THE U.S. AS THE NEW ROME: DISPUTING THE NEW WORLD ORDER
https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2016-7-3(24)-17-24
Abstract
The starting point of the conclusions of politicians and experts was the recognition of the changed nature of threats to the New World Order. In post-Westfalia system of international relations the main actors are not sovereigns, but transnational actors of world politics, including transnational terrorist and criminal networks. In this situation, the support of global security threat serves the underground world – terrorists, shady business structures, failed states. The unconventional nature of the threat to peace and stability of the New World Order requires an equally innovative response which transcends the formal constraints of international law and the traditional doctrine of deterrence. An analysis of the U.S. foreign policy concepts suggests that today’s academic and political community has promoted consensus of neoliberals and neoconservatives, supporters of the institutional functionalism and representatives of the school of Realpolitik. This consensus was based on the recognition of the admissibility of pre-emptive strikes on the territory of failed states, sponsoring international terrorism, or the implementation of open interference in the internal affairs of “rogue states” for human rights and democratic freedoms guarantee.
About the Author
O. I. Ivonina
Novosibirsk State Education University, Novosibirsk, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. of History, Professor, Department of Russian and World History, Novosibirsk State Education University
References
1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. N.Y., 2004. 256 p.
2. Brzezinski, Zbigniew; Scowcroft, Brent; Ignatius, David. America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy. N.Y.: Basic Books, 2008. 304 p.
3. Chace, James. Avoiding Empire // The National Interest, No. 69, Fall 2002, pp. 19-25.
4. Drezner, Daniel. The New “New World Order” // Foreign Affair, Vol. 86, No.2, March-April 2007, pp. 34-46.
5. Fukuyama, Francis. Konets istorii i poslednii chelovek (The End of History and the Last Man). Moscow: Izd-vo AST, 2004.
6. Glennon, Michael J. Why the Security Council Failed? // Foreign Affair, May-June 2003.
7. Hassner, Pierre. Defi nitions, Doctrines and Divergences // The National Interest, Fall 2002, pp. 30-34.
8. Hendrickson, David C. Toward Universal Empire. The Dangerous Quest for Absolute Security // The World Policy Journal, Vol. 19, No.3, Fall 2002, pp. 9-36.
9. Hobsbaum, Eric. Epokha krainostei: Korotkii dvadtsatyi vek (1914-1991) (The Age of Extremes: a History of the World (1914-1991)). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 2004. 632 p.
10. Ikenberry, John. America’s Imperial Ambition // Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 5, September-October 2002.
11. Keigan, Robert. O rae i sile: Amerika i Evropa v novom mirovom poriadke (On Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order). Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004. 160 p.
12. Kennedy, Paul. Vzlet i padenie velikikh derzhav (The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). Moscow, 2000.
13. Kissinger, Henry A. Nuzhna li Amerike vneshniaia politika? K diplomatii XXI veka (Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Towards a Diplomacy of the 21st Century). Moscow, 2002.
14. Krauthammer, Charles. The Unipolar Moment Revisited // National Interest, Winter 2003, pp. 5-17.
15. Kupchan, Charles A. Misreading September 11th // The National Interest, Fall 2002, pp. 26-29.
16. Nye, Joseph. U.S.Power and Strategy after Iraq // Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 4, July-August 2003.
17. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. Security, Solidarity and Sovereignty: The Grand Themes of UN Reform // American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, July 2005, pp. 619-631.
Review
For citations:
Ivonina O.I. THE U.S. AS THE NEW ROME: DISPUTING THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Comparative Politics Russia. 2016;7(3(24)):17-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2016-7-3(24)-17-24
Views:
912
Email this article 