Sovereignty and Consent

America's unipolar vision derives from consciousness of its own matchless power. It also reflects a view about that power's unique legitimacy and benevolence. Fewer and fewer people in the rest of the world appear to share this view, even among our traditional allies. Particularly in Europe, ideas about international order and legitimacy have evolved in a direction that does not favor American pretensions to unipolar status. Because America's global positions depend heavily on European support – economic, diplomatic, and even military – it pays to consider where Europe's different ideas about the legitimacy of power have come from and where they appear to lead.

Philosophers have been speculating about the nature of political power for millennia. Nevertheless, it remains an elusive concept, coming in many forms and flowing from myriad sources. To help sort out a definition, a distinction is often drawn between power and influence. Power may be seen as the capacity to compel by physical coercion, whereas influence is the capacity to persuade without force. In recent years, analysts also speak of “soft” and “hard” power, a distinction that parallels that of influence and coercion, but perhaps better implies their close linkage. In practice, the arts of persuasion and coercion are not easy to separate, nor is soft from hard power. Power is seldom merely physical. Its efficacy often depends heavily on the consent of those over whom it is exercised.