewing several different definitions of hegemony, I find that the concept embodies two main ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • 271 Sorensen
    Copyright © British International Studies Association 1998 IR theory after the Cold War GEORG SØRENSEN The end of the Cold War has prompted a good deal of soul-searching in the academic discipline of International Relations (IR).* Some results of this process are already apparent; the dominant version of realism, neorealism, is developing in new directions in an attempt to address major areas where the theory has been shown to contain weaknesses (e.g. domestic politics, international cooperation, the analysis of change).1 Liberal IR-theory is becoming less focused on international institutions and has devoted more attention to the larger issues of democracy and democratization, sovereignty, and change in the context of modernization and globalization.2 Some bodies of established theory are receiving fresh attention, including the International Society (or English) School,3 and there is a renewed interest in the field of international political economy.4 Yet all these theoretical traditions (realism, liberalism, International Society, international political economy) can be seen as enduring perspectives in IR; they build on a long intellectual tradition concerning problems of relations between * Many thanks to Kenneth Glarbo, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Michael Nicholson, Steve Smith, and Alexander Wendt for very helpful comments on earlier drafts. 1 See, for example, Joseph M. Grieco, ‘Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics’, in M.W. Doyle and G.J. Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder, 1997), pp. 163–202; Michael E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Perils of Anarchy. Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge, MA, 1995); John A. Vasquez, ‘The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition’, and the responses by Kenneth Waltz, Thomas Christensen, and Jack Snyder, Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman, Randall Schweller and Stephen Walt, American Political Science Review, 4 (1997), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
    The London School of Economics and Political Science US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East The Pursuit of Hegemony? Dionysius Markakis A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, October 2012 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 86.627 words. 1 Abstract The promotion of ‘democracy’ abroad has been a feature of US foreign policy since the earlier part of the twentieth century, accompanying its rise as an international actor. It provided the ideological basis for its opposition to rivals in the form of imperialism, fascism and then communism. The end of the Cold War, which signalled the emergence of the US as the sole superpower, accelerated this process. With the ideological fusion of democracy and capitalism credited in large measure for the defeat of communism and the state-planned economy, the promotion of democracy alongside capitalism as the only viable, legitimate mode of governance emerged as an increasingly important component of US foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Soft Balancing Against the United States Soft Balancing Against Robert A
    Soft Balancing against the United States Soft Balancing against Robert A. Pape the United States President George W. Bush and his administration are pursuing a profoundly new U.S. national se- curity strategy. Since January 2001 the United States has unilaterally aban- doned the Kyoto accords on global warming, rejected participation in the International Criminal Court, and withdrawn from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, among other unilateralist foreign policies. Although the United States gained considerable international sympathy following the terrorist at- tacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration chose to conduct military operations against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with the aid of only one country: Great Britain.1 In 2002 the administration announced that it would re- place the Baathist regime in Iraq, a country that posed no observable threat to attack the United States, and to do so with military force “unilaterally if neces- sary.”2 The United States went on to conquer Iraq in early 2003 despite vigor- ous efforts by many of the world’s major powers to delay, frustrate, and even undermine war plans and reduce the number of countries that would ªght alongside the United States. Since then, the United States has threatened Iran and Syria, reafªrmed its commitment to build an ambitious ballistic missile defense system, and taken few steps to mend fences with the international community. The Bush strategy is one of the most aggressively unilateral U.S. national se- curity strategies ever, and it is likely to produce important international conse- quences. So far, the debate has focused almost exclusively on the immediate Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • Iranian Espionage in the United States and the Anti-SAVAK Campaign (1970-1979)
    The Shah’s “Fatherly Eye” Iranian Espionage in the United States and the Anti-SAVAK Campaign (1970-1979) Eitan Meisels Undergraduate Senior Thesis Department of History Columbia University 13 April 2020 Thesis Instructor: Elisheva Carlebach Second Reader: Paul Chamberlin Meisels 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Historiography, Sources, and Methods ......................................................................................... 12 Chapter 1: Roots of the Anti-SAVAK Campaign ......................................................................... 14 Domestic Unrest in Iran ............................................................................................................ 14 What Did SAVAK Aim to Accomplish? .................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2: The First Phase of the Anti-SAVAK Campaign (1970-1974) .................................... 21 Federal Suspicions Stir ............................................................................................................. 21 Counterintelligence to Campaign ............................................................................................. 24 Chapter 3: The Anti-SAVAK Campaign Expands (1975-1976) .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Realism and State Power
    Prof. Andreas Bieler The Anarchy Problematique and Sovereignty: Neo-Realism and State Power ‘Any military commander, who is honest with himself, or with those he speaks to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He has killed people, unnecessarily, his own troops or other troops, through mistakes, through errors of judgement, a 100, or 1000, or tens of 1000, may be even 100000, but he has not destroyed nations’ (Robert S. McNamara in The Fog of War). This lecture deals with one of the dominant approaches in International Relations theory: (neo-) realism. The lecture is divided into three parts. Part I will focus on the historical emergence and key concepts of (neo-) realism. Part II will look at the empirical application of neo-realism by John Mearsheimer to European security after the Cold War, before Part III presents a range of theoretical criticisms of (neo-) realism. Most importantly, the latter will make the point that neo-realism is unable to explain structural change in world order. 1. (Neo-) Realism: Historically, realism emerged in response to liberal approaches. When the latter’s hope for a peaceful international order based on co-operation between democratic states organized through the League of Nations fell apart as a result of the rise of aggressive fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, the international situation characterized by war and the 1 struggle for survival was ripe for a new theoretical approach. The two key interventions were The Twenty Years’ Crisis by E.H. Carr in 1939 and Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • Bound to Fail John J. Mearsheimer the Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order
    Bound to Fail Bound to Fail John J. Mearsheimer The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order By 2019, it was clear that the liberal international order was in deep trouble. The tectonic plates that underpin it are shifting, and little can be done to repair and rescue it. Indeed, that order was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction. The fall of the liberal international order horriªes the Western elites who built it and who have beneªted from it in many ways.1 These elites fervently believe that this order was and remains an important force for promoting peace and prosperity around the globe. Many of them blame President Donald Trump for its demise. After all, he expressed contempt for the liberal order when campaigning for president in 2016; and since taking ofªce, he has pur- sued policies that seem designed to tear it down. It would be a mistake, however, to think that the liberal international order is in trouble solely because of Trump’s rhetoric or policies. In fact, more funda- mental problems are at play, which account for why Trump has been able to successfully challenge an order that enjoys almost universal support among the foreign policy elites in the West. The aim of this article is to determine why the liberal world order is in big trouble and to identify the kind of inter- national order that will replace it. I offer three main sets of arguments. First, because states in the modern world are deeply interconnected in a variety of ways, orders are essential for facilitating efªcient and timely interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geostrategic Debate in the United States of America: the Place of Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Mexico
    DOI 1022491/1809-3191.v24n2.p395-418 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THE PLACE OF EURASIA, THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AND MEXICO Raphael Padula1 ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan. The argument is that such authors, although following premises of the Realistic School of International Relations, have shown different positions regarding the place of Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere, and particularly of Mexico, in the security and in the geostrategic actions of the United States of America. The study is based on books and original articles by the authors, and very marginally on interviews and secondary texts about the authors. Keywords: United States of America. Geopolitics. Security. 1 Doutor. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE - UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 2, p. 395-418. maio/agosto. 2018. 396 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTRODUCTION The geographic dimension has a central role in the strategic-related and foreign policy formulation of the United States of America. What would be the fundamental relations for the USA in terms of geographic axis? Would it be the North-South axis, which points to the priority of US relations with the Western Hemisphere (America)? The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Hegemony in International Relations: Ontology and Social
    Hegemony and international relations Article (Accepted Version) Antoniades, Andreas (2018) Hegemony and international relations. International Politics, 55 (5). pp. 595-611. ISSN 1384-5748 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/70470/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk A VERSION OF THIS PAPER IS FORTCOMING IN THE JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL POLITICS HEGEMONY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Andreas Antoniades Senior Lecturer in Global Political Economy Department of International Relations University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9SN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 872875 Email: [email protected] Abstract The paper interrogates the current state-of-the-art in hegemony analysis in International Relations (IR).
    [Show full text]