14

HEGEMONY, EQUILIBRIUM

AND COUNTERPOWER

A synthetic approach

Cornelia Beyer

Introduction

This chapter^1 takes up what can be regarded as Kenneth Waltz’s most important
claims – notably the importance of material facts and a law-like tendency towards
international power equilibrium – and explains why these are still important in
understanding a world marked by hegemony, international terrorism and the
emergence of possible new challengers to US dominance. Whereas material factors
still represent the most important indicators of global power, a ‘tendency towards
equilibrium’ can explain shifts and processes in international affairs appearing as
balancing, or its absence (as in the aftermath of the Cold War and in the case of
international terrorism). Also, I will argue, on the basis of much more accumulated
IR theory than was available when Waltz developed his views in the 1970s, that
while material facts are important in understanding continuity in international
relations, we have to complement this by understanding ideas as an engine for
change. Hence, I attempt to overcome, to an extent, the differences between
structural realism and constructivism, believing that only in a synthetic manner can
IR progress.^2 I regard the ideas of Waltz as fundamental to an understanding of
international relations, but we have to include additional factors.
The chapter is organised in three parts. First, I discuss the structure of current
international affairs as one of dominance by the United States; second, I look at the
nature of US hegemony and its possibility of survival in the presence of possible new
challengers, in particular China; and third, I focus on one of the major current threats
(apart from these challenges) to international security, international terrorism.
The first part of this chapter, therefore, reflects on the question of unipolarity. It
argues that in material and ideological terms the United States is still the most
dominant power, even if not the only ‘great power’. Ideas and material factors are
here discussed as mutually constitutive. This, then again, supports the argument that
both realist and constructivist interpretations are needed in order to understand