21 *1)

.


.
911
21
.
21
.
,
.
. ,
.
. 21 , ,
.

21 .
: , , , ,

* 2003 .

54 23 1

.


.


.1)
911
21
.2)


.3)

. 3

.
.

.

1) Michael Mastanduno, Preserving the Unipolar Moment, International Security, vol.21,

no.4 (Spring 1997), p.55.
2) William C. Wohlforth, The Stability of a Unipolar World, International Security,
vol.24, no.1 (Summer 1999), pp.5-41; Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth,
American Primacy in Perspective, Foreign Affairs, vol.81, no.4 (July / August 2002),
pp.20-33.
3) John Louis Gaddis, The Emergence of Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the
Cold War, Diplomatic History, vol.7, no.3 (Summer 1983), pp.181-3; John Louis
Gaddis, We Now Know (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p.27; Geir
Lundestad, The American Empire and Other Studies of US Foreign Policy in a
Comparative Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.54-61.

 55

.


.4)

. , ,
.


.

. , ,
.

.5)
.

(Michael Mann) .6) (Emmanuel

Todd)

4) Barnett R. Rubin, eds., Post-Soviet Political Order: Conflict and

State Building (New York: Routledge, 1998); Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen,
After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building (Boulder: Westview Press,
1997); Alexander J. Motyl, Revolutions, Nations, Empires: Conceptual Limits and
Theoretical Possibilities (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Alexander J.
Motyl, Imperial Ends: the Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2001); Dominic Lieven, Empire: The Russian Empire and
its Rivals (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) .
5) Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the
American Order, C. Jon Delogu, trans. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003);
Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire (London: Verso, 2003); Chalmers Johnson, The
Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York:
Metropolitan Books, 2004); G. John Ikenberry, Illusions of Empire, Foreign Affairs,
vol.83, no.2 (March / April 2004), p.144-54) .
6) Mann(2003), p.13.

56 23 1

.7)


.8)
.9)

.

.
. 21
.

.

.
. 21
.

, .

.

7) Todd(2003), pp.101-122.
8) Charles, S. Maier, An American Empire? Harvard Magazine (November / December
2002), p.28; Michael Walzer, Is There an American Empire? Dissent (Fall 2003),
p.28; Jack Snyder, Imperial Temptation, National Interest (Spring 2003), p.29; G.
John Ikenberry, America's Imperial Ambition, Foreign Affairs, vol.81, no.5
(September / October 2002), p.44; Dimitri K. Simes, America's Imperial Dilemma,
Foreign Affairs, vol.82, no.6 (November / December 2003), p.93; Philip Zelikow, The
Transformation of National Security: Five Redefinitions, National Interest (Spring
2003), p.19.
9) , ,
(2005 5 26) .

 57

.
.10)

.11)
21
.
,
.
. ,
.
. 21 , ,
.

21 .
.

.
(empire) (imperium)
.12) .

. .

10) Eliot A. Cohen, History and the Hyperpower, Foreign Affairs, vol.83, no.4 (JulyAugust 2004), p.55.
11) Alexander Motyl, Thinking About Empire, in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen,
After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building, pp.19-20.
12) David Armitage, Literature and Empire, The
Origins of Empire, Nicholas Canny, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001),
pp.103-4; , (: , 2000), pp.15-6; Lieven, Empire,
pp.8-10; , , , 108 3 (1999),
pp.47-51; , , , (, 2003),
pp.31-50.

58 23 1

.13)


.
.
.
.
.
() (empire)
.14)
19 19
. ()
()
. () ()
.15)

() ()
.16) () 30
()

.17)


.

.18)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)

(1999), p.49.
(1999), p.39.
(2003), p.38.
(2003), p.40.
(president) () ()
() (democracy)
. Ibid., p.50 .

 59

.
.
.


.19)
(Michael Doyle)
.20)
()

.21)
. ()

() () .22)

.23)

.

.24)
18) Michael Doyle, Empires (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1986), p.45; Niall Ferguson, Colossus: the Price of America's Empire (New
York: Penguine, 2004), p.10-13; Gaddis(1997), p.27 .
19) Stephen Rosen, An Empire, if You Can Keep it, National Interest, no.71(Spring
2003), p.51.
20) Doyle(1986), p.40.
21) S. Ryan Johansson, National Size and International Power: A Demographic Perspective
on Hegemony, Two Hegemonies, Patrick Karl O'brien and Armand Clesse, eds.
(Aldershot, U.K.: Asghate, 2002), p.351, n. 1.
22) , , (: , 2002), p.25.
23) David Wilkinson, Unipolarity Without Hegemony, Review of International Studies,
vol.27, no.4 (2001), p.142.
24) , , , pp.18-9; Ferguson(2004), p.10; Niall
Ferguson, Hegemony or Empire? Foreign Affairs, vol.82, no.5 (September / October
2003), p.155.

60 23 1

.
.


. ,
.
.
. , ,
.

.
()
.25)
.

.26)

() .
.
. .


.27)
25) Motyl(1997), p.19: Lieven(2001), p.6; (2003), p.3.
26) Niall Ferguson, The United States Is, and Should be, an Empire, A New Atlantic
Initiative Debate, American Enterprise Institute, July 17, 2003.

 61

.
.
.
.
.28)

.
.

.

.
.29)
.
.
.30)

.
.
. 19

.


.

27) Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2000), pp.160-182.
28) Ibid., p.182.
29) Todd(2003), p.101.
30) William E. Odom, Understanding America's Empire(If It Really Has One), Brown
Journal of World Affairs, vol., no.1 (Summer / Fall 2004), p.207.

62 23 1

.31)
.

.
.

.32)

.

.

(John Quincy Adams)

.
.33)

.34) 1792
1778 .

.

.


.
.
31) Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harvest, 1991), p.268.
32) Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1962), p.74.
33) John Louis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2004), p.24.
34) Felix Gilbert, To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early
American Foreign Policy(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp.137-147 .

 63

.
.

.
2 . 1
1935 1937
.


.

2
.

, 1941 3 .
. ()

.
2
. .

.
. (Geir Ludenstad)

.
.
.
.


.

64 23 1

.
.


.35) , ,
.

.

.
.

.

.36)

. 21
.

.

.37)
.
.

.38)
35) Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of the Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987),
pp.35-37.
36) John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity (New York: Routledge, 1998),
p.107.
37) George F. Kennan, Memoirs, 1925-1950 (New York: Pantheon,1967), p.359.

 65

.

.

. (Susan Strange)
.

.39) .40)

2003, 2004 860, 702

.41)
(GPR) .

. (SOFA)
.

.
.
.
1992 2001 34%

.42)

. 2005 4000
50% .
2000 7% .43) 21
38) Robert Jervis, Stalin, An Incompetent Realist, National Interest (Winter 1997/98),
pp.85-6.
39) Johnson(2004), ch. 6.
40) Chalmers Johnson, Blowback (New York: Henry Hold, 2000), pp.34-64.
41) US Department of Defense, Base Structure Report, FY 2004 / 2003 Base Line,
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs (: 2004 12 1).
42) , ,
(2004 10 23) .

66 23 1

35% . (GDP)

2003, 2004, 2005 10 8 , 11 4 , 12

. 30%
26% .
3.5% .
7% . 21
.

.

()
. (Kenneth Waltz)

.44)

.

.

.
.45)

.
.
43) U. S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year
2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005 (: 2004 12 1).
44) Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGrowHill, 1979), p.204-9 . Kenneth W. Thompson, Schools of Thought
in International Relations(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), p.143
.
45) Doyle(1986), p.136.

 67

21 .

() .46)
17% 70% .47)

(liberal empire) . , ,

. 2003
9000 5000 .

.
, , (failed state)
.
.

. , ,
. 21
. (
) (Robert Cooper) (postmodern states), (modern

states), (premodern states) .48)

.

.
(cooperative empire)
.
.49)
46) William E. Odom and Robert Dujaric, America's Inadvertent Empire
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), ch. 2 .
47) William E. Odom and Robert Dujaric(2004), p.37.
48) Robert Cooper, The Post-Modern State, Reordering the World, Mark Leonard, ed.
Foreign Policy Center (March 2002), p.12.

68 23 1

21 .

. 21
.50)

.51) 911
2003 790 , 2004 870 , 2005 1050
.52) 911 3000
.
.
(Niall Ferguson)
(Wal-mart principle)
.53)
.

.

.
21
.54)
(Richard Haas)
49) Niall Ferguson, Empire (New York: Basic Books, 2002), p.367.
50) Doyle(1986), p.22-30 .
51) John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, The Imperialism of Free Trade, Economic
History Review, vol.VI, no.1 (1953), p.6.
. Jack
Snyder, Myths of Empires (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp.2-9.
52) Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Congress Approves $82 Billion for Wars,
Washington Post, May 11, 2005.
53) Ferguson(2003).
54)
.
. Zelikow(2003), p.20; Walzer(2003), p.28; Rosen(2003), p.52; Maier
(2002), p.30; Cohen(2004), p.61.

 69

.55) 911
.

. 21
. (weak state)

.
.

.

.56) 911

(Condolizza Rice) 60
.57)

. 1898

.

.

.


.

55) Richard Haas, Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities, Speech at

Georgetown University, January 14, 2003, http://www.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm
(: 2004 12 1).
56) White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington,
D.C.: White House, 2002), p.15.
57) Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), p.30.

70 23 1

.58)

.


.

.


.59)
.60)
.
.
.

.

.

.

.
.61)
58) Joseph S. Nye, Jr., U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq, Foreign Affairs, vol.82, no.4 (July /
Aug 2003), p.60.
59) President Bush's Speech at National Endowment of Democracy, November 6, 2003,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-3.html (: 2004.12.1).
60) Simes(2003), p.15; Gaddis(2004), pp.103-7.

 71

.62)
. 1 85%
.
.

.

.
.

.
.
.

.63) 911

.
.


. (apolarity)
.64)
.
.
.

61)
62)
63)
64)

, () (: , 1962), p.199.
, , , (, 2003), p.87.
Rosen(2003), p.60.
Ferguson(2004), pp.295-8; Charles Krauthammer, The Unipolar Moment, Foreign
Affairs, vol.70, no.1 (1990 / 91), p.32.

72 23 1

.
.

.

21 , ,
.
. , ,

.
.

.
.

.65)
.
.
. 6

. 6

.
1
. 6

.

65) Robert Jervis, The Compulsive Empire, Foreign Policy (July / August 2003), p.86.

 73

ABSTRACT

The Emergence of American Empire and its Impact on

International Politics

Youngho Kim / Sungshin Women's University

The end of the Cold War has brought about the end of the bipolar system between
the United States and the Soviet Union. The emergence of the unipolar system ignited
the debate among international relations theorists on what the characteristics of the
unipolar system are and how long American unipolarity will persist. The debate focused
on the potentiality of competing powers to explain the transition to multipolarity
rather than the imperial stature of the United States with unrivaled power. It is
confirmed that there does not exist any power to balance against the United States in
terms of intentions and capabilities. The 911 terror brought the American imperial
status in relief and led to lively discussion on the impact of American empire on
international political order.
This article seeks to trace back to the development of the concept of empire to lay a
theoretical foundation for the definition of empire. The concept appeared for the first
time in Rome and was accepted and translated by Japanese. A distinction is to be made
between empre and hegemony. The article explains the background and developmental
process of American empire with emphasis on the characteristics of U.S. Constitution,
the two world wars, and the Cold War. This arcticle analyzes the impact of American
empire on international politics. International political reality in the 21st century is
divided into pre-modern, modern, and post-modern states. The nature of American
empire is the most prominent in its military intervention in the pre-modern states
which consists of failed and rogue states.

Key words: American empire, hegemony, unipolar system, cold war, failed state