Imperial Power

The term imperial power has two separate but related meanings, depending on whether it is applied at macrolevel (between empires) or microlevel (within empires). At macrolevel, an imperial power is a lead country, or “great power,” that engages in imperialism to improve its relative position and influence in the international system. At microlevel, imperial power refers to the ability of a strong country to coerce or strongly influence weaker territories to act in accordance with its interests. This can be achieved through formal empire, where the dominant country controls subordinate territories' internal and external affairs, or through informal imperialism, where a strong country uses its superior military, economic, diplomatic, or cultural influence to pressure or bribe weaker territories to comply with its wishes.

In the realist view of international relations, imperialism arises from the unregulated competition among states in an anarchic international system. Great powers compete with one another for markets and territories, dividing the world according to their relative strengths. The lead power amasses the largest empire, gaining resources that [Page 340]reinforce its position and creating a world order in line with its national interests. But no single power can dominate the international system for long because states form coalitions to maintain the balance of power and because countries' relative strengths shift over time. States gain power through technological and organizational breakthroughs and lose power by diverting resources away from wealth creation. Hence, most countries would prefer to remain hegemonic powers rather than becoming imperial powers because the latter involves high costs. However, a multipolar international system often requires a move to formal empire to prevent rival powers from gaining ground.

The shift from hegemonic to imperial power can occur in both directions. Most 20th-century empires were replaced by hegemonies, so that imperial powers no longer controlled the internal and external affairs of their former peripheries, but instead influenced the territories' external affairs only. Hegemonic relationships have also turned imperial. Athens moved from being the dominant partner in the Delian League to an imperial power, determining the size of its former allies' contributions and stationing military garrisons in their cities to ensure that their internal policies complied with its interests.

Some commentators have argued that the United States is following the path of Athens and converting its hegemony in international affairs to imperial power. They deduce this from the U.S. refusal to be tied to international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and its 2002 announcement that it would act independently of the United Nations in pursuing security concerns in Iraq.

Herfried Münkler has argued that it is better to remain a hegemon than to become an imperial power: the latter option risks inevitable loss of empire and the loss of hegemony.