On hegemony
The United States may not plan to rule the world; It may not be looking for an empire, but it is a hegemonic power. A hegemon is willing and able to subordinate the will of others to its own. It may even be willing and able to subordinate the will of the entire international community, as expressed in international law. Vagts refers to hegemony as a form of “command,” but one less phenomenon than imperialism. Despite its hegemonic power, that is, its ability to command others, the United States primarily complies with international law. Even when this is not the case, the international community, in some cases, resists hegemony, sanctioning or protesting against US non-compliance. The cases of concern are those that involve fundamental rules of international law in which powerful members of the community not only do not protest the failure of the United States, but join the hegemony to improve their own power at the expense of the community and its right. Two of those cases appeared over a five-year period: Kosovo (1999) and Iraq (2003).
These cases tell us much about the challenge that the United States poses to the international law system. They reflect the American belief that the United States is an exceptional nation. They reflect the confidence Americans have in their own moral ideas and reflect the continuing influence, not of Leo Strauss, but of Hans Morgenthau, on the thinking of American leaders after World War II. Morgenthau taught that a leader’s duty is to pursue power and urged American leaders to pursue dominance.
Kosovo and Iraq come from a long tradition: Americans have been characterized by their sense of exceptionalism and moral certainty since the founding of the nation. However, these characteristics of the US only became a challenge to international law when the US achieved unquestionable military, economic and technical superiority after the Cold War. The combination of immense resources, an interest in pursuing power, combined with a deep-seated belief in his exceptionalism, and a drive to spread his morality, help explain why American leaders chose military force in the cases of Kosovo and Iraq. , despite the prohibition of validity in international law. The United States has always been highly committed to the rule of law, but members of the international community should be aware that this commitment is not as strong as the other three motivational attitudes. What these attitudes essentially reveal about the United States is that it is not fundamentally community-oriented. It is a unitary state whose leaders are not finally convinced of the need for their exceptional nation to adjust to the important issues of community will.
Correctly characterizing the United States vis-à-vis international law is a complicated matter. The United States is not a simple hegemon. The United States was one of the main architects of the UN. The United States supports the Charter principles of self-determination, equality, non-intervention, and non-use of force. The United States fought North Korea’s aggression against the South in 1950 in accordance with the Charter. He condemned the use of force by the British and French with Israel against Egypt in 1956. The United States advocated an end to empires until it became deeply embroiled in the Cold War. The United States did not use force to liberate peoples under Soviet rule, but it did use force to counter Soviet expansion into new countries. This force was not always consistent with the UN Charter, as in the Missile Crisis in Cuba or more dramatically in Vietnam. After Vietnam and with the Reagan administration, America’s reputation became that of a militaristic power, which bypassed the rule of law. In fact, the United States in these years justified its use of force as consistent with the Charter. He had no interest in setting precedents for the Soviets. President Reagan and his advisers were imbued with a sense of moral and humanitarian mission that they believed could be promoted through the use of unilateral military force. The Reagan administration believed that Jimmy Carter had weakened the United States during the time that Iran held the Americans hostage (1979-1981). Reagan would resurrect American power and the American mission in Nicaragua, Grenada, and Lebanon. With the end of the Cold War, American concern for precedent declined, but America’s sense of moral duty did not, nor did America’s exceptional ability to discharge its duty.
