This important and timely work has the potential to disturb those who feel they already understand the conditions, character, and consequences of U.S. hegemony with respect to the way in which this position of power shapes U.S. efforts at establishing, maintaining, transforming, and terminating multilateral institutions. For people who view the United States as a champion or villain in its relations with international organizations, this work is likely to be irritating and upsetting; and for those who are less certain or dogmatic, this collection of studies is an excellent introduction to the subject because the work includes detailed, empirical case studies on a wide range of issues. Regardless of one's alignment or identification with these groups, this finely edited volume is illuminating, and its high quality makes it relevant to scholars, decision makers, and interested members of the public. Support for this recommendation is found in the careful scholarship that runs throughout and in the firsthand experience of many of the authors with the topics and controversies they analyze and present. Given the international audience to which this study is directed, the work's overall credibility is probably enhanced by the fact that many of the authors are not Americans.

The impetus for researching and writing U.S. Hegemony and International Organizations developed from an interest by the editors and authors in clarifying the nature of the interplay between the United States and multilateral institutions, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I suspect that they were also motivated to focus on this critical issue because of the passion it can provoke. Through a series of case studies and a systematic set of research issues, which each author deals with in a way that is tailored to the particular case, the work as a whole provides a coherent, lucid, thorough, and nuanced description and analysis of the phenomena of concern. The charged emotional climate that tends to pervade discussions of U.S. relations with multilateral institutions is not present, nor is it studied.

The book is organized in five sections. In an introductory essay, the editors describe the primary research issues each author addresses. These subjects include case-specific examinations of U.S. behavior toward multilateral organizations or institutions. The specific organizations and institutions vary, of course, from case to case. Most importantly, the emphasis here is on explaining U.S. behavior, rather than on evaluating or appraising it. Factors that shape U.S. conduct are considered in terms of the internal or domestic context and the external or international environment. Authors also identify and analyze the impact of the United States on multilateral organizations and institutions. The editors note that the United States can have significant impact even when it is not a formal member of an organization or institution since formal members will shape, in part, their own policies and conduct in light of their understanding of how the United States will respond to different positions and behavior.

Ten case studies grouped into three categories comprise the heart of the book. The first category, “Perspectives on the U.S. and Multilateral International Organizations,” includes two case studies: “American Exceptionalism and International Organization: Lessons from the 1990s,” by Edward C. Luck, and “State Power and the Institutional Bargain: America's Ambivalent Economic and Security Multilateralism,” by G. John Ikenberry. The second, “The U.S. and Global Organizations,” consists of four chapters: “U.S.–UN Relations in the UN Security Council in the Post–Cold War Era,” by David M. Malone; “The United States and the International Financial Institutions: Power and Influence Within the World Bank and the IMF,” by Ngaire Woods; “The United States and the GATT/WTO System,” by Gautam Sen; and “Looking Beyond the ‘K-Word’: Embedded Multilateralism in American Foreign Environmental Policy,” by Stephen Hopgood. The third group of case studies, “The U.S. and Regional Organizations,” includes four chapters: “Making Africa Safe for Capitalism: U.S. Policy and Multilateralism in Africa,” by Philip Nel; “U.S. Approaches to Multilateral Security and Economic Organizations in the Asia-Pacific,” by Ralph A. Cossa; “Trouble in Pax Atlantica? The United States, Europe, and the Future of Multilateralsim,” by David G. Haglund; and “Power Multiplied or Power Restrained? The United States and Multilateral Institutions in the Americas,” by Hal Klepak. As would be expected, some of the studies are more insightful and compelling than others, but they are a rich source of information on particular topics.

In a concluding essay, “Instrumental Multilateralism in U.S. Foreign Policy,” the editors summarize and integrate the findings of the case studies: In general, “there is no clear pattern or trend that signals a growing U.S. rejection of multilateral organizations as venues for the promotion of U.S. foreign policy interests. The United States picks and chooses from a range of possible approaches, depending on the issue, its interests, and changing international and domestic conditions. America can afford to be discriminating in this way. U.S. hegemony affords it broad discretion to use unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral means to obtain its objectives. Hegemony provides it with the privilege of instrumental multilateralism” (pp. 265–66). The editors continue: “These examples suggest that grand generalizations about America's hostility towards multilateral institutions are overdrawn, especially when one looks broadly across issue areas and regions, and over time” (p. 266). With regard to multilateral entities, they are equally blunt: “As for multilateral institutions themselves, they will continue to operate within the direct and indirect constraints that U.S. instrumentalism imposes” (p. 272).

As valuable as this study is, I have two suggestions that, if addressed, would improve its scientific or scholarly value, as well as its potential to inform policy. The first falls within the original terms of reference of the project that culminated in this book, and the second goes beyond the project's initial parameters. With respect to the former, I always find it puzzling when scholars do not use the ideas of other scholars whose work they know and which bear importantly on their subject of inquiry. In this case, the work of W. Michael Reisman could be used to deepen the description and analysis of U.S. behavior toward multilateral organizations and institutions. In the book's opening chapter, the editors cite Reisman's article “The United States and International Institutions” (Survival 41 [no. 4, Winter 1999–2000]: 62–80), but they do not comment on his insight that the United States performs a number of different, sometimes conflicting, roles in its relations to multilateral organizations and institutions. Included are what Reisman identifies as a prophetic and reformist role, an infra-organizational role, a custodial role, and a domestic-pressure reactive role. Because much of the scholarly and political interest in and passion about U.S. behavior toward multilateral organizations and institutions arises—whether knowingly or not—from the different roles the United States plays in differing contexts and in conflicting evaluations of the consequences of how the United States carries out these roles, each of the ten case studies would have benefited greatly, in my view, if the authors had clarified which role(s) the United States was performing in the context of their study. Since all of the issues continue to be important, Reisman's concepts could be incorporated in future work by these editors and authors. Of course, if they did not find Reisman's analysis thoughtful or compelling, explaining why they reached this conclusion would be helpful.

My second suggestion focuses even more directly on the possibility that this work will be used to shape policy. Because it has this potential, I would encourage the contributors to use their knowledge explicitly in pertinent policy discussions. I realize that some of them may be doing so in private, but it would be a wonderful addition to the academic literature if they clarified in print their policy preferences for U.S. involvement in those multilateral organizations and institutions they know best. When such preferences indicate a change in policy and/or behavior, contributors could explain the rationale for both the proposed changes and the strategies designed to put them into effect. By taking up these two suggestions, the editors and authors can build constructively on what they have already accomplished.