50 Gerhard Simon, ‘The end of the Soviet Union: causes and relational contexts’, German
Foreign Affairs Review, (47) 1, 1996, pp. 9–21.
51 Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’.
52 John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan, ‘Socialization and hegemonic power’, International
Organization,(44) 3, 1990, pp. 283–315.
53 Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, ‘A framework for the study of security
communities’, in Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds) Security Communities
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 29–65, pp. 52–55.
54 It could be argued that the United States did not act in an other-regarding or altruistic
fashion, but in informed self-interest. Nonetheless, it cooperated.
55 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics(New York: Cambridge University Press,
1981), pp. 30 and 34.
56 According to Gilpin, legitimacy is a key basis for hegemony; Gilpin, War and Change in
World Politics, p. 30. This is close to the argumentation of Antonio Gramsci, described in
James Martin, ‘Antonio Gramsci and political analysis: hegemony and legitimacy’,PhD
thesis at the University of Bristol, 1993.
57 Wohlforth, ‘Realism and the end of the Cold War’.
58 Dani Rodrik, ‘Sense and nonsense in the globalization debate’, Foreign Policy, 107/1997,
pp. 19–37, p. 19; David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-globalization
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000).
59 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict
from 1500–2000(New York: Random House, 1987).
60 John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan, ‘Socialization and hegemonic power’, International
Organization,(44) 3, 1990, pp. 283–316, p. 315.
61 Renee de Nevers, ‘Sovereignty norms and the war on terror: a hegemon meets
international society’,paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 17 March 2004; Rens van Munster, ‘The war
on terrorism: when the exception becomes the rule’, International Journal for the Semiotics
of Law, 17 (2), 2004, pp. 141–53.
62 Francois Bourgouignon et al., ‘Declining international inequality and economic
divergence: reviewing the evidence through different lenses’, Économie international, 100,
2004, pp. 13–25; Arne Melchior et al.,‘Globalization and inequality: world income
distribution and living standards, 1960–1998’, NUPI Rapport, Studies on Foreign Policy
Issues, 6B:2000; The World Bank, World Development Report 2006: Equity and
Development, 2006, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2006/Resources/
WDR_on_Equity_FinalOutline_July_public.pdf(accessed 23 December 2008); and
International Labor Organzation, ‘2008 World of Work: Income Inequalities in the Age
of Financial Globalization’, 2008, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/
download/world08.pdf(accessed 23 December 2008).
63 Beyer, Violent Globalisms, pp. 41–46.
64 This is discussed with regards to legitimacy and authority of the United States in Beyer,
Counterterrorism and International Power Relations, chs 4 and 5.
65 World Views: ‘Is a new, regional power bloc emerging to challenge the US?’, San Francisco
Chronicle (16 February 2007), http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/blogs/worldviews/
detail?blogid=15&entry_id=13564 (accessed 19 October 2009); Jeremy Page, ‘Giants meet
to Counter US Power’,Times Online, 15 February 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.
uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1386812.ece (accessed 23 November 2008).
66 Compare Alexandru Grigorescu, ‘Mapping the UN-League of Nations analogy: are there
still lessons to be learned from the League?’, Global Governance,(11), 2005, pp. 25–42.
67 Vaughn Shannon, ‘Wendt’s violation of the constructivist project: agency and why a
world state is notinevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, (11) 4, 2005,
pp. 581–87.
68 Waltz, ‘The continuity of international politics’, p. 352.
69 Compare A.F.K. Organski, World Politics(New York: Knopf, 1958) and A.F.K. Organski
and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Hegemony, equilibrium and counterpower 247