ABSTRACT
The overarching purpose of this book has been to explore the nature of US hegemony in the post-Cold War era. In particular we have sought to enter into the debate about whether international legitimacy truly matters in an international system dominated by a lone superpower. To do so, two key aims have been pursued. First, to examine the relationship between hegemony and international legitimacy as theoretical concepts, and specifically, to evaluate whether hegemony in the post-Cold War era is best conceptualised as a relation of dominance or of leadership. Intrinsic to the competition between these two conceptualisations is the relative weight given to the role of international legitimacy as a driver of state behaviour, interests and identities. For those advocating a view of hegemony as a relation of dominance, the stability of international order is achieved via the application of material resources by a hegemon to reward or coerce subordinate states to conform to the rules and norms associated with that order. Legitimacy plays a secondary role at best, as a tool used by the powerful to entrench unequal power relations within international law and institutions. In contrast, for those who take a normative view of hegemony, it is international legitimacy – or shared beliefs about appropriate, rightful and proper behaviour between states – that constitutes and regulates hegemony as a socially recognised leadership role. Legitimacy constitutes hegemony by defining the expectations of proper behaviour associated with the role of leadership which, if adhered to, guides subordinate states to recognise a hegemon as having certain rights and responsibilities associated with the maintenance of international order. It therefore both constrains and regulates hegemonic power, whilst also enabling it by creating an obligation on the part of subordinate states to follow the leadership of the hegemon where order is disrupted. Further, it is the widely held belief in the legitimacy of a hegemonic order among subordinate states that underpins the stability and longevity of that order. The second aim of the book has been to empirically evaluate which of these conceptualisations is best able to explain the practice of hegemony in the postCold War period through an examination of two case studies – the Gulf Crisis of 1990-1991 and the Iraq Crisis of 2002-2003 – in which the US sought to take leadership over international society. Analysis of these case studies was divided into two chapters, devoted to investigating either the possible normative or
material motivations of states in choosing to follow the US or reject its leadership. Were we to find that followership or the rejection of leadership were adequately explained as a response to US threats, coercion or material rewards, then a conceptualisation of hegemony as a dominance relationship need not be challenged. However, if we were to find that a complete explanation of events required consideration of normative motivations for followership or the rejection of US leadership, then we would argue that hegemony is best understood as a leadership role in international society. Whilst it was expected that a combination of motives for followership or non-followership would be found, the main task has been to determine whether legitimacy was a significant motivation for state action and therefore added to our understanding of the practice of hegemony. In this chapter we undertake a cross-comparison of the two case studies in order to determine the core material and normative motivations that compelled states to follow or reject US leadership. In brief, we find that the pattern of followership or the rejection of US leadership cannot be explained persuasively without consideration of two factors: the level of alliance dependency on the US of particular states together with the influence of normative beliefs about legitimate behaviour between states, and legitimate behaviour attached to the role of leadership within international society. In terms of our theoretical aims, we conclude that a conceptualisation of hegemony as a socially defined leadership role provides a more complete and compelling explanation of events in the two case studies.
