The 1945 World Order – Process with «Open» Continuation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-79
Author(s):  
V. T. Yungblud

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, established by culmination of World War II, was created to maintain the security and cooperation of states in the post-war world. Leaders of the Big Three, who ensured the Victory over the fascist-militarist bloc in 1945, made decisive contribution to its creation. This system cemented the world order during the Cold War years until the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the destruction of the bipolar structure of the organization of international relations. Post-Cold War changes stimulated the search for new structures of the international order. Article purpose is to characterize circumstances of foundations formation of postwar world and to show how the historical decisions made by the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition powers in 1945 are projected onto modern political processes. Study focuses on interrelated questions: what was the post-war world order and how integral it was? How did the political decisions of 1945 affect the origins of the Cold War? Does the American-centrist international order, that prevailed at the end of the 20th century, genetically linked to the Atlantic Charter and the goals of the anti- Hitler coalition in the war, have a future?Many elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations in the 1990s survived and proved their viability. The end of the Cold War and globalization created conditions for widespread democracy in the world. The liberal system of international relations, which expanded in the late XX - early XXI century, is currently experiencing a crisis. It will be necessary to strengthen existing international institutions that ensure stability and security, primarily to create barriers to the spread of national egoism, radicalism and international terrorism, for have a chance to continue the liberal principles based world order (not necessarily within a unipolar system). Prerequisite for promoting idea of a liberal system of international relations is the adjustment of liberalism as such, refusal to unilaterally impose its principles on peoples with a different set of values. This will also require that all main participants in modern in-ternational life be able to develop a unilateral agenda for common problems and interstate relations, interact in a dialogue mode, delving into the arguments of opponents and taking into account their vital interests.

1997 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Barnett

The end of the cold war and the attendant security vacuum unleashed aflurryof intellectual activity and international commissions that reflected on the world that was being left behind and the world that should be created in its place. The reports under review are among the best and most influential of the lot. This article focuses on three issues raised by these reports. First, the portrait of the new international order offered by these reports is a liberal international order. Second, the concept of legitimacy appears in various guises, and the UN is considered the site for the legitimation of a particular order. Few international orders are ever founded or sustained by force alone, something well understood by the policymakers who drafted these reports and wisely heeded by international relations theorists who attempt to understand their actions and the international orders that they construct and sustain. Third, these reports envision the UN as an agent of normative integration. As such, it contributes to the development and maintenance of a liberal international order by increasing the number of actors who identify with and uphold its values.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12(48) (4) ◽  
pp. 69-85
Author(s):  
Alla Kyrydon ◽  
Sergiy Troyan

Conceptual approaches to understanding the current stage of the evolution of international relations were put in place during the destruction of the bipolar world of the Cold War and the formation of new foundations of the world and international order. The distinctiveness of this process is that the collapse of the postwar system took place in peaceful conditions. Most often, two terms are used to describe the interconnectedness and interdependence of world politics after the fall of the Iron Curtain: the post-bipolar (post-westphalian) international system or international relations after the end of the Cold War. Two terms, post-bipolar international system and international relations after the end of the Cold War, have common features, which usually allows them to be used as synonyms and makes them the most popular when choosing a common comprehensive definition for the modern international relations. The collapse of the Soviet bloc and the global bipolar system put on the agenda issues that cannot be resolved within the traditional terms “poles,” “balance of power,” “configuration of the balance of power” etc. The world has entered a period of uncertainty and growing risks. the global international system is experiencing profound shocks associated with the transformation of its structure, changes in its interaction with the environment, which accordingly affects its regional and peripheral dimensions. In modern post-bipolar relations of shaky equilibrium, there is an obvious focus on the transformation of the world international order into a “post-American world” with the critical dynamics of relations between old and new actors at the global level. The question of the further evolution of the entire system of international relations in the post-bipolar world and the tendency of its transformation from a confrontational to a system of cooperation remains open.


Author(s):  
M. V. Soljanova

The article "Problem of world order in modern Western studies" is the study of one of the most debated issues in the science of international relations - world order. Discussion of the structure of world order is underway in various countries, both at the state level and in the expert community. Some researchers insist on the fact that after the end of the cold war, the collapse of the bipolar model of international relations, the world has become unipolar. Others argue that the increase in the number of centers of power and the need for a multilateral approach to solving global problems (terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environmental and climate issues) talking about the formation of multipolarity. However, it should be recognized that currently no widely accepted theoretical and conceptual apparatus, which complicates not only the study of the world order, but makes it impossible to search for common approaches of the international community in solving the problems associated with global development, new challenges and threats. The author of this article seeks to research and analyze the various theoretical paradigms (neo-realism, neo-liberalism, institutionalism, neo-marxism, etc.) and concepts to form a coherent picture of the structure of the world system, its main features and to offer readers the vision of the concept of "world order". Thus, the article notes that the multidimensional structure of the modern system of international relations established after the end of the cold war is so complex that none of the concepts can claim to accurate interpretation of the world order. The modern system differs from systems of the past centuries. Characteristics inherent in it (on the one hand, the increasing global processes in economy, politics, culture, etc., on the other, the attraction to return to the concept of "nation state", the closure of borders, the disintegration), require new approaches to the study of world order, factors of its formation and its components. The world system is dynamic and none of the previously existing concepts of world order are not able to accurately describe the processes occurring in the world today. For example, a bipolar model is formed based on the principle of "balance of power", a unipolar system exists on the basis of the dictates of the powers, and a multipolar - subject to the availability of the political equilibrium. It becomes obvious that the constantly changing conditions in the global arena require a whole new approach to the formation of a genuine world order. While each country will be guided by their own ideas of the world development plan focused on their interests, often in conflict with the global balance of power, to speak of a stable, efficient, safe development is impossible.


InterConf ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 218-227
Author(s):  
Aida Baghirova

The end of the Cold War and decline of the bipolar structure of the international relations led to significant changes of the foreign policy strategy and tactic of a large number of countries. During the late 1990’s, especially after the Gulf War, new approaches in relation with the neighbouring countries were being shaped in the regional policy of Iraq and Turkey. After the 2003 War and the post-war years the relations between two countries developed successfully in many spheres despite the existing problems. This became largely possible due to diversification of foreign policy of Iraq and Turkey: the first lost the status of one of the leading states of the region, and the second was confirmed in the status of the leader of the Middle East. The article considers bilateral relations after the war in 2003 and until 2010’s.


Author(s):  
Jenny Andersson

Chapter 8 explores the making of futures studies as a counter reaction to futurology and protest against the Cold War world order. Taking as its focus the World Futures Studies Federation, created by the West German journalist and peace activist Robert Jungk and the philosopher and international relations theorist Johan Galtung, the chapter returns to futurism as an interrogation into the nature of humanity, and to the future as a fundamental utopian category. Futures studies were an example of a kind of neo-utopianism, which not only claimed that alternative worlds were possible but also tried to construct new ways of envisioning and realizing such worlds. Futures studies were constructed as a kind of militancy that straddled the boundaries of social science and politics, and mixed in religious and eschatological notions too. Crucial to this enterprise was the willingness to transcend the Cold War world order and create a united Mankind.


Author(s):  
Daniel Deudney

The end of the Cold War left the USA as uncontested hegemon and shaper of the globalization and international order. Yet the international order has been unintentionally but repeatedly shaken by American interventionism and affronts to both allies and rivals. This is particularly the case in the Middle East as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the nuclear negotiations with Iran show. Therefore, the once unquestioned authority and power of the USA have been challenged at home as well as abroad. By bringing disorder rather than order to the world, US behavior in these conflicts has also caused domestic exhaustion and division. This, in turn, has led to a more restrained and as of late isolationist foreign policy from the USA, leaving the role as shaper of the international order increasingly to others.


Author(s):  
Beate Jahn

Since the end of the Cold War, peacebuilding operations have become an integral part of world politics—despite their continuing failures. This chapter provides an account of peacebuilding operations in practice and identifies cycles of failure and reform, namely the successful integration of peacebuilding into the fabric of the world order despite its continuing failures. It traces these dynamics back to the internal contradictions of liberalism and argues that the main function of peacebuilding operations lies in managing the tensions and contradictions inherent in a liberal world order. Peacebuilding—in one form or another—is therefore likely to persist for the duration of a liberal world order.


Author(s):  
Celso Amorim

In the last years of the twentieth century, after the end of the Cold War, the world has evolved into a mixed structure, which preserves the characteristics of unipolarity at the same time that approaches to a multipolar world in some ways. In an international reality marked by its fluid nature, the emergence of new actors and the so-called "asymmetric threats" has not eliminated the former agents in the world order. And the conflict between the States has not disappeared from the horizon. In this context, diplomacy must have the permanent support of defense policy. Therefore, in the Brazilian case, the paper presents that the country should adopt a grand strategy that combines foreign policy and defense policy, in which soft power will be enhanced by hard power.


1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 145-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY HAWTHORN

Many expected that after the Cold War, there would be peace, order, increasing prosperity in expanding markets and the extension and eventual consolidation of civil and political rights. There would be a new world order, and it would in these ways be liberal. In international politics, the United States would be supreme. It would through security treaties command the peace in western Europe and east Asia; through its economic power command it in eastern Europe and Russia; through clients and its own domination command it in the Middle East; through tacit understanding command it in Latin America; and, in so far as any state could, command it in Africa also. It could choose whether to cooperate in the United Nations, and if it did not wish to do so, be confident that it would not be disablingly opposed by illiberal states. In the international markets, it would be able to maintain holdings of its bonds. In the international financial institutions, it would continue to be decisive in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; it would be an important influence in the regional development banks; and it would be powerful in what it was to insist in 1994 should be called the World (rather than Multinational) Trade Organisation. Other transactions in the markets, it is true, would be beyond the control of any state. But they would not be likely to conflict with the interests of the United States (and western Europe) in finance, investment and trade, and would discipline other governments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document