The War in the Hegemonic Theories of International Relations: Reflection of the War of Occupation of Iraq in a Hegemonic Behavior View
Subject Areas : Iranian Political Research
1 - Department of Political Sciences,Islamic Azad University,Lamerd,Iran
Keywords: Hegemon, Hegemonic Theory, Status, United States, Iraq War,
Abstract :
The discovery of the causes of the war for a better understanding of it and, if possible, avoiding it, is one of the factors driving knowledge of international relations. Hegemonic behavior and hegemonic governments are the main source of hegemonic international relations theories for a better understanding of hegemonic wars, especially wars between the dominant hegemon and the challenging government calling for hegemony. In this regard, the main purpose of the present paper is to examine and criticize the hegemonic theories of international relations about the Iraq war in 2003 based on the hegemonic behavior or hegemonic governments, with an emphasis on the impact of US behavior as hegemony. The research method is library research and descriptive research. The research findings show that global hegemony, and in particular the United States hegemony, have two options because of the lack of a reference group of hegemons, where hegemony is fully, mutually and peacefully happens: first, hegemony can be exercised for the highest degree of dominance, authority, and leadership, through peaceful practices such as promoting new norms and exercising legitimate leadership based on standards accepted by others, or on a very different path in the traditional way of winning a major war or resorting to force in limited dimensions. Whenever the weight of the option of using force in hegemonic policies increases, the probable conditions of leading to war occur with a higher probability.
1. ایکن بری، جان جی (1382). سودای بلندپروازانه آمریکا. ترجمه امین روانبد و حمید مرادخواه، راهبرد، 28، 102-76.
2. موسوی شفایی، مسعود (1388). نومحافظهکاری و هژمونی آمریکا (تحول هژمونی آمریکا در عصر نومحافظهکاران). روابط خارجی، 1(2)، 119-152.
3. Beyer, C. (2009). Hegemony, equilibrium and counterpower: A synthetic approach. International Relations, 23(3), 411–427.
4. Blainey, G. (1988). The causes of war. London: Macmillan.
5. Bremer, S., Cannizzo, C., Kegley, C. W., & Ray, J. (1975). The scientific study of war. New York: Learning Resources in International Studies.
6. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Chapman, J. (2004). The real reasons bush went to war. The Guardian, 28 July.
8. Clarke, R. (2004). Against all enemies: Inside America’s war on terror. New York: Free Press.
9. Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer. International Relations, 20(1), 105–123.
10. Doyle, M. W. (1986). Empires. New York: Cornell University Press.
11. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University press.
13. Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 591-613.
14. Goss, Porter and Jane Harman to George Tenet (2003). U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 3–6, September 25 available at http://www.jar2.com/2/Intel/CIA/Tenet
15. Grier, P. (2002). Is it all about oil? , Christian Science Monitor, 16 October.
16. Ignatius, D. (2002). War and oil. Washington Post, 18 October.
17. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). Getting Hegemony Right. The National Interest. Spring, 17-24.
18. Judis, B. J. (2003). Why Iraq?. The American Prospect, March.
19. Kagan, R. (2003). Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. New York: Knopf.
20. Kagan, R., & Kristol, W. (1996). Toward a Neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs,74(4), 18-35.
21. Keohane, R. (1984). After Hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22. Lebow, R. N. (2010). Why nations fight: Past and future motives for war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Levy, J. S. (1985). Theories of general war. World Politics, 37(3), 344–375.
24. Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Causes of war. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.
25. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
26. Modelski, G., & Thompson W. R. (1989). Long cycles and global wars. In Handbook of War Studies (M.I. Midlarsky, ed.), 23–54. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
27. Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Perle, R. (2001). Should Iraq be next? San Diego Union-Tribune, 16 December http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13478,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
29. Pollack, K. (2002) Threatening storm: The case for invading Iraq. New York: Random House.
30. Ricks, T. E. (2006). Fiasco: The American military adventure. New York: The Penguin Press.
31. Small, M., & Singer, J. D. (1970). Patterns in international warfare, 1816-1960. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 391(1), 145-155.
32. Suganami, H. (2002). Explaining war: Some critical observations. International Relations, 16(3), 307-326.
33. Stoessinger, J. G. (2011). Why nations go to war. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
34. Vasquez, J. A. (2009). The war puzzle revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Wedgewood, R. (2002). Strike at saddam now. National Law Review.
36. Wilkinson, D. (1999). Unipolarity without hegemony. International Studies Review, 1(2), 141-172.
37. Woodward, B. (2002). Bush at war. London: Simon & Shuster.
38. Wright, R., & McManus, D. (2001). Bush camp split on anti-terror policy. Los Angeles Times, 21 September. 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 61, 161, 334–5 available at: https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.