It also discusses the impact it has had on the stability of global order and the international rule of law.
United States, being the strongest country in the world with all the necessary strength to proceed with any activity that it desires, has for the most part taken the course of unilateralism in its actions. The sort of individualism that the US has been seeking does not go beyond the alliances that it shares with other countries, but also deviates from the laws and norms that are accepted internationally. There happen to be several laws enacted internationally restricting countries to take action that threatens, by any way, the world stability and global order. When it comes to military action against any country, these laws tend to be very strict. Countries are not allowed to despoil or threaten to despoil the sovereignty of others without any legitimate reason. The stance of United Nations and Security Council in particular happens to be very critical in this regard, yet the history reveals that United States pays no or negligible heed to what the UN deems peaceful and violent.
The US unilateralism happens to be unique in its kind. ...
nal agencies are willing to cooperate with the US motives their views are welcomed, but it does not allow anyone to object or go against what the US desires. America always looks up to its allies and international organisations for their support rather than their criticism on its actions. Panich (2003, p238) says that that the notion of " 'With us or against us', is explicitly intended to allow for maximum unilateralism of strategic and tactical military action by the imperial state itself". When it comes to what it deems necessary for its national interest or for global 'peace', the United States considers itself as always right, thus eliminating the importance of anyone else's views.
The US has occasionally shown disregard for what the other members of NATO consider about its global strategies. The NATO, albeit based on an alliance between the US and Europe, also seems today as the US-only organisation. The Europe having no say in US global security agenda also perceives the American commitment to European security with scepticism. Kagan (2004, p67) illuminates that "during the Cold War, the United States would calculate how its actions would affect Europe's security. Today it need not worry as much". What the US did in Iraq without the NATO's support simply affirms that although the country sought European support but never did it respond to European concerns on the matter.
The strength that the US has mustered in the Post Cold War period allows it to pursue its international goals without giving due consideration to what the other powers including the United Nations, believe. The US goes beyond breaking the international rules and none of the organisations has any power to stop it. Hendrickson (2002, p40) says that "its larger message, however, is dictatorial in