The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: Regaining International Consent

{
  "authors": [
    "Kevin Slaten"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Iraq",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: Regaining International Consent

Through various policies of the Bush administration, the United States lost a considerable amount of international authority. Amidst a system of rising powers, this could have grave consequences for global stability. However, the future depends on the Obama administration’s efforts to regain American authority.

By Kevin Slaten

Published on Mar 15, 2009

Source: The Journal of Politics & International Affairs

The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: Regaining InternatioAfter September 11, the Bush administration chose to confront contemporary threats to national and global security—terrorism, rogue regimes, drug trafficking, and WMDs—with a Bush Doctrine that left little room for negotiation. Moreover, in March of 2003, the U.S., without United Nations approval, invaded and proceeded to occupy Iraq. In June of 2006, America’s closest ally, Great Britain, had a public that only held a 56% favorable opinion of the U.S. while other western states held far lower opinions – 39, 27, 23, and 43% for France, Germany, Spain, and Russia, respectively. Through its actions and attitudes, the United States has lost a large amount international consent.

This essay argues that during the Clinton administration, the U.S. possessed a significant amount of authority over most NATO countries – enough authority that America lead hegemony among those states – and those states consented to American actions in international relations. Additionally, the study shows that this authority declined significantly due to policy changes during the Bush administration.

In hegemony, the hegemon – the United States – and its subordinates are endowed with certain role expectations; expectations that are held by subordinates that consent to the hegemon’s authority and, likewise, expectations that are projected by the hegemon onto subordinates. The more that subordinate states conform to role expectations, the stronger the hegemony. Two methodologies are used to measure the role conformity among various states during the 1990’s and 2000’s. The first method uses United Nations General Assembly voting data to compare the voting record of the U.S. against other states and groups of states. Voting similarly to the United States is a subordinate role expectation, so the more a state votes with America, the more that state is conforming to the subordinate role expectation. The second method looks at cross-national attitude surveys, which reflect various public’s consent for and perception of American authority; strong consent for and positive perception of American authority is expected in the case of hegemony. As mentioned, attitudes have recently taken a large unfavorable downturn for the United States among NATO nations.

After examining the results of both of these measures, some possible outcomes of a system of declining hegemony are discussed from differing theoretical perspectives. The essay concludes with a normative argument pertaining to what the United States’ policy ought to be amidst a system of declining hegemony. Ultimately, the interests of America as well as the global community are best served by a policy that seeks to regain international consent.

The author's views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Carnegie Endowment.

About the Author

Kevin Slaten

Former Junior Fellow, China Program

Security Military Foreign Policy North America United States Iraq East Asia China

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Paper
Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of Force
Assessing U.S. compliance with the international laws of war is essential at a time when these frameworks are already fraying.
Federica D’Alessandra
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
Commentary
Diwan
Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
Commentary
Emissary
The Xi Doctrine Zeros in on “High-Quality Development” for China’s Economic Future
In the latest Five-Year Plan, the Chinese president cements the shift to an innovation-driven economy over a consumption-driven one.
Damien Ma
Article
Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic Reality
Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.
Ryo Sahashi

The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: Regaining International Consent

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) oversees "Operation Epic Fury" with (L-R) Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles at Mar-a-Lago on February 28, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump announced today that the United States and Israel had launched strikes on Iran targeting political and military leaders, as well as Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. (Photo by Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Images)

Paper

Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of Force

Assessing U.S. compliance with the international laws of war is essential at a time when these frameworks are already fraying.

Federica D’Alessandra

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

Vladimir Solovyov

Commentary

Diwan

Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy

In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.

Michael Young

Xi walking into a room with people standing and applauding around him

Commentary

Emissary

The Xi Doctrine Zeros in on “High-Quality Development” for China’s Economic Future

In the latest Five-Year Plan, the Chinese president cements the shift to an innovation-driven economy over a consumption-driven one.

Damien Ma

apan's 8,900-ton Maritime Self-Defense Force supply ship Oosumi leaves Muroran port escorted by the 4,550-ton destroyer Murasame bound for Kuwait February 20, 2004 in Muroran, Japan.

Article

Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic Reality

Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.

Ryo Sahashi