Week 14 pre-class

I’m torn between the likelihood of a hegemonic future with the US at the center and a push towards a constitutional moment. Historically we’ve seen constitutional moments come out of global crises or world wars, but I think many of the ideas and social movements that have been previously discussed in class could push the international realm closer to a constitutional moment which isn’t fraught with conflict and disaster. Maybe the “human project” scenario isn’t likely in the near future but, as professor Jackson said, maybe our prediction odds are better if we just flip a coin!

I found John Ikenberry’s points on the US possessing several elements of a hegemonic power rather convincing, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it an empire just yet. Mostly because the sustainability of hegemony, after coercive power, seems to rely on the benefits provided by the hegemon to those at different levels along the hierarchical chain. In that case one of the worst things the US could do would be to make other states lose sight of the benefits the US offers in the international realm and our current administration seems to have a knack for making long standing partners and beneficiaries doubt their relationship with the US. Essentially, the US, under the guise of picking up new relationships, could struggle to maintain the old.

Another point that stood out to me from Ikenberry’s text was that hegemon will create institution to facilitate multilateral relationships but will ultimately be the central sovereign figure. The US has, in most instances, helped create multilateral institutions on a global scale and then taken those over as that eight-ton gorilla in the room. Of course, in organizations such as the UN the force of the UN can still be put down but it is unlikely to be done by any state wishing to maintain a benefit of sorts through their relationship with the US.