Location of Repository

The end of the 'new world order'?: Security governance and US imperialism after 9/11

By Elke Krahmann

Abstract

The concept of global governance has emerged as a key theoretical approach since the 1990s. Applied to the transformation of international security, it has suggested a shift from the state-dominated bipolar system of the Cold War era to a new multipolar and multilateral security architecture in which state, non-state and international actors collaborate in the making and implementation of security policies. Then came September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq. Today we appear to be more likely to discuss the nature of American hegemony and the stability of a unipolar international system. Observing the clash between these two competing perspectives of international security, the aims of this paper are threefold. First, this paper seeks to examine the respective theoretical assumptions underlying the concepts of hegemony and governance. Second, it examines the competing hypotheses proposed by these two theories with regard to international security. Third, it discusses in how far the empirical evidence since September 11, can be taken as indication of either a hegemonic strategy by the United States and balancing or bandwagoning behaviour by other major powers, or the continuation of security governance. --

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2003). 8bn Pledged but Aid to Rebuild Iraq Falls Short of Target’, The Times,
  2. (2003). America Helped Ruin Liberia. Now It Must Help Repair It’,
  3. (2002). America’s Imperial Ambition’,
  4. (2003). American Hegemony into American Empire? Lessons from the Invasion of Iraq’,
  5. (2002). American Hegemony: European Dilemmas’, The Political Quarterly 73,
  6. (2003). American Power: From ‘Compellance’ to Cosmopolitanism?’,
  7. (1995). Commission on Global Governance
  8. (1996). Competing Visions for U.S.
  9. (2003). Conceptualizing Security Governance’,
  10. Delays Vote on US Troops’,
  11. (2004). Halliburton to Return $27.4 Million to Government’,
  12. (2003). Harsh Words from Peace Camp, Muted Praise from Backers’,
  13. (1995). Hegemonic and Bipolar Perspectives on the New World Order’,
  14. (2004). Military Spending Sparks Warning’,
  15. (2003). National, Regional and Global Governance: One Phenomenon or
  16. (2003). Pentagon Says It May Need to Call Up More Reservists’,
  17. (1997). Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S.
  18. (2003). Russia and France Angered by End of Diplomacy’,
  19. (2001). Russia Puts on a Brave Face on the Inevitable’,
  20. (2003). Seven US Marines Enter Monrovia as Taylor Challenges War Crimes Court’, The Guardian, 7 August. Sfb 597 „Staatlichkeit im Wandel“ -
  21. (2003). Spending On Iraq Sets Off Gold Rush’,
  22. (2003). Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity’, National Intelligence Council, at: http://www.cia.gov/nic/confrports_ stratreact.html.
  23. (2003). The Compulsive Empire’,
  24. (2002). The Eagle Has Crash Landed’, Foreign Policy,
  25. (2003). The Imperial Logic of Bush’s Liberal Agenda’,
  26. the United States (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington: The White House),
  27. (2003). Turkey Opens Airspace but Blocks Airbases’,
  28. (1999). Unipolarity without Hegemony’,
  29. (2001). US Claims China and Russia as Allies’, The Guardian ,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.