Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order

Ikenberry, G. John; Johnson, Chalmers; Ferguson, Niall; Barber, Benjamin R.; Mann, Michael; Todd, Emmanuel

doi:10.2307/20033908

Cited by 46 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of structural power became popular with the writings of Susan Strange (see Ward 1987;Lawton et al 2000). The more general question whether U.S. hegemony is in decline or remains unchallenged still mainly depends on structural factors in terms of institutions, military and economics (Ikenberry 2003(Ikenberry , 2004Katzenstein 2005;Mann 2003;Bacevich 2008;Joffe 2006;Zakaria 2011). the actor. She adds that structural power "means rather more than the power to set the agenda of discussion or to design" (ibid.).…”

Section: Discussion: Power and Irmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power in the 21st Century

Fels¹,

Kremer²,

Kronenberg³

2012

Global Power Shift

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ample empirical evidence points to recent power shifts in multiple areas of international relations taking place between industrialized countries and emerging powers, and between states and non-state actors. Yet there is a dearth of theoretical interpretation and synthesis of these findings, and a growing need for coherent approaches to understand and measure the transformation. This edited series aims to bring together scholars from all major world regions as well as different disciplines in order to discuss and possibly blend their different approaches and provide new frameworks for the understanding of global affairs and the governance of global power shifts.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Power and Irmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power in the 21st Century

Fels¹,

Kremer²,

Kronenberg³

2012

Global Power Shift

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But most focused on the neoconservative ascendancy under George W. Bush. While much of the ''New American Empire'' critique from both left and right was overstated (Cohen 2004;Ikenberry 2004), the leftist variants conveyed widespread anger not only with the Bush administration's foreign policy goals but alsoFin a new turnFwith its dismissive view of diplomatic values and norms.…”

Section: Diplomatic Culture Exists But Harms the National Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture

Wiseman

2005

Int Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of a deeply rooted, state‐based diplomatic culture with its own distinctive institutions, values, and norms has been neglected in both the study and the practice of international relations, especially in the United States. This neglect has had consequences in recent years, notably in connection with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Using Iraq as a case study, I argue that the United States transgressed five norms of diplomatic culture that are widely accepted: the use of force only as last resort, transparency, continuous dialogue, multilateralism, and civility. Criticisms of these transgressions and the US responses to these criticisms suggest that even a paramount America cannot avoid diplomatic culture's pervasive influence.

show abstract

“…Such criticism makes for the gentlest of rebukes, one that sits comfortably with American opinion leaders who insist that, neoconservative excesses notwithstanding, American international leadership is fundamentally benign and, 'When all is said and done, Americans are less interested in ruling the world than they are in creating a world of rules' (Ikenberry 2004). True or not, this conclusion bypasses analyses of the US as an international actor bent on maintaining pre-eminence and more inclined to use military force than legal rules, with a longstanding history of pursuing violent strategies and supporting repressive regimes in the non-Western world (e.g.…”

Section: The United States and Southeast Asian Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrorism in Southeast Asia: expert analysis, myopia and fantasy

Hamilton‐Hart¹

2005

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the major studies of terrorism in Southeast Asia emphasize international terrorist links and religious ideology, while more locally-embedded accounts draw attention to historical and political context. Despite this plurality in terrorism studies, flaws and omissions across four issues are common: the nature of terrorist links and information on them, Islam, the United States and the causes of terrorism. A substantial section of studies of terrorism are based on compromised information and substitute descriptive detail for analysis. They frequently depict Islam and anti-American views as incipiently threatening precursors to terrorism and underplay political grievances, particularly as they relate to the United States. Valuable work has drawn attention to local political contexts and grievances, and has begun to explore the ideas and perceptions of militant groups. However, most of the leading experts on terrorism in the region are engaged in academically unproductive attempts either to reconstruct the trail of terrorist activity on the basis of official information or to explain terrorist violence as the product of individual pathology.

show abstract

Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Power in the 21st Century

Power in the 21st Century

Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture

Terrorism in Southeast Asia: expert analysis, myopia and fantasy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About