Legitimizing Power Projection in the US Foreign Policy

Q1 Arts and Humanities
A. Bogdanov
{"title":"Legitimizing Power Projection in the US Foreign Policy","authors":"A. Bogdanov","doi":"10.17994/it.2023.21.1.72.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International relations (IR) scholars have traditionally viewed military alliances as vehicles, serving to ensure the states’ survival under anarchy and to maintain the balance of power essential for the systemic stability. At the same time, alliances that include a dominant state are often employed by the latter as the means of attaining its core objectives and the tools of legitimizing its extraordinary might and ambitious policies. Apparently, this situation favors ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of developing proper theoretical understanding of the nature of alliances as the core institutions, which pattern the states’ interactions, sustain international order, and ensure smooth functioning of the power relations. Seeking to elaborate more comprehensive approach to studying “asymmetric alliances” as the tools of both wielding the dominant state’s influence and legitimizing its preeminence, the paper engages the insights borrowed from the theory of structuration that helps overcome methodological limitations conditioned by dual understanding of “power” as either “attribute” or “relationship”. Specifically, the paper examines the United States’ “asymmetric alliances” in Europe and East Asia as distinct social structures, comprised of “resources” and “rules” that sustain practices of U.S. engagement in regional affairs so as to ensure reproduction of inequitable relationships between the allies and to legitimize the United States’ hegemony. This approach allows to reach more integrative understanding of the role of these alliances as the tools of Washington’s influence and the means of reproduction of the inequitable relationships between the allies, as well as to identify contradictions inherent in these hierarchical arrangements, engendered by growing tension between “resources” and “rules” involved in the process of wielding and legitimizing the “American power”.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2023.21.1.72.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International relations (IR) scholars have traditionally viewed military alliances as vehicles, serving to ensure the states’ survival under anarchy and to maintain the balance of power essential for the systemic stability. At the same time, alliances that include a dominant state are often employed by the latter as the means of attaining its core objectives and the tools of legitimizing its extraordinary might and ambitious policies. Apparently, this situation favors ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of developing proper theoretical understanding of the nature of alliances as the core institutions, which pattern the states’ interactions, sustain international order, and ensure smooth functioning of the power relations. Seeking to elaborate more comprehensive approach to studying “asymmetric alliances” as the tools of both wielding the dominant state’s influence and legitimizing its preeminence, the paper engages the insights borrowed from the theory of structuration that helps overcome methodological limitations conditioned by dual understanding of “power” as either “attribute” or “relationship”. Specifically, the paper examines the United States’ “asymmetric alliances” in Europe and East Asia as distinct social structures, comprised of “resources” and “rules” that sustain practices of U.S. engagement in regional affairs so as to ensure reproduction of inequitable relationships between the allies and to legitimize the United States’ hegemony. This approach allows to reach more integrative understanding of the role of these alliances as the tools of Washington’s influence and the means of reproduction of the inequitable relationships between the allies, as well as to identify contradictions inherent in these hierarchical arrangements, engendered by growing tension between “resources” and “rules” involved in the process of wielding and legitimizing the “American power”.
美国外交政策中的权力投射合法化
国际关系学者传统上将军事联盟视为工具,以确保国家在无政府状态下的生存,并维持对系统稳定至关重要的力量平衡。与此同时,包括一个主导国家在内的联盟经常被后者用作实现其核心目标的手段,以及使其非凡的力量和雄心勃勃的政策合法化的工具。显然,这种情况有利于对联盟作为国家互动模式、维持国际秩序和确保权力关系顺利运作的核心机构的性质进行适当的理论理解,从而产生模糊性和不确定性。为了阐述更全面的方法来研究“非对称联盟”作为支配国家行使影响力和使其优势正当化的工具,本文借鉴了结构理论的见解,帮助克服了将“权力”理解为“属性”或“关系”的双重理解所带来的方法局限性。具体而言,本文考察了美国在欧洲和东亚的“不对称联盟”作为独特的社会结构,由“资源”和“规则”组成,这些“资源”和“规则”维持了美国参与地区事务的实践,以确保盟国之间不平等关系的再生产,并使美国的霸权合法化。这种方法使我们能够更全面地理解这些联盟作为华盛顿施加影响的工具和盟国之间不平等关系的再生产手段的作用,并识别这些等级安排中固有的矛盾,这些矛盾是由“美国权力”行使和合法化过程中涉及的“资源”和“规则”之间日益紧张的关系所产生的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy
Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: “International Trends” (“Mezhdunarodnye protsessy”) was established in 2002 as the first Russian TIR journal. As of the early 2010s, it holds a strong position among the top three Russian thematic academic journals (according to the Russian Science Citation Index). The Journal’s key mission is a theoretical comprehension of the world as a whole, of international tendencies and the planetary political environment, and of the world-integrity our country finds herself in and develops with.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信