International Relations Theory and the Case against Unilateralism

Abstract

What are the general costs associated with a U.S. shift toward unilateralism? According to the overwhelming majority of international relations (IR) scholars, the costs are very high. We evaluate the key arguments that underlie this assessment, namely that increased U.S. unilateralism will: (1) spur the formation of a coalition to check U.S. power; (2) reduce efficiency gains through lost opportunities for institutionalized cooperation; and (3) undermine the legitimacy of the American-led international order. We conclude that the theoretical arguments that IR scholars advance do not show that a shift toward unilateralism necessarily has high costs. Our analysis reveals the need to, first, distinguish clearly between criticisms of unilateral policies based on procedure and those based on substance and, second, to recognize the weakness of current procedural arguments.

Should Public Administration Be Internationalized

“…Thus, the internationalization of public administration is expected to increase the strength of public administration in particular and of states in general in the competitive field with non-state actors, especially corporations. One important part of realism is the approach of pragmatism, which means that when states are under threat, they make themselves stronger or find friends SHOULD PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BE INTERNATIONALIZED 198 (Brooks & Wohlforth, 2005). Public administration is faced with the threat of shrinking territories in the context of increasing privatization (Farazmand, 1999).…”

“…Non-state actors only hold a secondarily important position. "States are unitary and rational" (Viotti & Kauppi, 1987, p. 35;Brooks & Wohlforth, 2005). States decide to internationalize public administration because they believe that their decisions are rational.…”

Coalizões Globais Lideradas pelos Estados Unidos na Guerra ao Terror (2001-2011): Para Além do Unilateralismo

“…O governo de George W. Bush (2000Bush ( -2008 foi criticado por privilegiar o unilateralismo em detrimento do multilateralismo (CARTER, 2003, p. 17-21;BUZAN, 2004, p. 167-170;BROOKS;WOHL-FORTH, 2005, p. 509-519). Não buscamos contestar tais críticas, tampouco argumentar que a orientação de política externa desse governo não tenha sido unilateral.…”

American Dual Containment in Asia

“…It is astonishing, as Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth have pointed out, that the US Defense Department now gauges the transaction costs of NATO cooperation higher than the value-added European militaries bring. 56 Europe is also struggling mightily to integrate its Muslim population. 57 As Olivier Roy argues, Europe's Muslims are deracinated and alienated, 58 hence shocks in the GWoT reverberate on European streets.…”