The United States, the United Nations, and Collective Security: Exploring the Deep Sources of American Conduct

  • Stewart Patrick
Part of the Asia Today book series (ASIAT)


Analysts of US policy toward the United Nations confront an immediate paradox. No country has a greater claim to paternity of the world’s premier collective security organization, has invested more resources in it, or has sought so frequently to marshal its coercive capabilities to defend international peace. And yet, few nations have harbored as many misgivings about the UN’s global role or sought so vigorously to defend themselves from perceived UN incursions on their own prerogatives.


Foreign Policy Security Council World Order Bush Administration African Union 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Byron Shafer, ed., Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionaiism, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 49–51Google Scholar
  2. Robert Dallek, The American Style of Foreign Policy: Cultural Politics and Foreign Affairs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), xiv.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    James G. March and John P. Olsen, “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn 1998): 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer 1998): 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Peter J. Katzenstein, “Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1955), 6Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Jeremy A. Rabkin, The Case for Sovereignty: Why the World Should Welcome American Independence (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Robert H. Jackson, “The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization: Normative Change in International Relations,” in Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, ed., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 112.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Great powers have often embraced new grand strategies in response to calamity, when existing belief structures no longer provide credible guidance. Jeffrey W. Legro, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Stewart Patrick, The Best Laid Plans: The Origins of American Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    The 1940s offers an example. During transatlantic negotiations over US global and financial matters, John Maynard Keynes reminded his British colleagues, “One can take nothing whatever for settled in the U.S.A.” Whereas UK negotiators could make binding commitments for Britain, whatever US executive branch officials promise “can and does bind no one,” since Congress would have the last word. Cited in Randall Bennett Woods, A Changing of the Guard: Anglo-American Relations, 1941–1946 (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1990), 55–56.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Cited in Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2002), p. 165.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    David C. Hendrickson, Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Daniel H. Deudney, “The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control and the Balance of Power in the American States-Union, Circa 1787–1861,” International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring 1995): 191–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    David M. Fitzsimmons, “Tom Paine’s New World Order: Idealistic internationalism in the Ideology of Early American Foreign Relations,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 19 (1995): 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cited in Niko Krisch, “Weak as Constraint, Strong as Tool: The Place of International Law in U.S. Foreign Policy,” in David M. Malone and Yuen Foong Khong, ed., Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2003), 44.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World New York: Century Foundation/Alfred A. Knopf, 2001).Google Scholar
  18. Daniel Boorstin, The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 228.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    John Quincy Adams cited in Walter MacDougal, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 36.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Cited in Edward Weisband, The Ideology of American Foreign Policy: A Paradigm of Lockian Liberalism (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973)., 29–30.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    John Milton Cooper, Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 18.Google Scholar
  22. Edward C. Luck, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization 1919–1999 (New York: Century Foundation, 1999), 62–63Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robert S. McNamara and James G. Blight, Wilson’s Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century (New York: Public Affairs, 2001)Google Scholar
  24. Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Year’s Crisis: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Palgrave, 2001).Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Cited in Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 266.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Kathleen Burk, “Economic Diplomacy between the Wars,” Historical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1981): 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 29.
    Lisa L. Martin, “The Rational State Choice of Multilateralism,” in John Gerard Ruggie, ed., Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    G. John Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order,” International Security Vol. 23, No. 3, (Winter 1999): 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 32.
    John Gerard Ruggie, “The Past as Prologue: Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy,” International Security, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Spring 1997): 89–125.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    Anton DePorte, Europe Between the Superpowers: The Enduring Balance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 80.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    Jeffrey Legro, “Whence American Internationalism,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Spring 2000): 253–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 40.
    Robert C. Hildebrand, Dumbarton Oaks: The Origins of the United Nations and the Search for Postwar Security (Chapel Hill, University of North Car olio na Press, 1990), 16.Google Scholar
  33. 41.
    Harley Notter, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1950), 112Google Scholar
  34. Warren Kimball, The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 96Google Scholar
  35. Cordell Hull, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (New York: Macmillam, 1948), Vol. 2, 1643–1646.Google Scholar
  36. 43.
    Robert A. Divine, Second Chance: The Triumph of Liberal Internationalism in America During World War II (New York: Atheneum, 1967), 63–73Google Scholar
  37. 44.
    Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, FDR and the Creation of the UN (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 168–169.Google Scholar
  38. 48.
    Hull, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, 1170, 1452; John Lewis Gaddis, “The United States and the Question of a Sphere of Influence in Europe, 1945–1949,” in Olav Riste, ed., Atlantic Security: The Formative Years (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1985), 63.Google Scholar
  39. 57.
    William Reizel, Morton A. Kaplan, and Constance G. Coblenz, United States foreign Policy 1945–1955 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institutino, 1956), 244–245.Google Scholar
  40. Arnold Wolfers, “Collective Defense versus Collective Security,” in Arnold Wolfers, ed., Alliance Politics in the cold War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1959), 59.Google Scholar
  41. 59.
    George F. Kennan, Memoirs 1925–1950 (London: Hutchinson, 1967), 407–409.Google Scholar
  42. 69.
    Ruth Wedgwood, “Unilateral Action in a Multilateral World,” in Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, eds., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002), 167–190.Google Scholar
  43. 71.
    Adam Garfinkle, “Alone in a Crowd,” The American Interest, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Spring 2006): 132–140.Google Scholar
  44. 73.
    This section draws on Stewart Patrick, “‘The Mission Determines the Coalition’: The United States and Multilateral Cooperation after 9/11,” in Bruce D. Jones, Shepard Forman, and Richard Gowan, eds., Cooperating for Peace and Security: Evolving Institutions and Arrangements in a Context of Changing U.S. Security Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 20–44.Google Scholar
  45. 78.
    Stewart Patrick, “Multilateralism and Its Discontents: The Causes and Consequences of U.S. Ambivalence,” in Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, eds., Multilateralism and U.S. foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002), pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  46. 81.
    John R. Bolton and John Yoo, “Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power,” New York Times, January 4, 2009; John Fonte, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? (New York: Encounter Books, 2011).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© G. John Ikenberry, Wang Jisi, and Zhu Feng 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stewart Patrick

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations