Content uploaded by Iraj Roudgar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iraj Roudgar on May 05, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Hegemonic Theory
The theory of hegemonic stability is usually associated with the international political economy
and maintaining the balance of power in key areas and promotes open international economies,
which are a liberal approach to international politics and a realistic account of foreign policy in
international relations ( Paul et al, 2004).
1
According to the “Hegemonic Stability Theory”, the
health of global economy in the international system depends on single dominant power
(Keohane, 1984). Advocates of the theory argue that the stability of the international system
requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most
important members of the system. According to Keohane (1984), hegemons are leaving weak
countries to join cooperative regimes that reduce transaction costs, reduce uncertainty and create
constant expectations for economic interactions.
2
But in balance power, war often erupts between
great powers and very weak states.
3
Hegemonic stability points to the value of a single dominant
provider of order, where in economics or security affairs. (Mazarr et al, 2017)
4
The balance of power in preventing hegemony is supposed to be so important that hegemony is
important whenever international spatial parameters are constant and power can be concentrated
( Wohlforth et al, 2007). In this view, the unipolar structure of the current international system is
neither historically nor theoretically unusual. But a liberal world order is possible only in
unipolar system, earlier the advent of China as the world's largest exporter. American liberal
internationalism believes that the United States should not spend its time without the need for
savings. The United States should invest in, and even share its superiority with other countries
and alliances. This should be used for clear liberal purposes, because liberal internationalism
claims that political and economic liberalism is possible for all countries (Owen, 2018).
Proponents of the "balance of power" argue that the most stable, if not the most peaceful,
situation for an international or governmental system is the one in which the most powerful state
(Inis & Claude , 1989).
5
Advocates of the idea argue that hegemony is balanced by the
unification of other less powerful states, which prevents it from conquering all the countries in
the system (Melko, 2018). Realism thus presents an equilibrium theory, depicting the forces that
operate in order to return the system to balance (Stein, 1993).
There are also two different perspectives on the United States’ current strategy and increased
military presence, and security commitments in maintaining regional stability in the international
system. During the Cold War, the United States pursued a grand strategy of "deep engagement,"
a series of security commitments to partners in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East.
6
Based
1
(Paul, Wirtz, and Fortmann 2004, 112-114). Paul asserts that the way balance of power conclusion themselves can create
paradox and eruption of war between strong and weak states.(P, 129)
2
(Keohane 1984, 137-138)
3
(Inis and Claude 1989, 121-122)
4
(Mazarr, Michael, Stuth, Cevallos, and Priebe 2017, 150-151)
5
(Inis and Claude 1989, 77-85)
6
After World War II, the United States established bases and deployed troops to East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East in a
global strategic competition with the former Soviet Union.
on the historical experience, supporters of the security commitments believe that the strategy of
“deep engagement” to partners in the regions would put major security and economic benefits at
risk (Norrlof et al, 2019). Conversely, advocates the strategy of “Offshore Balancing” calls for
the reduction of US security commitments abroad by mainly scaling back U.S. forward military
presence and devolving the primary responsibility in maintaining regional stability to regional
player and they must engage self-help to survive (Walt, 2018). Realist scholars argue that
“Offshore Balancing” is a twenty-first-century strategy consistent with America’s interests and
its values (Layne, 1997). Contrary to its Realist image, sponsors of “Deep Engagement” assert
that the U.S. presence is a force for stability, reducing the need for arms build-ups and deterring
the rise of hegemonic forces ( Brooks & Ikenberry, 2013). Offshore balancers believe that the
United States needs to pursue a much stronger and more restrictive foreign policy - this would
change its relationship to liberal order (Brands, 2016). Contrary to offshore balancers, Kagan
believes that today the challenges of liberal order and democracy are greater than those of the
Cold War (Kagan, 2018).
The Offshore Balance initially is a realist model in international relations which it describes a
strategy of great power that looks at the multiplicity of correlations - when international relations
are ruled by many superpowers - as an opportunity and rather than as a threat. For example, in
the early 21st century, advocates of maritime equilibrium argue that trying to maintain the
United States hegemony as the world only superpower will cause other countries to unite against
the states and ultimately reduce its relative power. According to this view, the United States
cannot prevent the emergence of new great powers, it must move towards a strategy of shifting
the burden so that others can maintain the balance of regional power and solving problems.
But in Mearsheimer (2019) view, the new multipolar world will three realistic orders: a thin
world order that facilitates cooperation, and two limited orders - one controlled by China and the
other by the United States - ready to provide security competition between them. It this view the
world will organize a system of containment to beat them in a longer-term contest of economic
and political systems that world essentially will be divided between the United States and China,
similar to the bipolar world during the Cold War accompanied by several regional powers in the
international system.
So, one of the main differences between the two groups is whether or not to allow a great power
to emerge. In the midst of these two different theoretical perspectives, there is also another
opinion in the Trump administration that believes the United States is not the world's police and
should not interfere in endless wars, American forces should return home. But in Trump's
discourse, there is no sign of an effort to promote human rights and democracy abroad, not
similar to the realist model. During the Post-Cold War, political events show that none of the
theories mentioned are incapable of understanding the events in the regions and provide regional
stability model.