Recent Trends in the Study of the International System since the End of the Cold War

A review of international relations literature concerning the analysis of the international system since the post-Cold War period shows a general consensus on the significance and profound impact of the end of that war on the evolution of the international system. It has propelled us into a historical phase termed the “new international order,” indicating a clear trajectory of transformations and rapid developments. This phase is marked by a growing awareness of its fluidity and the pressing need for the stability of this system, as well as efforts to clarify its dimensions and characteristics. However, a thorough review of the literature also reveals that this agreement on the nature of this phase has not yet reached the level of consensus or majority agreement about the dimensions and impact of these developments on the structural aspects of the international system, alongside its mechanisms, issues, and areas of interest.

Moreover, the analytical dimensions become increasingly complex and intertwined when events of September 11, 2001, are added to the framework, illustrating their significant influence on the international system. The aftermath of these events has notably provided a substantial momentum to this system, which, by comparison to the conditions preceding these events, has not only been able to consolidate its foundations but has also entered a dynamic phase toward clarifying its characteristics and finalizing its structures and dimensions with greater precision and clarity.

This study aims first to monitor and analyze the intellectual trends within the literature of the new international system during the period from the end of the Cold War up to the late 1990s. The second objective is to diagnose the current reality of the international system: its actors, issues, and its future scenarios. The term “intellectual trends” in this study refers to the totality of ideas, perceptions, and visions contained within the literature concerning developments in the international system over the extended timeframe. Accordingly, the study is divided into four sections: the first, titled “The New International System: Emergence and Characteristics,” sheds light on the various streams defining the new international system. The second section focuses on the actors and roles within the framework of the new international system. While the most prominent issues and controversies concerning the new international system are studied in the third section, the fourth section addresses the events of September 11, 2001, and outlines their implications for the international system. Finally, the conclusion presents the findings of the study, followed by a list of sources and references used.

In seeking to identify the most prominent theoretical trends in studying the international system in the post-Cold War period, the study relies primarily on the internet, which has surpassed hundreds of studies and reports. These were categorized and selected based on scientific and objective criteria, in addition to representing the study period.

Section One: The New International System: Emergence and Characteristics

1. The New International System: Concept and Emergence
In general terms, the term “new international system” is used to refer to the outcomes of developments that have occurred in the structure and interests of the international system following the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the transition from a bipolar system to a new system that is still, as described by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, “a system searching for identity.” The definitions of this system vary widely, with some viewing it as a “unipolar hegemonic system,” others acknowledging it as a “multipolar system,” while a third perspective acknowledges that it is “still in a state of formation.” Regardless, its most significant characteristic remains the rise of the United States as the sole superpower dominating the structure of the post-Cold War world.

Given the diversity in the political literature regarding the emergence of the new international system and the definition of its components and characteristics, three general streams can be distinguished: the first asserts that a new international system exists, the second argues there is no new international system but a multipolarity within the existing system that has been in place since the end of World War II, and the third believes there have been radical changes in the international system, yet it remains in a state of formation, with its foundations and characteristics not yet solidified. Each stream can be summarized as follows:

First Stream: The New International System
Proponents strongly assert the existence of a unipolar international system dominated by the United States without competition or challenge. This position is backed by support from its Western allies and the U.S. military’s capacity to decisively resolve any conflict it chooses to engage in while fulfilling its responsibilities for maintaining international stability and guiding global movement toward democracy. This viewpoint is grounded in the belief that the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed the U.S. to ascend to the status of the sole superpower, becoming the focus of global power capable of mobilizing its resources to fulfill its responsibilities in organizing and managing international affairs without significant challenges from other global powers. Furthermore, the triumph of liberal ideology during the Cold War enhances the U.S.’s capabilities, solidifying its image as the “dominant pole” and providing it additional appeal through the “attractiveness of state ideas,” indicating its ability to exert cultural and ideological influence over other units within the system.

Accordingly, the term “new international system” is used to encapsulate the comprehensive developments in the power dynamics of the bipolar system that lasted from the end of World War II until the end of the Cold War, which culminated in the victory of the Western bloc in the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the rise of the U.S. as the sole dominant pole in international affairs. This has led to significant repercussions, including reinforcing the role of the United Nations as a representation of international legitimacy, intensifying polarization between the Global North and South, elevating economic issues on the international agenda, shifting the nature of international problems and challenges to new areas like the environment, drugs, and organized crime—challenges that necessitate distinctive patterns of international coordination and cooperation, and increasing tendencies towards forming regional blocs and major economic entities, alongside rising global concern with democratic transitions.

According to this stream, the initiation of this new international system is linked to the Gulf Crisis of 1991-1992, where its components were initially characterized by U.S. President George H.W. Bush and his administration, who aimed to establish the foundations of this system as a framework within which international relationships and interactions would be organized and guided by its principles from that time onward.

Thus, the emergence of the term at that time coincided with the intense outrage that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and its association with the Gulf War, with United Nations decisions to act collectively, and the war against Iraqi aggression, which has continued to exert its influence and attract the attention of scholars interested in describing the post-Cold War world.

The U.S. view of its role and responsibilities in international leadership was expressed by President George H.W. Bush in his speech at the Montgomery Air Force Base in Alabama on April 13, 1992, emphasizing “the recognition of responsibilities that the United States was compelled to assume due to its major successes, such as ending the Cold War, the victory of liberalism, liberating Kuwait, and removing Iraq from it…”

In light of this, the increasing media momentum that followed Kuwait’s liberation linked this concept to a series of terms and slogans aimed at emphasizing the “new” label and deepening its connection in the minds of listeners, viewers, and readers to the fall of the totalitarian ideology and the triumph of liberalism, the rise of political pluralism, and the importance of knowledge and the role of communication and information technologies.

Furthermore, this elevation of the U.S. status and its ascension to the position of leading state in this system, while assuming responsibilities for leadership and commitment to applying international law and maintaining international stability and order, ideally occurred under the auspices of the United Nations and utilized its peaceful mechanisms based on persuasion and mediation, among other means. Additionally, in the event of lawbreakers and aggressors, the leadership of the international community might have to resort to measures ensuring deterrence compellence, meaning the use of force to compel some actors to stop certain actions and behave in a manner conducive to achieving peace and restoring law and order, deterring and stopping war and aggression, conserving and aiding civilians, and protecting human rights.

Second Stream: Transition from Bipolarity to Multipolarity
Supporters of this stream argue, contrary to the previous one, that the changes in the structure of the international system resulting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not lead to the establishment of a new international system. Instead, they represent a transition to a state of “multipolarity,” not a “unipolar system,” which differs from the type of multipolarity that existed during the 19th century. The logic behind this view draws strength from the limitations of unipolarity. On the one hand, while the U.S. enjoys military superiority, enabling it to become the world’s foremost power, reliance solely on that power is not sufficient—due to the constraints facing military power in directing international interactions—to allow the U.S. to meet its responsibilities in leading the international system. There are also limitations faced by the use of military force due to the ongoing trend of increasing interdependence in international relations, which itself constitutes a constraint on the potential and scope of U.S. military power.

Moreover, a review of the elements of power within the U.S., Europe, and Japan, as the main units of power in the international system, reveals that none individually possess a monopoly of strength in all elements of power, which leads some to characterize this international system as “a system devoid of a major power class.” Additionally, the nature and scale of the economic challenges faced by the U.S., compared to other Western powers, contribute to diminishing the economic component of U.S. power.

In light of this, proponents of the “multipolarity” trend conclude that the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union have transitioned the international system into a state of multipolarity more than unipolarity, supporting their view with realistic and logical considerations. Contemporary historical experience highlights the difficulty for a singular power to impose its will universally without the support of other international powers. Secondly, the theoretical constraints and practical limitations that thwart U.S. desire limit its ability to shoulder the burdens and responsibilities of unilateral leadership in the new international system, indicating its lack of credibility when claiming to be the sole power in the post-Cold War international system.

Thirdly, the experience of the Gulf Crisis, associated with the emergence of the new international system led by America, reveals a vital deduction regarding the limitations that Europe faced, despite its possession of many sources and elements of international strength, in having a unified foreign policy and will, thereby rendering it incapable of independently assuming leadership in the new international system. Fourth, Japan’s lack of effective military strength and limited, if non-existent, cultural, ideological, and political presence underscores Japan’s incapacity to fulfill the responsibilities of international leadership despite its economic supremacy.

Thus, the plural nature of international power after the Cold War (the U.S., Europe, and Japan) is virtually confirmed, as none of them can independently fulfill this responsibility. The developments from the Gulf Crisis during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait have repeatedly substantiated this perspective: the leadership and role attributed to the U.S. in this crisis would hardly have been realized elsewhere without the model of Saddam, nor in the absence of support from its European allies. Additionally, Europe, with its variety of responses and differing policies during the crisis, cannot alone assume responsibility for international leadership in the absence of unified European political will on one hand or effective proactive U.S. involvement during the crisis on the other.

Third Stream: New International System in a Transitional Phase
As mentioned before, while the third stream believes that fundamental changes have occurred in the international system through a transitional process, it sees the new international system still in the phase of formation, with its foundations and characteristics not sufficiently clarified into an integrated system marked by solid principles. Therefore, it is premature to refer to the new international system in a scientific and precise sense, as it remains in the transition phase; making selections from the legacy of the bipolar system and augmenting it while striving to solidify its form and structure, and articulate its rules and self-initiatives as a new international system, fulfilling the nuances needed to express it in final form, and crystallizing its rules in a robust expression to meet the stability prerequisites of the system.

This view derives its logic from comparing the new international system with its predecessors: namely the balance of power system and the bipolar system. This comparison reveals that the new international system significantly represents a cognitive or intellectual rupture with its predecessors, as it is not a system of balance of power as during the 19th and 20th centuries, nor a bipolar system as was typical during the Cold War. Nevertheless, the new international system has yet to stabilize or devise a cohesive or integrative theory or epistemological system with coherent sets of principles and objectives that garner public acceptance and serve as a basis for structuring its architecture and establishing the foundations of its legitimacy as a new international order.

In this direction, Donna Hu calls attention to the two intellectual transitions the world has witnessed over the past sixty years: the first transition from the World War II paradigm to that of the Cold War and from a balance of power system to a bipolar international system, where competition raged to determine which peace prevailed: Pax Sovietica or Pax Americana. The world has seen multiple models lacking order and integration; once bitter enemies become allies, while former allies turn into enemies; mutual assured destruction has evolved into a credible means of preventing local wars, but did not cease to prevent them entirely. Thus, the world existed under a balance of “global terror” supporting “peaceful coexistence.”

The second intellectual transition occurred with the end of the Cold War and its prevailing paradigm, where sets of accepted principles collapsed as points of reference for states, notably the U.S. and Soviet Union, in interacting with the world for that era. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was natural that the national security interests associated with the ideological struggle between the two superpowers changed profoundly. Policies such as containment and national liberation wars became neglected and casual among priorities, similar to the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Brezhnev doctrines. Similarly, the terms First World, Second World, and Third World lost their cohesion, alliances such as the Warsaw Pact and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization disappeared, and the disorganization and confusion intensity heightened, especially following the events of September 11, 2001.

Thus, the fact remains that the contemporary international system needs to build a comprehensive and acceptable model to assist in understanding transformations and changes in international politics. From here, the importance of the events of September 11, 2001, as a driving force toward a new acceptance of the international order needs to be emphasized.

In short, the international system concept gains its significance partly from its relationship with great transformations represented by new global phenomena and challenges. There is also a diversity of intellectual streams aimed at explaining the causes and results of these transformations, whether they relate to continuity or discontinuity with the bipolar system that existed since World War II. Does a genuinely new international order exist, or is it merely a transitional phase following the Soviet Union’s collapse and the end of the Cold War?

This new system’s quality of “newness” derives from its distinct characteristics compared to the previous bipolar structure and the Cold War era, not merely from the voluntary participation of all states. Additionally, this “newness” also emanates from the leading and dominating role of the U.S. in shaping its rules and structural designs, significantly guided by global American interests, followed, perhaps in stages, by service to wider Western interests.

Section Two: The New International System: Actors and Roles

As previously noted, the new international system has gained its essence and characteristics amid the rising leadership role of the U.S. and its military supremacy over other forces within the system. This has established its nature as a unipolar system, clearly indicating not only the status of the U.S. but also emphasizing the importance of its military power and its centrality to the structure of the new international system, necessary for its success and ability to enforce obligations and deter violators of international law, much like during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

However, the capacity of the U.S. to fulfill its responsibilities within the system remains contingent on its willingness to provide the necessary support and cooperation of its partners, and on its ability to positively engage with the major inherent issues and controversies that lie ahead for both the U.S. and its key partners in this new international system. Among the significant challenges are determining roles and responsibilities in leading the international system alongside its partners, establishing rules and standards for managing the system, and agreeing on its operation mechanisms in addition to reliance on force, as it cannot solely depend on it to guarantee its persistence and advance its trajectory.

1. The United States and the Hegemonic Model
This refers to the steady and organized ascent of the U.S. to the status of the sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union, taking advantage of this collapse to highlight the global advantages and uniqueness of American power. The U.S. energetically promotes what is considered a resounding victory for capitalism and liberal thought over the defeat of the Soviet Union while being the largest economy in the world after Japan, boasting the largest elite in finance, business, and significant multinational corporations.

The U.S. remains characterized by possessing the most formidable military strength by all measures, which has solidified its status and role as a global military presence. This military power, in its wide-reaching global dominance, has stimulated numerous studies and analyses contrasting it with other similar powers, emerging as a distinctive global “imperial” governance. The foundation of this vision is rooted in various sources of military strength: 1) the victorious ideology; 2) an inflated sense of threat; 3) a self-sustaining military-industrial complex bolstered by a robust military elite.

However, the risks and repercussions of this dominance for the U.S. must be considered. Ikenberry highlights the dangers posed by the emergent nature of U.S. military power, evidenced by the ascendancy of the Pentagon as one of the primary actors in shaping foreign policy, at times rivaling the role of the State Department. Additionally, there are risks to the integrity of the liberal American model due to increasing patterns of imperial force that encompass 1) a potential erosion of democracy; 2) a bankrupting of the American nation; 3) igniting international opposition to U.S. policies, which may eventually lead to a collapse similar to that which the Soviets experienced.

The nature or manifestation of American military imperialism centers around the international force concept, characterized by the U.S. treaty commitments to collective defenses and the provision of military advisors and actions executed within the context of legally mandated interventions that address threats—often exaggerated or poorly identified.

This structure has created a network of satellite states, independent nations whose interests converge around an imperial entity, whether during the Cold War with the Soviet Union or presently with the U.S. The diversity of connections among these nations reflects efforts to enhance their roles through perpetual military presence in their territories without resorting to land acquisition.

2. The European Union and NATO: Restructuring Institutional Relationships
The end of the Cold War necessitated a reevaluation of both the European Community at the time and later the European Union, along with NATO, regarding their common strategies in light of the new global dynamics. By the end of the Cold War (1989-1991), many Europeans were favorable to accepting a hopeful dawn of a new world order following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, given the widespread threats and burdens resulting from those developments across the European continent.

The dissolution of this Soviet threat left NATO facing mounting pressure to legitimize its continued existence amid expectations for a new world order and the anticipated peace after the Soviet collapse.

This led both organizations to begin from a markedly different intellectual and political starting point as they confronted the post-Cold War reality. Historical relations had witnessed a lack of communication between the European Community and NATO, with occasional reports arising during the 1990s of informal meetings in Brussels. By December 1999, it was agreed at the European Council summit in Helsinki that the EU would work to establish communication mechanisms with NATO, linked to decisions aimed at enhancing the EU’s independent military capabilities to deploy forces for peacekeeping and related missions.

This opened the door to increased cooperation in various initiatives and policies toward peacekeeping, reconstruction, democratic expansion, and incorporating Balkan countries into the EU framework. The appointment of Javier Solana, then Secretary-General of NATO, as the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security in June 1999 was a further step in developing a strong relationship between the EU and NATO. Both entities had been on the same page, especially amid the backdrop of the challenges posed by the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, yet recognized their diverging stability goals.

As a result, the attention to soft security connects the dots between ensuring stability and cooperation between different nations while addressing diverse social, economic, and political concerns across Europe, moving beyond mere military capacity to achieve European integration.

3. The United Nations: International Legitimacy and Collective Action
Although the UN’s operations experienced noticeable declines since the mid-1990s, leading to a decrease in its popularity, literature surrounding the UN has continued to proliferate, reflecting the sustained interest in active international cooperation and the implications for this organization to comply with its mandates within the new international framework. This reflects broad critiques of how the UN’s traditional roles have evolved, especially in the enforcement of international law and military force, the encouragement of peaceful dispute resolution, and enhancing democracy and cultures of peace.

Emerging from the end of the Cold War is the pressing need for the UN to adapt and to play a revitalized role within this context, particularly concerning two specific areas beyond its known traditional functions: military force applications in the international and world community contexts, and addressing collective global issues that transcend state sovereignty, such as human rights and environmental concerns.

Efforts to revive the UN’s role highlight its importance as a significant actor in this system, emphasized through collective representation and embodying international will, focusing on the legitimacy of its operations under the international legal framework. More specifically, the UN has aimed to enhance its role amid the rise of the global challenges of terrorism, soft power diplomacy led by the U.S., and the obligations outlined by the international community to address systemic disparities.

In regard to humanitarian interventions, issues have arisen regarding the UN’s peacekeeping forces, which have faced increasing difficulties in performing their mandates amid weak consensus on their presence in conflict zones, such as in Somalia and Bosnia. The need to assess how and when to employ force for self-protection, to avert preventing violence, or even taking action on behalf of humanitarian efforts illustrates the complexity of operationalizing their mandate in turbulent settings.

The UN’s peacekeeping efforts have also evolved substantially. For instance, in 1999, the UN took responsibility for enforcing law and order in Kosovo and East Timor, marking the first instance of civilian police fulfilling law enforcement duties under a UN resolution, tasked with regulating everything from traffic violations to criminal investigations.

On the subject of human rights, the UN remains dedicated to promoting these principles as a priority since the early phases of the new international order. The shift towards human security emphasizes a growing recognition of individual rights within state sovereignty, leading to cultural interdependence that respects plurality—advocating for international human rights, civil society, and diversity amid rising global citizenship.

In conclusion, the UN remains a crucial avenue through which the international community may collectively work to navigate the evolving global landscape, and its health is vital for reinforcing efforts toward establishing long-term solutions to central issues of international integrity and global peace promotion.

Section Three: The New International System: Issues and Problems

At a general level, the examination of issues captured within the framework of the new international system reveals the diversity and complexity of these fields. Often tied to overarching interests, the priorities set forth are influenced, among other factors, by domestic political issues, such as the war against terrorism and military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq—concerns which continue to guide American foreign policy and strategy.

While recognizing the significance and gravity of these matters, certain prominent issues emerge that represent shared concerns for the new international system, reflecting the American-European partnership while simultaneously advocating global investment agendas.

1. The United States and Challenges of International Leadership
The challenge of addressing competition between the American and European leadership ideologies emerges as a critical factor relative to the U.S.’s prominence following the Cold War. This friction ignites resistance from certain European parties that view the U.S.’s status as an American empire skeptically, rooted in its post-Cold War hegemonic activities.

Rising tensions around American imperialism yield divergent opinions among U.S. circles. While some, mainly neoconservatives, herald its benefits as a leader in promoting democracy and thwarting tyranny, critics point to rising expenses matched against greater social unrest and infrastructural concerns due to overextended military engagements.

The tension between the U.S. and Europe often reflects deeper ideological discrepancies over the nature of leadership, prompting critical reflection on fostering interdependence alongside distinct national imperatives.

With the advent of the European bloc’s competitive innovations in international politics, Europe has sought to chart its course while retaining its commercial and strategic autonomy.

2. The Cultural Dimension: International Culture and the New Global Order
The issue of cultural interaction holds distinct significance within the new international system, as it aims to spread and embed liberal values politically and economically, specifically American values. Thus, cultural exchange among nations—including learning from each culture—resembles a notable aspect of human civilization, but disparity in cultural power can distort fair exchanges.

The emergence of globalization carries fears of cultural homogenization, portraying the American way of life as a cultural imperialism emerging amid multi-faceted marketing strategies. This dynamic has universal implications, spurring inter-ethnic and nationalist movements that highlight regional identities and catalyze future conflicts.

Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory has echoed through contemporary reasoning about global geopolitics, asserting an ongoing contradiction in international policy-making reflecting civilizational disagreements rather than ideological discontent.

3. Threats and Risks for the International System
From the perspective of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the challenges facing the new international system emerge from a confluence of terrorism, crime, and the proliferation of weapons, where the erosion of state control exacerbates societal instability. The notion of “superterrorism” asserts the daunting capabilities that disrupt global order and necessitate heightened awareness in safeguarding international norms.

Moreover, as the new system navigates through governance challenges, a growing awareness prompts inquiries into the complementary nature of institutions that may counteract external forces, thereby reinforcing their mandates amid increasing pressures for cooperation against crime and terrorism.

Additionally, how artworks, narratives, and differences frame international issues emphasizes the multifaceted challenges associated with promoting democratic ideals while contending with competitive rivalries over leadership and influence on the global stage.

Conclusively, it is evident that the intricacies of the new international system must be contextualized through multiple lenses, balancing thoughts and understanding centered around unity and the diverse challenges posed by varying interests among global citizens.

Conclusion: The International System and Future Possibilities

In light of the discussion, the study of the new international system reveals its profound complexity and the interplay of its components and dimensions. This discourse has captured the sustained focus of researchers expressed through a continuous influx of literature, spotlighting its challenges.

Although there remains no universally accepted definition regarding the nature of the current international system, the anticipatory nature of upcoming developments will likely be anchored in technological advancements, international information systems, and communication channels.

Prominent outcomes arising from the evolution of the new international system accentuate emerging negative implications concerning sovereignty, concurrently reducing states’ capacities to exercise their sovereignty in the face of obligations from the international community to combat terrorism, protect human rights, and promote democracy—all under the pretext of humanitarian intervention.

Thus, it is apparent that the dissolution of bipolarity did not provoke the waves of instability predicted by realism proponents. Conversely, it largely produced a peaceable international order even amid regional tensions. These observations indicate that enduring international frameworks must adapt in response to emergent crises while continuously supporting the renewed focus on collective security.

The future structure of this international system will likely manifest as a unipolar hegemony, dominated by the U.S. until new powers emerge, such as China. Moreover, this scenario necessitates a thorough examination of alliances and conflicts that will shape relationships in a diversifying global order.

Finally, the discourse surrounding statehood underscores the complexities introduced by globalization and the potential for increasingly decentralized sociopolitical identities to emerge as traditional entities struggle to reconcile with evolving market economies. Henceforth, understanding these dynamics will be pivotal in framing further studies of the international system and its future trajectory.

References

“After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World” by James M. Goldgeier and Michael McFaul

“The Post-Cold War World: Turbulence and Change in World Politics since the Fall” by Michael Cox

“Globalization and the Post-Cold War Order” by David Held and Anthony McGrew

“International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War” by Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen

“Power and International Relations: Essays in Honour of David A. Baldwin” by David A. Baldwin

“American Grand Strategy after the Cold War” by Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Coté Jr., and Sean M. Lynn-Jones

“The Return of Geopolitics in the 21st Century” by Colin S. Gray

“Global Politics in a Changing World” by Richard W. Mansbach and Kirsten L. Taylor

“The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John Mearsheimer

“International Relations Since the End of the Cold War: New and Old Dimensions” by Geir Lundestad

“Post-Cold War Security Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region” by Colin McInnes and Mark Rolls

“The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations” by John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens

“New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the Post-Cold War Era” by Timothy Garton Ash

“Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security” by Mark Duffield

“The End of American World Order” by Amitav Acharya

“World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions” by Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz

“International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond” by Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi

“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000” by Paul Kennedy

“The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations” by E.H. Carr (includes post-Cold War analysis in newer editions)

“The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” by Samuel P. Huntington

“The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World” by Scott L. Montgomery and Daniel Chirot

“Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

“The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy” by Edward N. Luttwak

“American Power and the Prospects for International Order” by Simon Bromley

“The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War” by John Lewis Gaddis