Legitimizing Factors of the American Hegemony: The Changing Role of Coalitions and Partnerships

Since the end of the Cold War the United States sought to enhance its privileged position as a ‘leader’ of the international community, capable of mobilizing and coordinating other states to achieve collective goals and ensure shared values. For this purpose, the U.S. relied on traditional alliances and intergovernmental organizations as mediators in relations between Washington and the less powerful countries in order to ensure the legitimacy of the American engagement. However, one can witness the United States’ reorientation towards more flexible and less institutionalized formats of interaction in recent years. It may be considered as the transformation of power relations underlying ‘liberal international order’. Although the established U.S.-led alliances still serve as the pillars of the ‘American hegemony’, many functions are increasingly carried out beyond the frameworks of the alliances, and the less institutionalized structures are becoming increasingly important. Thus, it is necessary to explore the links between legitimacy concerns and evolution of institutional tools, whereby the international order congenial with the U.S.’ interests can be maintained. The paper examines the views of both Russian and Western expert communities on the role of U.S. coalitions and partnerships in ensuring legitimacy of the postCold War ‘American hegemony’. The author notes that the existing approaches pay insufficient attention to the dynamics of power relations between the United States and its partners and allies. To fill this gap, the author engages theoretical assumptions of the English school, which consider the issue of ‘legitimacy’ within the framework of the concept of ‘international society’ — the group of states within which the division of roles and social stratification are intertwined with the processes of reproduction and transformation of power relations. On this basis the author explores the specifics of the United States’ partnerships and ad hoc coalitions as the tools of legitimizing the ‘American hegemony’ after the end of the Cold War. The author concludes that the use of these mechanisms allows the United States to effectively mobilize collective efforts and manage the distribution of roles between its allies and partners. However, it generates additional risks and challenges in times of tensions.

1. Batalov E.Ya. 2005. Mirovoe razvitie i mirovoi poryadok [World development and world order]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ. (In Russ.)

2. Bogaturov A.D. 2006. Liderstvo i detsentralizatsiya v mirovoi sisteme [Leadership and decentralization in the international system]. International Trends, no. 3, pp. 5–15. (In Russ.)

3. Bogdanov K.V. 2019. Vremya ad hoc? [Time of ad hoc?]. Russia in Global Affairs, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 32–45. (In Russ.)

4. Gadzhiev K.S. 2007. Demokraticheskoe i imperskoe nachala vo vneshnepoliticheskoy strategii SShA [Democratic and imperial elements of the U.S. foreign policy strategy]. World Economy and International Relations, no. 8, pp. 31–41. (In Russ.)

5. Zhuravlyova V.Yu. 2014. Ideino-politicheskie korni amerikanskogo liderstva [The American leadership: Political and conceptual origins]. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, no. 11, pp. 19–32. (In Russ.)

6. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. 2020. Al’yansy na sluzhbe gegemonii: dekonstruktsiya instrumentariya voenno-politicheskogo dominirovaniya [Alliances at the service of hegemony: Deconstruction of the military domination toolbox]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 6, pp. 8–25. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.02. (In Russ.)

7. Kremeniuk V.A. 2004. Dve modeli otnoshenii SShA s okruzhayushchim mirom: ‘zabotlivyi otets’ ili ‘surovyi sherif’ [Two models of U.S. relations with the world: A ‘careful father’ and a ‘tough sheriff ’]. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, no. 11, pp. 3–14. (In Russ.)

8. Lukin A.L., Korotich S.A. 2017. Mezhdu Vashingtonom i Pekinom: chto zhdet aziatsko-tikhookeanskie al’yansy SShA? [The Asia-Pacific alliances of the United States: Between balancing, neutralization and hedging]. World Economy and International Relations, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 5–15. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-4-5-15. (In Russ.)

9. Voitolovskii F.G., Gudev P.A., Solov’ev E.G. (eds.). 2005. Ot miroporyadka imperii k imperskomu miropryadku [From the world of empires to the imperial world order]. Moscow, NOFMO Publ. (In Russ.)

10. Starkin S.V., Ryzhov I.V. 2014. Strategicheskii ‘razvorot’ SShA v Azii: evolyutsiya podkhodov [The strategic ‘reversal’ of the USA in Asia: Evolution of the approaches]. World Economy and International Relations, no. 10, pp. 49–56. (In Russ.)

11. Temnikov D. 2003. Ponyatie mirovogo liderstva v sovremennom politicheskom diskurse [The concept of world leadership in contemporary political discourse]. International Trends, no. 2, pp. 80–90. (In Russ.)

12. Terent’ev A.A. 2004. Miroustroistvo nachala 21 veka: sushchestvuet li al’ternativa ‘amerikanskoi imperii’? [World architecture of early XXI: Is there an alternative to ‘American empire’?]. World Economy and International Relations, no. 10, pp. 35–46. (In Russ.)

13. Shakleina T.A. 2004. V chiom prizvanie Ameriki? [‘America’s mission’ revisited]. International Trends, no. 2, pp. 34–42. (In Russ.)

14. Shakleina T.A. 1999. Diskussii v SShA po vneshnei politike [Foreign policy debates in the United States]. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, no. 12, pp. 25–38. (In Russ.)

15. Shakleina T.A. 2015. Liderstvo i sovremennyi mirovoy poriadok [Leadership and contemporary world order]. International Trends, no. 4, pp. 6–19. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2015.13.4.43.1. (In Russ.)

16. Shakleina T.A., Shaklein V.V. 2016. Strategiya SShA posle Obamy. Kakoe nasledie ostavili demokraty respublikantsam? [Post-Obama U.S. global strategy]. International Trends, no. 4, pp. 49–66. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.4 (In Russ.)

17. Shumilin A.I. 2017. Evoliutsiya podhodov SShA k konfliktam na Blizhnem Vostoke [Evolution of the U.S. approach toward Middle East conflicts]. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, no. 1, pp. 32–53. (In Russ.)

18. Brooks S., Wohlforth W. 2005. International relations theory and the case against unilateralism. Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 509–524.

19. Bull H. 1995. The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. New York, Columbia University Press.

20. Buzan B. 2004. The United States and the great powers. World politics in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, Polity Press.

21. Clark I. 2011. Hegemony in international society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

22. Clark I. 2005. Legitimacy in international society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

23. Heimann G., Paikowsky D., Kedem N. 2021. Partnership in leadership: Why and how do leading powers extend managerial privileges to junior partners? Security Studies, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 385–418. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2021.1951835.

24. Holsti K. 1970. National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 233–309.

25. Hurrel A. 2005. Power, institutions, and the production of inequality. In Barnett M., Duvall R. (eds.). Power in global governance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, рр. 33–58.

26. Ikenberry J. 2011. Liberal Leviathan. The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

27. Lake D. 2001. Beyond anarchy: The importance of security institutions. International Security, vol. 26, no. 1, рp. 129–160.

28. Lake D. 1999. Entangling relations. American foreign policy in its century. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

29. Lake D. 2018. International legitimacy lost? Rule and resistance when America is first. Perspectives on Politics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 6–21. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592717003085.

30. Mabee B. 2013. Understanding American power. The changing world of U.S. foreign policy. New York, Palgrave McMillan.

31. Mastanduno M. 2019. Partner politics: Russia, China, and the challenge of extending U.S. hegemony after the end of the Cold War. Security Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 479–504. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604984.

32. Reus-Smith Ch. 2003. The misleading mystique of America’s material power. Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 423–430.

33. Thies C. 2013. The United States, Israel, and the search for international order. New York, London, Routledge.

34. Thies C., Nieman M. 2017. Rising powers and foreign policy revisionism. Understanding BRICS identity and behavior through time. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

35. Walt S. 2009. Alliances in a unipolar world. World Politics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 86–120.