The China Sea connects as many coastal states as it divides due to the economic and strategic challenges it represents. It also embodies an area of confrontations between the Great American and Chinese strategies. Identifying with precision the differences that arise requires an interest in the symbolic dimensions that surround them. This angle of analysis provides an opportunity to observe the functioning of international law and inevitably leads to a discussion of the emerging international order. The literature on the situation in the China Sea abounds. The paper’s singularity is to approach it under the prism of international law as revealing the psychology of an actor. To carry out this research, the authors use a pragmatic and critical approach to international law. The thesis defended shows that, contrary to a positivist and judicial approach to international law, elements exogenous to the law, the history, and the psychology of an actor, influence the interpretation of existing norms.

The paper deals with the view of contemporary world politics presented by American libertarians. Specifically, it examines the claims of Murray N. Rothbard and his successors with regard to the role of the United States of America in the international arena. The article argues that since the Cold War, the libertarian account of international relations has been staunchly critical of the US, while exhibiting a soft spot for competing powers, particularly the USSR and the Russian Federation. As the article submits, this asymmetry is supported by two flawed theoretical contentions: the liberal imperialism thesis (LIT) and the American hegemony thesis (AHT). Moreover, the article shows how anti-Americanism impinges on libertarian analyses of contemporary Central- Eastern European politics, in particular the war in Ukraine.

With the end of the Cold War research on hegemony has attracted the interest of scholars in IR. Representatives of different schools of thought, such as Neoliberalism or the English school, successfully adopted the term to the new international context. Concepts such as “legitimate” or “soft” hegemony have enriched the discourse in IR. At the same time, realists and neorealists seemed to be on the defensive, as classical and material perceptions of hegemony became outdated. Regardless, with the intensifying US-Chinese rivalry as well as the revisionist policies of the Russian Federation, the IR community seems to look at realist writings more favorably. This research focuses on one of the most prominent research programs in IR, neorealism, and its compatibility with the concept of hegemony. By adopting Imre Lakatos’ concept of Research Programmes, we prove the core ideas of neorealism do not contradict hegemony. This opens perspectives for further work on the concept we refer to as hegemonic neorealism.