Cambridge Journals Online

Cambridge Journals Online
Skip to content
Perspectives on Politics (2005), 3 : 509-524 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2005 American Political Science Association
doi:10.1017/S1537592705050322
Published online by Cambridge University Press 26 Aug 2005
Perspectives on Politics (2005), 3:3:509-524 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2005 American Political Science Association
doi:10.1017/S1537592705050322

International Relations Theory and the Case against Unilateralism


Stephen G.  Brooks  a1 and William C.  Wohlforth  a2
a1 Department of Government at Dartmouth (Stephen.G.Brooks@Dartmouth.edu)
a2 Department of Government at Dartmouth (William.C.Wohlforth@Dartmouth.edu)

Article author query
brooks sg   Google Scholar 
wohlforth wc   Google Scholar 
 

Abstract

What are the general costs associated with a U.S. shift toward unilateralism? According to the overwhelming majority of international relations (IR) scholars, the costs are very high. We evaluate the key arguments that underlie this assessment, namely that increased U.S. unilateralism will: (1) spur the formation of a coalition to check U.S. power; (2) reduce efficiency gains through lost opportunities for institutionalized cooperation; and (3) undermine the legitimacy of the American-led international order. We conclude that the theoretical arguments that IR scholars advance do not show that a shift toward unilateralism necessarily has high costs. Our analysis reveals the need to, first, distinguish clearly between criticisms of unilateral policies based on procedure and those based on substance and, second, to recognize the weakness of current procedural arguments. a



Footnotes

a Stephen G. Brooks is assistant professor (Stephen.G.Brooks@Dartmouth.edu), and William C. Wohlforth is professor (William.C.Wohlforth@Dartmouth.edu) in the Department of Government at Dartmouth. They are currently writing a book entitled The Challenge of American Primacy. The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for Perspectives on Politics and, especially, Erik Voeten for detailed critical comments. They are also grateful to Mlada Bukovansky, Ian Hurd, Martha Finnemore, Ben Valentino, Nina Tannenwald, Alex Wendt, and participants at seminars at the Dickey Center at Dartmouth College, the Olin Institute at Harvard University, the Mershon Center at Ohio State University, and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Thanks also to Dartmouth's Rockefeller and Dickey Centers for supporting research on which this article draws.



back to top
Cambridge University Press