(a) "The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment. (20 marks) (b)…

(a) Gramscian Hegemony and Global Power

Gramsci's theory transcends realist equations of power as crude military-economic dominance by distinguishing between coercive domination (dominio) and consensus-based hegemony (egemonia). Gramsci wrote in the Prison Notebooks (1929-35) about domestic class rule; it was neo-Gramscians such as Robert Cox ("Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations", 1983) and Stephen Gill who carried the idea into International Relations, illustrating how a dominant class constructs a historic bloc, universalizing its particular interests into global "common sense" through multilateral institutions, international law, and neoliberal economic orthodoxy. This framework effectively explains contemporary global power, where American pre-eminence is sustained not merely by military force, but by soft power, global media networks, and cultural assimilation.

Furthermore, Gramsci's concept of the "war of position" explains counter-hegemonic struggles in a multipolarizing world. Rising powers utilize alternative coalitions like BRICS and the New Development Bank to challenge Western normative hegemony. From an Indian perspective, this entails defending cultural autonomy and policy space against globalizing homogenization while simultaneously leveraging multilateral forums.

However, Gramscian theory exhibits limitations. It risks structural determinism and can overemphasize consent, downplaying the resilient centrality of hard military power, national interest, and realpolitik in state behavior during acute geopolitical crises.

(b) Erosion of GATT and the Decline of the WTO

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was founded on principles of non-discrimination, embodied in the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) rule and National Treatment. The contemporary return of unilateral trade barriers, protectionism, and sanctions marks a structural regression of this multilateral ideal, driven by several interrelated factors:

First, the institutional paralysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, caused by the persistent United States veto on appointments to the Appellate Body since 2019, has stripped the organization of its enforcement teeth. Second, the geoeconomic weaponization of trade—prominently through US-China tariff confrontations and extensive unilateral sanctions against Russia—has hollowed out multilateral disciplines under expansive national security exemptions (Article XXI), even though a WTO panel in Russia - Traffic in Transit (2019) held that such claims are reviewable; the sweeping US tariffs of 2025 took this further. Third, states increasingly abandon universal multilateralism in favor of plurilateral pacts, "friend-shoring," and bilateral Free Trade Agreements. Finally, deep North-South fissures, characterized by developed nations resisting Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) and public stockholding for food security while pushing non-trade agendas (labor, environment), have stymied the WTO's negotiating function, as the thirteenth Ministerial Conference at Abu Dhabi (2024) showed by ending without outcomes on agriculture or fisheries subsidies; the fourteenth, at Yaoundé in March 2026, closed without a ministerial declaration and let the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions lapse.

(c) The European Union: Successes and Current Crises

The European Union represents the most advanced experiment in supranational regional integration, surpassing intergovernmental arrangements such as ASEAN, MERCOSUR, the African Union, or SAARC. Its distinct successes include the establishment of the single market, the Schengen borderless zone, the Eurozone monetary union, and successive eastward enlargements. As a "normative power" (Ian Manners, 2002), the EU has set global benchmarks in human rights, environmental standards, and digital regulation - what Anu Bradford calls the "Brussels Effect", seen in the GDPR and the AI Act (2024). The €750 billion NextGenerationEU recovery fund (2020), financed by common borrowing, showed a capacity for solidarity that no other regional body has matched.

Nevertheless, the EU confronts acute structural challenges:

Internal economic fractures persist as legacies of the Eurozone debt crisis, compounded by the democratic deficit debate regarding distant technocratic governance in Brussels. Sociopolitical cohesion is strained by recurrent migration crises, Brexit, and internal rule-of-law disputes with member states such as Hungary under Viktor Orbán (voted out in April 2026) and, until its change of government in 2023, Poland, as well as the rise of Eurosceptic parties. Externally, initial fragmentation during the pandemic and severe energy vulnerabilities exposed by the Russia-Ukraine conflict have underscored the limits of European solidarity and strategic autonomy.

On balance, the EU remains the most successful experiment in regional integration, since it alone has pooled sovereignty through supranational law, a common currency and joint borrowing, even though these crises show that integration is uneven and can be reversed.