▁h eg em ony ▁rather ▁than ▁rely ▁on ▁co oper ative ▁mechan isms . ▁They ▁similarly ▁contradict ▁M ear she imer ' s ▁arguments ▁regarding ▁the ▁United ▁States . ▁First ly , ▁weak ▁opposition ▁or ▁bal ancing ▁in e ffic ien cies ▁rather ▁than ▁ge ographical ▁constraints ▁are ▁taken ▁as ▁explan ations ▁for ▁the ▁uniqu eness ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ' ▁regional ▁h eg em onic ▁position . ▁ ▁To ft ▁and ▁L ay ne ▁go ▁a ▁step ▁further ▁by ▁as ser ting ▁that ▁M ear she imer ▁mis jud ges ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁as ▁a ▁regional ▁h eg emon ▁engaged ▁in ▁off sh ore ▁bal ancing . ▁Instead ▁of ▁being ▁a ▁regional ▁h eg emon ▁with ▁the ▁strateg ic ▁aim ▁of ▁domin ating ▁the ▁Western ▁hem is phere ▁while ▁prevent ing ▁the ▁rise ▁of ▁peer ▁compet itors ▁in ▁Europe ▁and ▁N ortheast ▁Asia , ▁these ▁sch ol ars ▁believe ▁that ▁empir ical ▁data ▁points ▁to ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁has ▁sought ▁and ▁achieved ▁global ▁h eg em ony , ▁which ▁in ▁turn ▁bi ases ▁M ear she imer ' s ▁predictions ▁regarding ▁future ▁U . S . ▁strateg ic ▁behavior , ▁mainly ▁in ▁terms ▁of ▁its ▁military ▁invol vement ▁over se as . ▁▁▁▁ ▁More ▁fundamental ▁critic isms ▁of ▁off ensive ▁real ism ▁have ▁come ▁from ▁Sh ip ing ▁Tang , ▁" F ear ▁in ▁International ▁Polit ics : ▁Two ▁Pos itions ", ▁International ▁Studies ▁Review ▁ 1 0 ▁( 2 0 0 8 ): ▁ 4 5 1 –