Is the Realist argument that a hegemon is necessary to maintain stability in the international system correct?
Almost in every period of the world history, a strong political actor has appeared that shaped the entire international system, power balance and moral principles according to their own values and principles. After the Second World War US became the most powerful state in the world and established its hegemony on the big part of the world. After the Cold War, United States was maintaining its strong hegemony unarguably for a decade. In the period between 1991 and 2001, America as a unique superpower on the system conducted benign hegemony as a conceptualized policy. Rather than imposing by force, to prevent potential rival powers it implemented an approach of protecting the rights of other states, which provides security and political and economic stability at the global level. After September 11/ 2001, the US strategy succeeded a significant shift in global politics. Bush administration, rather than benign hegemony which takes other actors’ assets and preferences into account in the system, formed a new unilateralist strategy around American self-interests. The optimistic atmosphere of stability and peace of post -Cold War era turned into a chaotic situation. Simultaneously, new arguments began in international society towards reshaping the new world order. The vast question is whether the world needs a hegemon power for stability and peace or establishing collective international institutions is the best solution to keep world safe and stable. Ian Clark asserts that the hegemon is an international legitimate structure which gives leading statue to a powerful state to manage and impose the rules on the allies and non-allies states in order to protect the common interest of allies’ states and the world peace and stability. He defines hegemony as;” an institutionalized practice of special rights and responsibilities conferred on a state with the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document