Unilateralism

The most precise and parsimonious definition of unilateralism is numerical: a state acting alone. However, unilateralism has a wide range of definitions, none of which has emerged as predominant within the literature. A further complication is that some definitions of unilateralism are general and can be applied to either security affairs or the global economy, whereas other definitions are specific to only one of these realms. This entry first reviews four general definitions of unilateralism, followed by two definitions that pertain specifically to the global economy, and then two definitions concerning security affairs.

Although the term unilateralism has long existed, it rose dramatically in prominence during the George W. Bush administration. The Bush administration was widely regarded by scholars and pundits as promoting a strong turn in U.S. foreign policy away from multilateralism and toward unilateralism. The widespread debate over the Bush administration's foreign policy led to greatly renewed interest among scholars about the practice and consequences of unilateralism.

Of the four general definitions of unilateralism, the easiest one to operationalize focuses on the number of countries that coordinate: An action with a single participating state is regarded as unilateral, whereas one that has three or more coordinating states is multilateral. The clarity of this definition notwithstanding, many analysts question whether the mere fact that three or more states coordinate is sufficient to constitute multilateralism. Critics of this quantitative definition argue that the real question is not how many countries coordinate but the way in which they do. Some critics argue that for an action to be considered multilateral, the burden of coordination must be widely shared. These analysts argue, for example, that if a powerful country contributes the vast majority of its troops for a military operation, then it is still best seen as unilateral even if three or more countries do participate in the action. In his critique of the quantitative definition, John Ruggie argues that what distinguishes multilateralism is that it involves the coordination of policies by three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct. In this view, ad hoc coordination by even a large group of states should not be considered multilateralism. The fact that more than 20 countries contributed troops to the 2003 Iraq War, for example, does not constitute multilateralism since this coordination did not occur on the basis of generalized principles but instead reflected particular interests.

The second general definition of unilateralism is a state acting on the basis of narrow self-interest without regard for the interests of other countries. Using this rubric, unilateralism is easy to identify in those situations when a state acts by itself against the wishes of all other countries. Conversely, an action is clearly not unilateral if all countries agree that it should be undertaken. Yet it is rare in international politics that either all or no states agree with a given action, and the literature is unclear regarding how many countries must agree [Page 2676]with an action before it is no longer considered unilateral. In this regard, analysts sometimes apply the term unilateralism to actions that many states see as beneficial and participate in.

...