scholarly journals How (Not) to Evaluate U.S. Decline and the Emerging Great Power Rivalry

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
С. Wohlforth
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Dartmouth College ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Yale University ◽  
The Government ◽  
American Political Scientist

William С. Wohlforth is an American political scientist. Since 2000 he has been a Member of the Government Department’s faculty at Dartmouth College. William С. Wohlforth graduated with a degree in international relations from Beloit College, worked as a legislative aid in the U.S. House of Representatives, and did his graduate work at Yale University, earning an M.A. in international relations and PhD in Political Science. He taught at Princeton and Georgetown. William С. Wohlforth's expertise covers international security and foreign policy. His most recent books are “America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century” (Oxford, 2018), with co-author Stephen G. Brooks, and “The Oxford Handbook of International Security” (Oxford 2018) co-edited with Alexandra Gheciu. He is currently working on a book on subversion among great powers.

War Occurrence: Hyper-Insecurity and Multilateral Institutions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 388-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
TAKASHI INOGUCHI
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
First Century ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Multilateral Institutions ◽  
Early Twenty ◽  
The Future ◽  
American Political Scientist

Two lines of argument seem to stand solidly without seeing eye to eye with each other about the current world order. Steven Pinker, the American psychologist, writes about the steady reduction in human violence in settling disputes among humankind (Pinker, 2012). John Mearsheimer, the American political scientist, writes about the structurally almost inevitable conflicts of interest between great powers in the early twenty-first century in his analysis of hegemonic competition between the United States and China (Mearsheimer, 2005). It is not necessary to note that their arguments are made looking at conflicts of interest and use of violence from very different angles and time ranges. Yet their differences are stark and clear. Pinker says that the future is bright and shining due to the non-use of violence. Mearsheimer says that the future is dark and potentially devastating due to the consequences of the high tensions surrounding the conflicts of interest. The question posed at the outset is thus: Is the current era one of peace or war?

The Rise and Fall of Great Powers

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geir Lundestad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
The West ◽  
Economic Modernization

There are no laws in history. Realists, liberals, and others are both right and wrong. Although no one can be certain that military incidents may not happen, for the foreseeable future China and the United States are unlikely to favor major war. They have cooperated well for almost four decades now. China is likely to continue to focus on its economic modernization. It has far to go to measure up to the West. The American-Chinese economies are still complementary. A conflict with the United States or even with China’s neighbors would have damaging repercussions for China’s economic goals. The United States is so strong that it would make little sense for China to take it on militarily. There are also other deterrents against war, from nuclear weapons to emerging norms about international relations. It is anybody’s guess what will happen after the next few decades. History indicates anything is possible.

Violation of Treaties by Adverse National Action

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys P. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Practical Point ◽  
Adverse Action ◽  
Vital Interest ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Character

The shade of distinction sought to be shown by the title of this paper may require explanation. Imperfect wording involves either carelessness or ignorance; bad faith indicates dishonesty; nonexecution or disregard implies laxness in the government, if not carelessness; adverse or hostile municipal or judicial action connotes lack of coordination between the internal and external affairs of the State. It follows that such adverse action may be considered from a practical point of view as almost a normal kind of violence against international contracts. It is not to be excused on that account, but it may be considered as a frictional incident almost inseparable under some conditions from the existence of a State. Given either a government of definitely separated elements, such as the United States, or a government without much stability, or a State founded on a type of civilization different from the European order, and this sort of violation of treaty may be forecasted with certainty. Fortunately, however, the instances that cause contractual friction of this sort are of the grosser kinds of personal violence, or are commercial; they are not of a political character, cannot be said to involve policy, and only by a stretch of the imagination involve the tweedledum and tweedledee of international relations, “national honor and vital interest.” They are consequently extremely susceptible to simple and orderly solution.

Text of Resolution Which Entered the United States into World War

1917 ◽  
Vol 85 (17) ◽  
pp. 455-456
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
German Government ◽  
The People ◽  
Successful Termination ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government

The following is the text of the resolutions which officially entered the United States into the world war:— “Whereas the imperial German government has committed repeated acts of war against the government and the people of the United States of America; therefore be it “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the imperial German government, which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and that the President be and he is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial German government; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”

scholarly journals Future of US-China Relations: Conflict, Competition or Cooperation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Syed Muhammad Saad Zaidi ◽  
Adam Saud
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Eastern Hemisphere ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
The Rise Of China

In contemporary times, the geo-political agenda and geo-economic strategy of the world is being dominated by the ongoing US-China hegemonic competition. Where the United States is trying to prolong the ‘unipolar moment’ and deter the rise of China; China is trying to establish itself as the hegemon in the Eastern hemisphere, an alternate to the US. The entirely opposite interests of the two Great Powers have initiated a hostile confrontational competition for domination. This paper seeks to determine the future nature of the US-China relations; will history repeat itself and a bloody war be fought to determine the leader of the pack? or another prolonged Cold War will be fought, which will end when one side significantly weakens and collapses? Both dominant paradigms of International Relations, Realism and Liberalism, are used to analyze the future nature of the US-China relations.

UK Syria airstrikes strategy carries risks

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Security ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Strategy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Government ◽  
Jeremy Corbyn

Significance The government is aligning itself with the emerging international strategy against ISG in Syria. Its push to participate in airstrikes in part reflects a wish to reassert the United Kingdom's role as an international security partner, especially to the United States and France. Impacts The government envisages airstrikes as being needed for at least 12-18 months. The United Kingdom will be important but secondary in the anti-ISG coalition, with the United States continuing to conduct most operations. In the interests of its anti-ISG strategy, the government will temper its insistence on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stepping down. The risk of an Islamist terrorist attack in the United Kingdom will increase. If Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn comes to be seen as correct in his anti-airstrikes stance, it will further envenom relations on the left.

Qaddafi and Africa's International Relations

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oye Ogunbadejo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Third World ◽  
Buenos Aires ◽  
The United States ◽  
Irish Republican Army ◽  
Air Space ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of

By any standard, no other third-world leader in recent times has earned as much notoriety for foreign adventurist policies as Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. The Libyan President has on different occasions embarked on a militant course of confrontation with the United States in defence of his controversial definition of territorial air space over the Gulf of Sidra. Gulf of Sidra. During the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina, Qaddafi shipped more than $100 million worth of weapons, including 120 Soviet-made SAM-7 missiles, to Buenos Aires.1 His name has since been linked with bombing and shooting incidents in Britain, which eventually led the Government there to sever Anglo-Libyan diplomatic links in April 1984;2 with arms supplies to Nicaragua, the Irish Republican Army, and several secessionist movements in Africa; with coup plots in a number of countries, including Pakistan;3 and he has openly assaulted some of his neighbours, notably the Sudan and Chad.4 Then, in December 1985, the Libyan President was linked to the daring attacks by P.L.O. gunmen on the Israeli Airline's check-in counters at the Vienna and Rome airports, in which at least 16 people lost their lives and 120 were injured.5

Africa and the New World Order

1993 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Volman
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Force ◽  
New World Order ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
New Developments ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cold War

Theend of the cold war and of the bi-polar world order that shaped international relations over the past 50 years is forcing the Government of the United States to make dramatic policy changes that affect all parts of the globe. In Africa, it is also confronted by significant new developments on local, regional, and continent-wide levels. Of particular concern to American leaders are increasing internal demands for political democracy, and the intensification of ethnic and other conflicts which call national integrity into question. And, as the decision to send up to 30,000 marines, infantrymen, and other troops to Somalia proves, the U.S. Administration will not hesitate to use military force if authorised by the United Nations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document