Conclusion: Korea, Liberal International Order, and the Future of Global Governance

2013 ◽  
pp. 163-177
Author(s):  
G. John Ikenberry ◽  
Jongryn Mo
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. JOHN IKENBERRY

As these essays show, there is a lively debate over the future of world order. Sergey Chugrow offers a dark portrait of the breakdown of what he calls Western hegemony, driven in part by Russia's grievances and aggression in Ukraine. He points to a future where international order will have a mix of realist geopolitics and post-modern diversity. Keisuke Iida sees the debate over liberal international order as a return to older debates about the viability of hegemonic order and the role of regions and non-Western values in a post-hegemonic global system. Peter Haas sees the debate over liberal international order as a window onto various new forms of global governance. Behind these important observations is Amitav Acharya's vision of a post-American global order marked by diverse regional sub-systems; a world that is globalized, diversified, and localized. These developments lead Acharya to announce the ‘end’ of the American-led liberal international order.


Author(s):  
Matthew Bagot

One of the central questions in international relations today is how we should conceive of state sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty—’supreme authority within a territory’, as Daniel Philpott defines it—emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as a result of which the late medieval crisis of pluralism was settled. But recent changes in the international order, such as technological advances that have spurred globalization and the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect, have cast the notion of sovereignty into an unclear light. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current debate regarding sovereignty by exploring two schools of thought on the matter: first, three Catholic scholars from the past century—Luigi Sturzo, Jacques Maritain, and John Courtney Murray, S.J.—taken as representative of Catholic tradition; second, a number of contemporary political theorists of cosmopolitan democracy. The paper argues that there is a confluence between the Catholic thinkers and the cosmopolitan democrats regarding their understanding of state sovereignty and that, taken together, the two schools have much to contribute not only to our current understanding of sovereignty, but also to the future of global governance.


Author(s):  
George P. Fletcher

This book is an invitation to readers interested in the future of international cooperation to master the 12 basic dichotomies of international criminal law. The book foresees a growing interest in international order and cooperation following the current preoccupation, in Europe as well as the United States, with national self-interest. By emphasizing basic dichotomies, for example, acts vs. omissions and causation vs. background conditions, the book reinforces the jurisprudential foundations of international criminal law and also provides an easy way to master the details of the field.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Jessica Chen Weiss ◽  
Jeremy L. Wallace

Abstract With the future of liberal internationalism in question, how will China's growing power and influence reshape world politics? We argue that views of the Liberal International Order (LIO) as integrative and resilient have been too optimistic for two reasons. First, China's ability to profit from within the system has shaken the domestic consensus in the United States on preserving the existing LIO. Second, features of Chinese Communist Party rule chafe against many of the fundamental principles of the LIO, but could coexist with a return to Westphalian principles and markets that are embedded in domestic systems of control. How, then, do authoritarian states like China pick and choose how to engage with key institutions and norms within the LIO? We propose a framework that highlights two domestic variables—centrality and heterogeneity—and their implications for China's international behavior. We illustrate the framework with examples from China's approach to climate change, trade and exchange rates, Internet governance, territorial sovereignty, arms control, and humanitarian intervention. Finally, we conclude by considering what alternative versions of international order might emerge as China's influence grows.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Aart Scholte ◽  
Soetkin Verhaegen ◽  
Jonas Tallberg

Abstract This article examines what contemporary elites think about global governance and what these attitudes might bode for the future of global institutions. Evidence comes from a unique survey conducted in 2017–19 across six elite sectors (business, civil society, government bureaucracy, media, political parties, research) in six countries (Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, the United States) and a global group. Bearing in mind some notable variation between countries, elite types, issue-areas and institutions, three main interconnected findings emerge. First, in principle, contemporary leaders in politics and society hold considerable readiness to pursue global-scale governance. Today's elites are not generally in a nationalist-protectionist-sovereigntist mood. Second, in practice, these elites on average hold medium-level confidence towards fourteen current global governance institutions. This evidence suggests that, while there is at present no legitimacy crisis of global governance among elites (as might encourage its decline), neither is there a legitimacy boom (as could spur its expansion). Third, if we probe what elites prioritize when they evaluate global governance, the surveyed leaders generally most underline democracy in the procedures of these bodies and effectiveness in their performance. This finding suggests that, to raise elites' future confidence in global governance, the institutions would do well to become more transparent in their operations and more impactful problem-solvers in their outcomes.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barnett

Abstract Michael Zürn's Theory of Global Governance is an original, bold, and compelling argument regarding the causes of change in global governance. A core argument is that legitimation problems trigger changes in global governance. This contribution addresses two core features of the argument. Although I am persuaded that legitimacy matters, there are times when: legitimacy appears to be given too much credit to the relative neglect of other factors; other times when the lack of legitimacy has little discernible impact on the working of global governance; and unanswered questions about how the legitimacy of global governance relates to the legitimacy of the international order of which it is a part. The second feature is what counts as change in global governance. Zürn reduces change to either deepening or decline, overlooking the possible how of global governance. In contrast to Zürn's map of global governance that is dominated by hierarchies in the form of international organizations, an alternative map locates multiple modes of governance: hierarchies, markets, and networks. The kinds of legitimation problems that Zürn identifies, I argue, can help explain some of the movement from hierarchical to other modes of global governance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-33
Author(s):  
R. Neuwirth

In the global arena, the cooperation between the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – covers around 42% of the world’s population and some of the world’s most dynamic emerging economies. Initially, the BRICS cooperation was suggested as an idea, and it was later welcomed as a new addition to the global governance debate about the future. The BRICS countries have already held ten consecutive summits of heads of state plus a large number of meetings at the ministerial level. The cooperation describes itself as a “cooperation and dialogue” platform, but it has nonetheless signed a number of binding treaties and, notably, established the New Development Bank (NDB) as a permanent institution headquartered in Shanghai (China).The cooperation has also met with resistance, criticism and problems caused by the overall complexity of global affairs in a rapidly changing world. The diversity and remote locations of the BRICS countries have also been thought of as an obstacle to their successful cooperation and their ability to play an active part in global governance in the twentyfirst century. The main challenge thus lies in their ability to overcome their differences and to make a difference in designing the future global political and economic world order. Against the backdrop of the global governance debate, the present paper therefore asks whether the BRICS cooperation constitutes a novel model of regionalism with multilateral aspirations, and what role law and, notably, the “rule of law” can play in this important task. The paper includes a discussion of the extent to which the BRICS cooperation needs to be upgraded in legal and institutional terms, and possibly to proceed from cooperation via consolidation to the codification of its most important sources of global law.


Futures ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 500-513
Author(s):  
Christina Garsten ◽  
Adrienne Sörbom

This chapter critiques the anticipatory practices of contemporary organizations, such as think tanks and management consultancies, which offer methods and forecasts about possible and desirable futures. These organizations, the chapter argues, contribute to creating a sense of urgency with respect to the future, capitalizing on the perceived need among decision makers to grasp contemporary events, and provide tools and content by which the future can be designed. It argues that future forecast scenarios assist in the creation of a particular type of authority: one geared to the contemporary global situation and to an increasingly complex system of global governance. The chapter interrogates this particular type of authority to argue it is not singular and dominant, but instead comprises the varying interests of many different actors and is underscored by rational process, which offers the possibility of a wider shared understanding


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document