Heg sustainable indict

Liberal Order/Trade

Hegemony/naval power isn’t key to the liberal order or trade – disruptions are solved by other actors – at worst Multipolarity solves just as well

The empirical evidence for this causal mechanism is stronger than for the mechanisms previously discussed in this article, although there are signiacant qualiaers. On one hand, the literature rejects the notion that hegemony is a necessary condition for an open global economy.81 Indeed, the existence of a liberal hegemon alone is not a sufficient condition; supporter states also play a crucial role in the spread of economic openness.82 Although the precise causal mechanisms remain disputed, hegemonic eras are nevertheless strongly correlated with lower trade barriers and greater levels of globalization.83 Furthermore, direct evidence exists that the exercise of military power to protect sea-lanes boosts global trade flows (though the magnitude of the effect is disputed). The presence of naval forces during times of militarized disputes has reduced market expectations of supply disruptions.84 It could be argued, however, that concerns about energy disruptions have been overstated; even in instances when U.S. military intervention was absent, world oil markets have rapidly adjusted to price spikes.85 A similar story can be told when ana- lyzing the naval reaction to the post-2008 surge in Somali piracy. Attacks spiked after the financial crisis and peaked in 2011. Attacks remain at an elevated level after peaking in 2011, but their success rate has fallen markedly. Between 2011 and 2012, the number of successful global piracy attacks de- clined by 67 percent. The presence of multinational naval patrols—including the U.S. Navy—in the most vulnerable sea-lanes has helped matters, but the improved private security on board the commercial tankers appears to have helped even more.86 The historical evidence further suggests that global and regional systems with a sole superpower have lower levels of arms races and violent conflict. In one empirical review of the literature, Daniel Geller concluded, “The only polar structure that appears to inouence conoict probability is unipolarity.”87 Examinations of pre-Westphalian regional systems also support this anding.88 For example, the East Asia region had a clear hegemon in China from the start of the Ming dynasty to the peak of the Manchu dynasty. The result was a pe- riod of remarkable political stability. Countries in the region refrained from attacking China and each other; Beijing refrained from converting its hegem- ony into an expanding empire.89 Except for moments of Chinese stagnation, war was extremely rare during this period; indeed, it was so rare that some Chinese international relations scholars now extol this tianxia era as a model for the future of global order.90