1. 1
Kristina Console
Politics -120 Midterm
Professor Ahmed
The political world stage today is comprised of a multitude of diverse actors
competing for “center stage.”1 In the foreground of this struggle is the nation-state and its
place within the international order. The state stands out as being the sole possessor of
economic and militaristic power within the international sphere. The realization of this
state system employs the concept of legal rights, which includes the idea of “state
sovereignty, that no other actor is above the state.”2 Through the process of analyzing the
role of the state, both domestically and internationally throughout history, it becomes
apparent that this power may slowly fade away due to outside forces. By examining the
states’ history, foreign policy, non-state actors, and power plays, we are more adept at
finding validity to this argument. In terms of the United States itself, it becomes
increasingly more evident that globalization and global interdependence are eroding the
nation-state power.
States take many ideas and influences into consideration when forming their
foreign policy. Whether it is geographical location, economic issues, military prowess,
form of government etc.3, the countless factors that come into play in relation to
international policies shape the positioning of that state within the global community. One
advantage for the United States in terms of international relations, among many others, is
the geopolitical aspect of its location. The United States is incredibly fortunate to have
oceans on either side which provides a significant barrier from foreign intrusion.4 In

2. 2
addition, the neighbors the United States does have are not militarily capable of posing any
threat, which has contributed to its increasingly developed power. Another advantage the
United States experiences on the international front is its military capabilities, which
ultimately guide the U.S. in their priorities. The threat of U.S. force alone, as seen during
many confrontations in the past, is enough to foster collaboration from other countries;
although this collaboration comes from an intrinsic fear of a U.S. attack versus true
cooperation. Nevertheless, the military serves its purpose as an international tool.
Alongside of military considerations are the economic conditions of the state, which are
usually interrelated. Generally speaking, the wealthier states have
more of a participatory role in the “global political economy”5, for various reasons. The
United States’ high ranking within the numerous IGO’s is a product of their economic
wealth and strength; which “enables the United States to practice unrestrained globalism”.6
The type of government used, the leaders of the state, and international trade, also
contribute to foreign policy decisions. The combination of these internal and external
forces as a whole establishes a state’s policy, which is usually dependent on the leader of
the time. A state’s leader, in effect, is a “decisive determinant of foreign policies,”7 simply
because many policy decisions rest solely on that of a leader. As Americans, we put most
of the praise or blame on our leaders, and as such, we ultimately hold them responsible for
unwise foreign policy choices.
As illustrated, a states’ power is immense, especially that of the United States on
the world stage. Given all the previous examples of unsurpassed power, it’s no wonder the
United States has become a “hegemon”8 throughout world politics. According to

3. 3
the “hegemonic stability theory,”9 a stable world dominance must be established by one
state or leader in order to reprimand antagonists as well as inhibit the competition of
“enduring rivalries”10 for ultimate power, which could lead to a major war. After just
coming out of WWII, the United States, as well as other great nations, were looking for
peaceful understanding and cooperation. The formation of one important global
organization, the United Nations, seemed to be a step in the right direction toward global
partnership over competitive control. However, the problem that arose in the aftermath of
the war brought back the hegemonic stability theory in full force. The United States and the
Soviet Union were the only two great competing forces on the world stage during this time;
which eventually became known as the Cold War. It is believed that the root of U.S. and
Soviet tensions lay in their differing ideologies; then again, in accordance with the above
referenced hegemonic stability theory, it is very likely that the competition for world
domination was the true motive. Either way, the tensions remained high throughout the
terms of many U.S. presidents. Harry Truman’s presidency made an impact on U.S. foreign
policy concerning the Soviets that would stick throughout the Cold War. In the Truman
Doctrine, President Truman declared that the United States would intervene militarily in
support of its allies against communist suppression. This approach, dubbed
containment, was a tactic used to intimidate the Soviet Union in hopes of preventing
further Soviet expansion.11 Following the Truman Doctrine, President Nixon
developed a new approach to Soviet relations termed détente. The purpose of détente was
to ease the strain between the U.S. and the Soviets after the intense arms race that had
taken place. This period was effective in terms of policies enacted between the two nations
because it allowed them to cooperate in a more courteous manner. The Strategic Arms

4. 4
Limitation Talks followed, which sought to limit the nuclear missiles being frantically
produced by both nations. Through these civil agreements, a more cooperative attitude was
utilized; unfortunately, this was a short-lived stage.
Shortly after U.S. Soviet relations reached a cooling point, the turmoil began once
again. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, during President Carter’s term, alerted the
U.S. powers that be to the renewed threat put forth by the Soviets.12 President Carter in
response, enacted the Carter Doctrine, which professed the United States’ readiness to use
military force to protect its oil interests in the Gulf.13 Following boldly along was the
Reagan Doctrine under President Ronald Reagan, which brought relation to a boiling point,
once again, with the use of anti-communist insurgents with the intention of bringing down
Soviet-backed regimes. Alongside of this policy was U.S. threats of nuclear warfare.
Interestingly, the reaction from the Soviets was not warfare, but rapprochement. The
individual leadership of Gorbachev at the time was just what the country needed. In
protecting the interests of his own country, Mr. Gorbachev backed down and ultimately
heightened the notion of U.S. hegemony throughout the world.
Although the United States remained the only dominant world power after the Cold
War , it would be presumptuous to assume that it will remain there. After the Cold War
ended, it was apparent that the previous isolationist attitude of the U.S. had dissolved; it
would now have to increasingly maintain relationships with other countries. The U.S.
remained on top, but new enemies would soon form behind the scenes that would pose a
threat to its position; A threat to the state system itself. Organizations such as IGO’s and
NGO’s began to emerge as a new force to be reckoned with. Since these organizations
aren’t contained within a border and maintain independent foreign policy, it’s a much more

5. 5
complicated stage than previously known in U.S. relations. The growth of these
organizations alone, not to mention how hard they are to identify, makes it increasingly
difficult for the United States to oversee all activity. Generally speaking, NGO’s are
viewed as beneficial and are actively involved in humanitarian efforts, such as ENGOs,
WILPF, and the WEC. Nevertheless, there are many groups that seek radical change that
can only harm the United States. Furthermore, organizations such as the United Nations
have many different states’ interests in mind, which makes it rather difficult for one nation
to rule; even if the U.S. is the largest financial contributor. Subsequently, organizations
such as the IMF have made a dramatic difference in the “global marketplace”14 which has
resulted in increased “economic interdependence”15 of states. Consequently, the foreign
policy of the United States must adapt, and adapt radically in order to maintain dominance,
if possible.
Ultimately, non-state actors such as non-state nations, religious movements, and
multinational corporations threaten the United States considerably. The War on Terror is a
textbook example of the strength an organized group without borders can have on the state.
Not to be outdone, many IGO’s are threatening U.S. power by their process of shared
bargaining and decision-making. The globalization that results from all of this interaction
and cooperation seems beneficial, yet it is actually increasing the influence of these
transnational institutions, thereby undermining the sovereignty of the U.S., which may
ultimately destroy its hegemony throughout the world.

6. 6

7. 1
Kegley, Charles W, World Politics: Trends and Transformation, (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007), 56
2
Ibid
3
Ibid
4
Ibid, 58
5
Ibid, 61
6
Ibid
7
Ibid, 84
8
Ibid, 94
9
Ibid, 95
10
Ibid
11
Ibid, 111
12
Ibid, 115
13
Ibid, 114
14
Ibid, 185
15
Ibid
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kegley, Charles W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.