172 Notes
- Thucydides, The History of Peloponnesian War (Franklin Center, PA: Franklin
Library, 1978). - Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,”
International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall 1993), pp. 44–79, at pp. 44, 50. - Bruce Bueno De Mesquita, The War Trap (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1981), pp. 1–2. - Hegemony was widely used, but only rarely was it defined accurately. Jack
Levy has compiled several definitions of the term. Wallerstein argues that hege-
mony is defined as the ability of one superpower to impose its laws and desires
on the system by its dominance over the output of agricultural production, trade,
and finance in the world market. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World-
Economy: The States, The Movements, and the Civilizations (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), pp. 38–40. Nicole Bousquet argues that hegemonic power
must include a status of political leadership in addition to being paramount in pro-
duction, commerce, and finance. Nicole Bousquet, “From Hegemony to Competi-
tion: Cycles of the Core?” in Terence K. Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein, eds.,
Processes of the World System (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980), chapter
2, pp. 46–100, at p. 49. Robert Keohane defines hegemony as superior to material
resources. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World
Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 32. Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye argue that a hegemonic system is one system in which
one state is strong enough to maintain the vital laws governing relations between
states and that they have the will to do so. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye,
Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977),
p. 44. Raymond Aron argues that under hegemony the states of autonomy or the
ability to make their decisions freely are denied. Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A
Theory of International Relations, translated from the French by Richard Howard and
Annette Baker Fox, Abridged by Remy Inglis Hall (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press,
1973), p. 62. All in: Jack S. Levy, “Theories of General War,” World Politics, Vol. 37,
No. 3 (April 1985), pp. 344–374, at pp. 348–349, fn. 20. Immanuel Wallerstein claims
that hegemony is rare and short and is identified with the periods of Holland,
Great Britain, and American dominance after the two world wars. He claims that
the short Dutch hegemony in the 17th century was limited in relation to the later
hegemony of Britain and the United States because it was the weakest militarily of
its time, compared with other countries that were operating at that time in the sys-
tem. Immanuel Wallerstein, Historical Capitalism (London: Verso, 1983), pp. 58–59;
Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System II: Mercantilism and the Consolida-
tion of the European World Economy, 1600–1750 (New York: Academic Press, 1980),
p. 38. Albert Bergeson, on the other hand, argues that Dutch dominance in world
production in the 17th century did not suffice for hegemony, and therefore leaves
the dominance of Britain in the 19th century and of the United States in the 20th
century as the only two periods of true hegemony. Albert Bergeson, “Cycles of
War in the Reproduction of the World Economy,” paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, GA, March 27–31, 1984,
at p. 10. The hegemonic powers were first and foremost maritime powers but they
became land powers to confront land-based challengers that tried to convert the
world economy into a world empire. This leads to a world war, the result of which
is the rebuilding of the global system, in favor of the hegemonic power. Leadership