Unipolar Order: Hierarchy in World Politics

INTRODUCTION

The world today is hugely believed as anarchic in order. This anarchy is derived from the idea that all states in the global arena are sovereign and equal. Having no world government that serves as an apex of sovereignty in world politics, it is theorized that all states enjoy the same status wherein they enjoy equal entitlements - the retention of independence, territorial and personal supremacy. This conjecture on sovereignty and equality of states has been legitimized by way of considering it as a foundational principle of certain policies in International Law. However, despite of its legality, the theoretical foundation, as well as its practice, has always been put into question. Sovereignty, as a concept, has not achieved an undisputed definition. Furthermore, albeit most people tend to assent to the idea that states are indeed sovereign, there are those who argue that several states have rights to exercise more power than others. This idea questions the very notion of an anarchic structure that is characterized by the existence of sovereign and equal states.

The notion that the world order is characterized by anarchy would be destroyed if the premise to which it is grounded, the notion of sovereignty and equality of states, would be disproved. As it is the case that the theory on an anarchic world order relies on shaky foundation, this paper would analyze the contemporary world order by positing a new way of looking at it. Albeit it may be necessary that the approach would start with abstract terms as its variables, the author argues that the terms, "sovereignty" and "equality" are too abstract in the sense that it would be difficult to deal with them as variables to be operationalized. Aside from theoretical contentions, the concepts "sovereignty" and "equality", as used in International Law, seemingly contradict reality. The existence of states exercising power, economically or militarily, over other states shows that there are states that are more powerful than others are. In this light, a proper understanding of the world order needs an understanding of the term "power" and how it operates in international relations. Treating all states as sovereign and equal could not explain to us the inequality in terms of rights and responsibilities that states have; whereas the analysis on how "power" works and how much power states have could explain to us the extent to which states can act in the global arena.

The analysis on the structure of power in world politics would lead us to the idea that there are hegemonic forces that compel other states to accept cultural, economic and political leadership. This leadership proves to us that the widespread understanding of the world order is misleading. This paper will establish that the world order that we thought of as anarchical is hierarchical - hierarchical in the sense that there is/are state/s that serve/s as global leader/s. There is no need for a world government to exist in order for us to say that there is a hierarchy. The reality that there are states that are more powerful is enough to tell us that hierarchy indeed exists. Albeit there is no institution or world government that we could say as a legitimate apex of sovereignty, the interdependence amongst nations could prove to us the exercise of power of a state over others. In this paper, the author will establish that the state that holds the largest amount of power, and hence exercises its power over others, is the United States.

Much has been written about the hegemony and imperialism of the United States. Some claim that the demise of the Soviet Union had left the United States as the sole superpower. However, this global leadership of the US is still being contested. There are those who argue that the post cold war world is characterized by multipolarity wherein instead of having one hegemonic power, there would be several states that are exercising great powers and are competing in the global realm. In this paper, however, it will be established that it is not only the US that has a great power, there are also states that exercise powers greater than other states. But among states with great powers, it is the US that has and exercises the greatest power to the extent that it acts as a global policeman. The "Unipolar World Order" that the author wishes to prove is not an order wherein the US exercises complete authority over all states in the world. The sort of hierarchy present in a unipolar world order is characterized by having US as a global leader - in which it has economically, militarily and culturally affected and influenced other states. Surely, states may opt not to conform to this global influence of the US, but instances in the global arena, which might also be caused by the US, would compel them to do so.

This paper would be divided into two parts. The first part would be theoretical and would deal with the terms anarchy, hierarchy, sovereignty, equality and power. The second part would be the application of the theoretical part. It would use as its presupposition the analysis on power as the better approach in analyzing the world order.

In perusing this paper, it must be noted that the author only wishes to explain the world order. This paper is interpretive more than normative, and as such does not suggest a world order that is better than what we have now. The aim is to explain hierarchy in world politics and not to claim whether or not this sort of hierarchy is wrong. The paper is only to make a descriptive account of how hierarchy works in the global arena and not to persuade the readers that the global leadership of the US is wrong and oppressive to other states. The paper will establish how the dominance of US is legitimized, how this dominance contributes to securing the peace and order in world politics and how this proves the idea that the world order is indeed characterized by hierarchy and not by anarchy.

PART I: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

THE ILLUSION OF ANARCHY
Anarchy, as a world order, is defined as a political relationship by which units, or states, exercise no authority over one another and are not bound by a single authority. Hierarchy, on the other hand, is a political relationship by which one unit possesses authority over others. The world order that we have now, since there can be nothing that can be legitimately called as the most sovereign or that which possess the supreme authority, is widely assumed as anarchic. This anarchical structure of world order is premised on the idea that all states are sovereign and equal.

Sovereignty and Equality of States
Largely owing to the Westphalian system, states today are legally recognized as sovereign and equal. Sovereignty is a legal concept used to describe the state as that which exercises the full powers of independent status or supreme authority without internal or external interference. A corollary of considering all states as sovereign is the recognition of their equality. By virtue of sovereignty of states, the poorest state is treated as equal to the richest state, no matter how powerful the richest state may be.

The notion of sovereignty of states is affirmed in the international law. The first principle that is embedded in the architecture of UN Charter is the principle of "sovereign equality" of all states. This sovereignty, as according to Oppenheim, is threefold; it is characterized by independence, "authority in the form of supremacy over territory" and "authority in the form of supremacy over persons." With independence, a state is said to have a freedom in making choices as to economic and political systems, as well as to domestic and foreign policies. The "authority in the form of supremacy over territory" or territorial supremacy is the state's absolute authority over its territorial domain. The "authority in the form of supremacy over persons" or personal supremacy is the absolute authority of the state over its nationals.

Respecting this sovereignty of states, United Nations gives the states equal rights to the non-intervention in the domestic affairs of each other. Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter asserts the corollary of sovereign equality of states, which is the equal responsibilities of sovereign states in refraining from intervention in the domestic affairs of each other.
Apparent Inequality and the Illusion of Sovereignty

It is unquestionable that there are inequalities in terms of wealth amongst nations. But as a corollary of their sovereignty, states must have equal rights and responsibilities or political equality. In reality, however, the "great powers", or states that have economic, political and military strength that have strong diplomatic influence, have special rights and responsibilities in the international community. This could mean that the consideration of sovereignty does not actually imply a political equality amongst states or if it actually does, then it could be argued that since there is no political equality, then there could be states that are "more sovereign" than others. The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council gives them a special right and/or responsibility in the international community. The use of veto power ascertains the policy differences between the permanent members (that can be considered as great powers) and the developing countries. In fact, UN Charter affirms the superiority of Security Council; and that though all states may become members of it, this membership is not permanent. Permanent seats were given to five states that had a purported significant role in the formation of the United Nations, legitimizing the political superiority of these states over others in the international community. If it must be the case that all states are equal such that they have equal rights and responsibilities, reality tells us that such is not the case.

It has often been argued that globalization, though has not brought the demise of the state, has brought an end to sovereignty. Independence, or the freedom of the states to choose their own political and economic systems as well as policies, has commonly been infringed. In example, the aid conditionalities of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are stepping on the domestic affairs of a state. These conditionalities "undermine the domestic democratic process by supplanting public policy-making."

Territorial supremacy has also been infringed. Examples of such are the stationing of UN guards in Northern Iraq, US patrols over Iraq, and the weak rules on remote sensing. The acceptance of human rights laws and the availability of international tribunals to individuals wherein a state may be challenged on the other hand have infringed personal supremacy of state.

All of these are pointing to the weakening of the traditional view on world order as based on sovereignty and equality of states. It must be noted that states do benefit much in their assumption of their sovereignty. Because the international law considers sovereign equality as its fundamental principle, states were given the right to participate in the making of treaties and conventions, allowing them to join international organizations and giving them the right to claim immunity in courts for certain governmental acts. However, this sovereign equality is just in a matter of legality; practically speaking, it could be observed that there are states that are seemingly more sovereign than other states. The heightened support for human rights and the need to address certain global issues like that of terrorism and ecological issues have been overriding the sovereignty of state. All of this supports the claim that the description of world order based on the assumption of a questionable notion on sovereign equality of states is also highly questionable. Albeit the world order may once be characterized as anarchic, the contemporary world order is not.

Having proven the weakness of the very premise of the theory on anarchy, which is the sovereign equality of states, we are now lead to claiming that the theory on anarchy itself is misleading. As the assumption of sovereign equality of states cannot provide us with the correct description of the world order, we must now use a different approach that will properly explain the observed political inequalities in world politics. As it is observed that the great powers are granted with special rights and responsibilities, there is a need to examine the very nature of "power".

POWER AND HIERARCHY IN WORLD POLITICS
Anarchy and Hierarchy have been previously defined in terms of "authority". Such is the reason for the use of the notion of sovereignty or supreme authority as a premise on theory on anarchical structure of world order. As it had been defended that the assumption of sovereignty of states is mistaken, the present task is to examine authority as a form of power.
Power as influence

Power, in international relations, is a relationship that has to do with the control over actors or other states and outcomes through the use of influence. It is the ability of one state to get other states do something that they would otherwise not do. This influence or ability of a state to control other states may either be coercive or non-coercive. International organizations may also influence other actors in the world politics. In this paper, however, we are limiting the scope to the state power, as we are about to examine the influence of state/s over others. This is for the reason that policies that are being imposed on states, which they are bound to follow, are due to the influence of (a) powerful state/s, though may disguise as an influence of international organizations.

Operationalization
Power, as influence, has two dimensions: it may be a hard power or a. soft power. Hard power refers to a national power coming from military and economic means, while soft power is an indirect influence through ideological or cultural means. Hard power is coercive while soft power is non-coercive. The table below, which will serve as our lens in analyzing the power of the US, explains the operationalization of power.


Dimension Hard Power Soft Power

Type of influence coercive non-coercive

Source/s of influence Economic Strength Culture

Military Strength Ideology

Norms

Hard power can be quantitatively measured by looking at the extent of economic and military strength of a state. It uses coercive means in inducing a state to do something. It marks a state's ability to coerce other state to perform an action through the use of force (e.g. US invasion of Iraq), economic pressures and sanctions, or any other form of intimidation. Often, it is associated to the ability of states to change the domestic affairs of others through military coercion.

Soft power, on the other hand, is not measured by quantitative metrics but by qualitative means such as looking at a state's ability to attract other states to follow it. Soft power, theorized by Joseph Nye, can be seen in a culture that is able to attract others, ideology that is able to persuade others and foreign policies that are considered as just in the eyes of others. Often, soft power is associated with globalization. The spread of language, pop culture, media and communications contribute to the influence brought about by soft power.

Both types of power are a sphere of influence that states can use to achieve political goals. It must be noted that the use of power puts (a) state/s in a higher authority over others. In the succeeding part of this paper, US will be analyzed as the state that which serves as the strongest influence in international affairs, and hence in the highest authority over other states, through an analysis of its use of soft and hard powers.

Categorization of Power
The categories of power are still a matter of debate. However, this categorization is often used in referring to the influence of states in international community. Though there may be disputes in the proper categorization of state power, there is almost a unified thought that there are states that greatly exercises power over others. In fact, there is almost an agreement as to what states should be considered as powerful. In terms of power, states are often categorized into following:
Middle power - describes states with considerable influence over others but do not fit into other categories. Examples are Australia, Brazil and Canada.

Great power - refers to states that are able to influence diplomatic affairs through economic, political and military strength. They also have the soft power often through investments in developing countries. However, their influences are not as great as that of the superpowers. Examples are United Kingdom, China and India. Others, however, are considering China and India as emerging superpowers.

Superpower - refers to states that have both hard power (economic and military strength) and soft power (cultural and ideological power) and have overwhelming influence in international affairs. The British Empire was once considered as a superpower before the cold war. Soviet Union and United States were considered as the only superpowers during the cold war. Presently, it is generally regarded that US is the sole superpower.

Hyperpower - often refers to the US as the sole superpower in this unipolar world.
There are still debates as to the aforementioned categorization, however, for our purpose, it is of importance to discuss such in order to prove the unipolarity of world order.

Hierarchy in Interdependence
As a corollary of the demise of the sovereignty of states and the accumulation of power in some states, the contemporary world order is characterized by hierarchy. In a hierarchical structure of world order, there exists state/s that exercise/s power or influence, in a coercive or non-coercive manner, over other states.

The power or authority that a state exercises over the other may not be absolute. State A may exercise an authority over state B by issuing commands that regulate state B's actions on 1-5 but not on 6-n. In this sense, not all of state B's actions are controlled or regulated by state A. It may be the case that state A does not intervene in all affairs of state B, but this still points to the hierarchy in world politics, as state B's actions do not fully arise from its own authority. This legitimate intervention of state A in state B's affairs marks that state A is more sovereign than state B.

At times, hierarchy matters. Subordination to other states pays especially when a state needs economic aids and protection from external threats. States are compelled to trade some portion of their sovereignty in order to address their domestic issues. According to David Lake, states that are threatened by their neighboring states tend to enter hierarchical relationship by subordinating themselves to the will of the dominant state in exchange for protection. In his study, he further noted that "states in hierarchic(al) relationship will expend less defense effort than states in strictly non-hierarchic(al) relationships."

There are cases when some states do not want to engage in a hierarchical relationship. Great powers that hold both hard and soft powers tend to extract all their resources in order to become more powerful. However, the refusal of these states to join such a relationship does not contradict the very idea of hierarchy. It must be noted that hierarchy may still exist even if the most dominant state does not have control and/or authority over all states in the international community.

At any rate, in cases wherein great powers refuse to join a hierarchical relationship, a costly defense effort is needed. As we had noted, a hierarchical relationship will decrease the defense efforts of all the states that are in the relationship. If states would not enter such a relationship, there would be a need for these states to utilize all their resources no matter how costly the utilization may be. Such would also be the case in times of economic crisis. The refusal to join hierarchical relationship and unwillingness to enter interdependence amongst states would put the states in isolation leading to a decline in their strength.

Joining a hierarchical relationship is not only characterized by the subordination of states but also by the acceptance of certain conditionalities in exchange of aid, protection and recognition. Financial assistance, for example, would require an imposition of political conditionalities on developing states. The support for human rights is also a conditionality for states that would want to enter and benefit from a hierarchical relationship.

Others could have said that these conditionalities are not imposed by the great powers but by international institutions that are created by an assembly of states. However, it could be argued that these conditionalities are manifestations of the influence of great powers, particularly of the United States to these international institutions. These conditionalities serve as the legitimizing tools of the imposition of certain norms like human rights and ideologies like capitalism. Though there are other great powers that may also advance their interests through these conditionalities, the present status of the US would make it hard for them to do so. As earlier mentioned, great powers may choose not to enter a hierarchical relationship and instead wield their own resources to become more powerful. But as this would require a costly utilization of resources, it would be hardly possible for them to become more powerful than the dominant state that serves as a leader in a hierarchical relationship. As a result, there arise no state that can be considered as equally powerful as the US, and the great powers' decision to join hierarchical relationship only compels them to accept the leadership of the US.

PART II: APPLICATION OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

UNIPOLARITY OF WORLD ORDER
The demise of the Soviet Union had left the United States as the sole superpower, which makes some scholars call the US as a hyperpower. This status of the US makes it difficult for other great powers to accumulate power greater than the US because, as we have noted, it would be too costly for them to not join hierarchical relationships. This would make them establish an alliance with other states, including the dominant power, the US. Their act of joining hierarchical relationships or entering interdependence, however, would only make them affirm the superiority of the US.

The idea that globalization is an economic, political and security phenomenon meant that states cannot work in isolation. Certain global issues like those of human rights, terrorism and ecological/environmental issues need a global cooperation. It may be the case that each state benefits from this so-called globalization and its corollary, the entering into hierarchical relationship or interdependence. This globalization, however, translates itself into global hegemony of the US. The need to address global issues legitimizes this leadership of the US to the point that new enemies and threats have to be invented in order to justify defense spending and military moves. US have been using both hard and soft powers or coercive and non-coercive influences in advancing its interests and purported methods to solve global issues.

The Use of Hard Power
Issues on global threat and security legitimized the use of military tactics and the imposition of economic sanctions. In our analysis on military and economic strength of the US, we will observe that it has exhausted both of these resources in affecting diplomatic affairs and in projecting influence in a worldwide scale.

Military Supremacy
The number of US military personnel has decreased since 1980's but its military bases and operations have been increasing. Presently, US has military bases in 60 countries. The intervention of US in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999 had resulted to the erection of military bases in Hungary, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo. Prior to the September 11 attack, US has been inserting troops in the ex-Soviet republic of Uzbekistan. This intervention of the US undermines the territorial supremacy of the aforementioned states pointing to the claim of the US as the most sovereign state in world community.

The September 11 attack on the US had legitimized the US intervention and formations of bases throughout the world. US had gained the sympathy of the world allowing it to intervene in domestic affairs in its installation of new military bases. US declaration of war on terror against Iraq has actually no legal basis. In international law, war is only justified if and only if it is for self-defense. Iraq had not waged a war of aggression against the US and hence there is no warrant for the US to declare a war. Despite of this, Bush had claimed a right to 'pre-emptive action' allowing the US to wage a war against potential adversaries. Through this, US had justified its actions as an anticipatory self-defense against a potential adversary. Despite of the lack of huge international support, US was still able to advance its interest to invade Iraq.
US has been strengthening its military capabilities to blackmail its power competitors including but not limited to Russia and China. US also has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world that is located in its own soil and in Europe and has the most technologically advanced weapons. It also is the largest distributor of weapons in the world. Its military strength has been blocking its power competitors and its military expansion promises security to its allies. This military strength and expansion has proven to us the military supremacy of the US.

Economic Strength as a Coercive Diplomacy
US has the largest economy in the world. It is the home of many multinational corporations and financial institutions. Aside from the fact that the US dollar is the most convertible currency in the world, US also has a great decisive influence on International Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The imposition of economic sanctions is a manifestation of US global hegemony and the compliance to these sanctions further legitimizes this supremacy. With its decisive influence on IFIs and UN, sanctions were imposed to "unfriendly" governments and aid conditionalities were imposed to developing countries seeking aids. The objective of the sanctions is to punish states whose actions have adverse effects in the international community. North Korea was recently sanctioned due to its proliferation of nuclear weapons. Aid conditionalities, on the other hand, are imposed by IFIs to ensure the "good governance" of a state that is seeking aid. Whether or not the imposition of sanctions to "unfriendly" states is justified and whether or not the aid conditionalities are effective in securing the development of a developing country, the fact that the US has a huge influence on these policies proves that US is indeed acting as a global leader that exercises its supremacy over other states. Its influence on economic sanctions and aid conditionalities advances its interests in the world politics. These sanctions and conditionalities sometimes force the states to change their form of government and open up their markets to international investors.

The Use of Soft Power
Perhaps, the soft power is the greatest tool of the US in advancing its hegemonic interests. Soft power can influence other actors in the world politics without them noticing it. While hard power can easily be observed and be disliked by others due to its coercive features, soft power works by making the US itself, as well as all its aspects, attractive. Soft power has penetrated the consciousness of the peoples from all states. As such, its effects have been ingrained in the consciousness of men, which makes it a lot easier for the US to advance its interests. By implanting in the minds of men the things that they should believe and consider as right, US can easily make other states consent to its actions.

Cultural Hegemony
The spread of American companies promoting American culture has affected peoples of different races. One could observe the existence of American companies such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Microsoft in any country in the world. They have been part of the everyday lives of peoples of different nations. It is normal that we see people eating at McDonald's, drinking a bottle of Coke and using a Microsoft product in business or in school. Many Filipinos, for example, would want products that are imported from the US mainly due to the attractive aspects of American culture.

Media had also contributed to the spread of American culture. Hollywood films are watched worldwide. American News Channels are available via cable television, while the news channels of US enemies are rarely available. As a result, it is only the side of the US (in cases of conflict) that is always heard.

It may be the case that many are unaware of cultural hegemony of the US as it may be the case that they have not bothered to examine the influence of American culture in their lives. Having embraced the American culture, peoples from other states can easily give their support to the US while despising those that US despises. US can easily get their sympathy, while its purported adversary receives hatred from those that sympathize with the US.

Promotion of American Ideologies
The strong and stable liberal democracy has attracted many states. US has always been in the forefront of democratization. By making the Western or American notion of democracy appealing, US can easily impose liberal democracy in a state. US uses the notions of rights and freedoms for individuals as front in advancing such type of government. In certain cases, US uses coercive measures like aid conditionalities in order for states to adopt a liberal democratic form of government.

With the spread of liberal democracy, US can easily advance capitalism. As an example of a wealthy capitalist state, many states are opening their market to foreign investors. States that are seeking to have an alliance with US are being pressured to open up for trade liberalization.
Francis Fukuyama has regarded that the spread of liberal democracy and capitalism is beneficial for all mankind. In his essay "The End of History?" he stated that liberal democracy is the end of history, where "the struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk ones life for a purely abstract goal… will be replaced by economic calculation… environmental concerns and the satisfaction of consumer demands." By persuading others that US is benevolently and altruistically aiding the states, and that its ideology will put an end to conflicts, US can easily advance its hegemony, in this sense, an ideological hegemony.

Advancement of the Western notion of Human Rights
It has often been argued that human rights may override the sovereignty of the state. With this, US is advancing its interests through the advancement of human rights. With the widespread belief on the notion of human rights, US can easily intervene with the domestic affairs of the state.

Globalization can be described as the globalization of human rights. Albeit not all subscribe to the idea that men have innate rights due to being human, the respect for these rights has received a global acceptance. This forces other states to accept this notion of human rights even if their culture subscribes to a totally different norm. In their want to enter alliances and recognition and membership in international organizations, states were forced to grant their people with the American notion of freedoms of speech and religion.

Aside from everything that have been stated, the permanent membership of US in the UN Security Council has further legitimized their global leadership. US has affected much the policies that apply to all member states of UN. In the case of Israel - Lebanon conflict, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had repeatedly appealed for a ceasefire. However, this appeal was ignored and blocked by the US, and UK, its ally and a co-permanent member in the UN Security Council, to give Israel more time to complete its destruction of Lebanon. This shows that US stands not as equal to other member states of the UN. Its permanent membership in the Security Council allows it to further its interests.

Consequently, the hegemony of the US has not achieved a popular support. There are forces of fragmentation that seek greater autonomy from cultural, economic and political penetration. However, though there are those who resist, US continues to exercise its power as a hegemon. In fact, the very existence of counter-hegemonic forces proves the existence of a hegemon - the US.

CONCLUSION

Discarding the notion of sovereignty of states may have adverse effects in international affairs. It may intensify the inequality in world politics and may further legitimize the hegemony of the hyperpower. However, to assume the sovereign equality of states is mistaken. Its corollary, the notion of an anarchical world order has to be rejected as a consequent of assuming a shaky foundation. To treat the world order as anarchic as characterized by sovereign equality of states is to explain how we want the world to be, and not to describe how the world order is. If we were to assume that the world order is indeed anarchic and that all states, regardless of wealth, are sovereign and equal, we would lack the analytical tool in our proper understanding of the world order. Treating the world order as anarchic is only at a convenience of not considering any state as superior to other states.

The proper treatment in understanding the world order is to go back to the definition of anarchy and hierarchy. As the two differs in terms of who or what has the authority over others, we must examine the nature of authority as a form of power. The assumption of sovereignty or supreme authority of states has no proper grounding and is in fact, contradictory with reality. Furthermore, to discard the existence of hierarchy in world politics is to let the US rule over other states without us knowing it.

Other states are persuaded into believing that through interdependence, US has shared its power. The truth is, their interdependence is merely an affirmation of the supremacy of US. Many had been convinced that the US is altruistically helping them through aid programs and in the building up of nations. Others, on the other hand, are skeptical of the acts of the US. Whatever the interest of US is and whatever boons and bane the subordinate states may get from a hierarchical relationship, it would always be a fact that the contemporary world order is a unipolar one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brownlie, Ian, General Principles of Public International Law, USA: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2003
Cleveland, Harlan, The Third Try at World Order: US Policy for an Interdependent World, New York 10022: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1977
Kingsbury, Benedict, Sovereignty and Inequality, at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No4/090599.pdf
Lake, David A., Hierarchy in International Relations: Authority, Sovereignty, and the New Structure of World Politics, at http://weber.ucsd.edu/dlake/Working%20Papers/Hierarchy%20in%20inernational%20Relations%20circulating.pdf
Lopez, George A. and Stohl, Michael S., International Relations: Contemporary Theory and Practice, Washington D.C. 20037: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1989
Rodee, C. C., Christol, C. Q., Anderson, T. J., and Greene, T. H., Introduction to Political Science, 4th ed., Asian Student Edition, USA: McGraw-Hill International Book Co., 1983
Rourke, John T., Carter, Ralph G. and Boyer, Mark A., Making American Foreign Policy, USA: Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1994
Santiso, Carlos, Good Governance and Aid Effectiveness: The World Bank and Conditionality, at http://www.sti.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap108.pdf
Skidmore, David, Teaching About The Post-Cold War World: Four Future Scenarios, at http://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/personalwebpage/scenarios.html
Tuazon, B., Villegas, E., Africa, J.E., Quintos, P., Guillermo, R., Lamchek, J. and Licaros, E., UNMASKING THE WAR ON TERROR: U.S. Imperialist Hegemony and Crisis, Philippines: Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies, 2002
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Great Power, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Power in International Relations, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_in_International_Relations
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Superpower, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower