China and World Order

1978 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Kim
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Global Policy ◽  
The World ◽  
World Organization ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Broad Policy ◽  
Half Decade

This paper makes a macro-inquiry into Chinese global politics by defining and elaborating the Chinese image and strategy of world order within a normative framework. Empirical data and behavioral referents in the paper are largely drawn from Chinese multilateral diplomacy in the global community during the first half-decade (1971–1976) of Chinese participation in UN. Such a normative-globalist paradigm has a heuristic value in interpreting more broadly China's global policy and its impact on the evolving process of creating a more just and humane world order. The paper argues that the interactions between China and the world organization have, on the whole, been positive and that the relationship between the two has been one of mutual adjustment and mutual legitimization, with the resulting enhancement of each other's symbolic capability. By way of conclusion, the paper draws, in a tentative and speculative manner, some broad policy implications of the post-Mao leadership.

Historical Foundations, Strategic Visions, and World Order

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Bolt ◽  
Sharyl N. Cross
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

Chapter 1 explores perspectives on world order, including power relationships and the rules that shape state behavior and perceptions of legitimacy. After outlining a brief history of the relationship between Russia and China that ranged from cooperation to military clashes, the chapter details Chinese and Russian perspectives on the contemporary international order as shaped by their histories and current political situation. Chinese and Russian views largely coincide on security issues, the desirability of a more multipolar order, and institutions that would enhance their standing in the world. While the Chinese–Russian partnership has accelerated considerably, particularly since the crisis in Ukraine in 2014, there are still some areas of competition that limit the extent of the relationship.

scholarly journals Of Broken Seals and Broken Promises: Attributing Intention at the IAEA

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Weichselbraun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Nuclear Safeguards ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
International Crisis ◽  
Negotiated Agreements ◽  
Binary Signal ◽  
The World ◽  
The Relationship

In the world of global politics, talk is cheap. States sign negotiated agreements, but a treaty without an enforcement mechanism is considered weak, because states are not expected to adhere to commitments whose materiality is merely that of ink and paper. To verify the terms of state commitments to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear safeguards inspectors place tamper-evident seals in nuclear facilities. While seals appear to work simply as a binary signal, their meanings are multivalent. This article draws on fieldwork at the IAEA, and on broken seals in Iran between 2004 and 2006 that escalated into an international crisis, to examine the relationship between the material properties of the seal and its signifying potentialities. Bringing the perspective of semiotic ontology to the question of materiality, this essay argues that seals constitute a semiotic infrastructure of nuclear governance that materializes international law.

GLOBALIZATION AND CONTEMPORARY GEOPOLITICAL VALUES

2018 ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
I. Boiko
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
New World ◽  
World Order ◽  
New World Order ◽  
The World ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
World Development

Author investigates the essential characteristics, manifestations of globalization as a determinative law of world development and the planetary tendency for the integration of mankind. The relationship between globalization and geopolitical values and processes is clarified. It is noted that globalization reflects the geopolitical heterogeneity of the world, which gives a certain direction the international relations development. The unity of geopolitical processes with the approval of the new world order is analyzed.

scholarly journals The World Turned Upside Down? Neo-Liberalism, Socioeconomic Rights, and Hegemony

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOE WILLS
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Market Outcomes ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Socioeconomic Rights ◽  
The World ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article draws upon a neo-Gramscian analysis of world order to critically assess the relationship between neo-liberal globalization and socioeconomic rights. It argues that, notwithstanding the well-documented discursive tensions that appear to exist between neo-liberalism and socioeconomic rights, the latter have been reconceptualized in a manner that is congruent with the hegemonic framework of the former in a number of international institutional settings. This has been achieved in part through three discursive framing devices which will be termed ‘socioeconomic rights as aspirations’, ‘socioeconomic rights as compensation’, and ‘socioeconomic rights as market outcomes’. The article will conclude by arguing that, despite such appropriation, there are still fruitful possibilities for counterhegemonic articulations of socioeconomic rights to contest neo-liberal globalization.

scholarly journals Orient-Occident : Origines mythiques d’un couple réel

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-523
Author(s):  
Thierry Hentsch
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Community ◽  
Pressure Groups ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
New Feature ◽  
World Organization ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy

What the United Nations brought to the International Community during its forty years of life cannot be assessed only by referring to the working of the institution and the success or failures it encountered in dealing with specific questions or crises. The profound and lasting changes in the International Community itself in which it contributed in bringing about must also be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the most considerable of these changes, a mutation, in the real sense of the word, was the passage from an international society centered around Europe and North-America in 1945, to a truly world society in 1985, through the process of decolonisation. The United Nations decisively contributed to the spreading of the ideology of decolonisation, to the enactment of an international law of decolonisation and to the use of multilateral diplomacy against colonial powers. Eventually, admission to the United Nations became the visible sign as well as the final step of the attainment of political independence. Another remarkable new feature of the international society of today, closely related to the preceding one, is the importance of groups of states, like the Seventy Seven and the Non Aligned, acting as pressure groups. This new setting was made possible only with the existence of the United Nations, where "group diplomacy" was able to deploy itself and to make the "power of the number" felt. Eventually, the whole present diplomatic game, which is played at the level of the world rather than on a bilateral or regional basis in an always growing number of fields, is a product of development of multilateral diplomacy within the United Nations. It is specially true of the so-called North-South dialogue - or confrontation. The World Organization is now an irreversible fact of international life and a reflection of the present structure of the International Society that it helped to build up. But on the other hand, it is a very novel experiment in a historical perspective. Much is y et to be learned in order to be able to make the best use of the instruments it affords for managing the world community.

scholarly journals Russian foreign policy and Russian-Serbian relations

Napredak ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-16
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Bocan-Harčenko
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
World Order ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Strategic Stability ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
World Organization ◽  
High Level

The article outlines the basic principles of Russian foreign policy and traces their implementation in the context of the strategic partnership between Russia and Serbia. In 2020, the world celebrates related jubilees, the 75th anniversary of the Victory in the Second World War and the establishment of the UN. Russia, as one of the principal architects of the World Organization, advocates the strengthening of the UN central role in international affairs and fostering a polycentric and fair world order based on the rule of international law, primarily the UN Charter. Harmonization of integration processes in various parts of the world is essential. To that end, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin introduced the initiative of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Conscious of its special responsibility for maintaining peace and security, Russia is committed to promoting political and diplomatic settlement of crises and working with all interested countries in order to build a global common space of equal and indivisible security and strategic stability. Russia aims at further dynamic development of mutually beneficial cooperation with Serbia across a wide range of fields. A trust-based high-level political dialogue plays the decisive role. Russian stance on the Kosovo settlement remains unchanged and is based on UN SC Resolution 1244.

Global Law

2018 ◽  
pp. 750-768
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Order ◽  
Just World ◽  
Global Inequality ◽  
Global Policy ◽  
Sustainable Solutions ◽  
The World ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Robust System ◽  
Global Law

An emphasis on “global law” is responsive to the emergence of problems of global scope. The entrenched statist character of Westphalian world order obstructs the development of a robust system of global law. Obstruction also arises from geopolitical factors. Geopolitical discretion thus fills the vacuum created by the inability of international law to respond to the agenda of global problems, and it does so in ways that contribute to widening gaps of global inequality and to the refusal to allow the growth of global law to provide more equitable and sustainable solutions to the material and human rights concerns of the peoples of the world. The future of a peaceful and just world depends on overcoming obstacles to the growth of global law dedicated to upholding global and human interests, which will only happen if international civil society becomes mobilized around the global policy and equity agenda.

Athanasius' ‘Vita Antonii’ as Political Theology: The Call of Heavenly Citizenship

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
SOPHIE CARTWRIGHT
Keyword(s):  
Political Theology ◽  
World Order ◽  
The Political ◽  
Kingdom Of Heaven ◽  
The World ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Church ◽  
Fallen World

This article explores the political theology of Athanasius' ‘Life of Antony’. It argues that the work is profoundly concerned with the relationship between the Church and the empire, which it treats as a component of the relationship between the Church and the fallen world order. Athanasius explores this issue through Antony, striving to live as a citizen of heaven within the fallen world. Athanasius sees allegiance to earthly authority as problematising allegiance to the heavenly kingdom, which is bound up with a concern for the Christian's identity: the Christian must understand himself and the world in relation to the kingdom of heaven, rather than the earthly kingdom.

scholarly journals LEADERSHIP AND HEGEMONY IN GEOSTRATEGY OF INFORMAL NEO-EMPIRES

2017 ◽  
pp. 39-49
Author(s):  
A. Goltsov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
World Order ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Relationship

The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”. The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.

scholarly journals Uncertainty in World Politics: New “Normality” or New “Abnormality”

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 304-314
Author(s):  
M. A. Neimark
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Breeding Ground ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
The World ◽  
Acceptable Model ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
Competitive Rivalry ◽  
World Development

In the conditions of turbulent transformations of the world order, life itself, with its contradictions, difficulties and surprises, extremely actualizes the problems associated with unforeseen risks and challenges to world development. The coronavirus pandemic has created a new “normality” or, more precisely, a new “abnormality” in which countries find themselves regardless of their geopolitical status and place in the international hierarchy. The global coronavirus crisis has exacerbated the already growing uncertainty in global political processes. Uncertainty and the associated strategic instability is a breeding ground for preserving acutely problematic nodes of global politics and delaying the search for constructive solutions that bring them closer to a mutually acceptable model of the coming world order. The phenomenon of apolarity is becoming more and more complicated and has been linked in recent years with the growing weight and influence of new geopolitical players and centers of power — China, India, Latin America states. The international positions of Russia have significantly strengthened, which has acquired a full-fledged role in global politics. In the context of the current geopolitical confrontations and competitive rivalry, the experience of understanding uncertainty in the scientific and expert communities of Russia acquires special practical and political significance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document