Is the Liberal International Order at Risk?: Causes and Remedies
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The threats to the liberal international order (LIO) are most likely to come from the rise and resurgence of the non-liberal, authoritarian powers, i.e. China and Russia, which have been moving toward more autocratic, personalistic, nationalistic, and corporative directions. But the LIO appears to have been significantly challenged by developments within liberal democratic states themselves. Divisions in liberal democracies and populist uprisings have weakened liberal internationalism that has long served as a basis of solidarity and stability among like-minded Western states. Nevertheless, the LIO will not be toppled so easily, as its fundamental values such as basic liberties, rule of law, cooperation, transparency, and progress continue to appeal to many societies and states across the globe. Even so, should these challenges against the LIO remain unaddressed, an increasingly illiberal international order may form into being, and such an order is likely to be less stable and more perilous for those involved. As such, this paper presents the argument that the most urgent issue to solve in order to ‘save’ the LIO is to address the challenges that confront liberal institutions and multilateral rules. In such context, this paper presents a question: “Why must the world ensure the continuation of the LIO through updating its established rules for multilateral cooperation?” There are at least four rationales for changing multilateral rules: i) to make them more encompassing, which allows for the accommodation of the transition from a hegemonic world order to a world of power distribution; ii) to establish effective foreign policies that can resists illiberal autocracies while assimilating rising powers into the LIO; iii) to make such powers more admissible to the current hegemonic state, i.e. the U.S., whose policies in the Trump era are becoming to a greater extent Amerocentric if not ‘America only,’ and increasingly inclined to act unilaterally; and iv) finally to invest in education, as a catalyst for integration, to nurture liberal democratic identity and citizenship.
Abstract
The threats to the liberal international order (LIO) are most likely to come from the rise and resurgence of the non-liberal, authoritarian powers, i.e. China and Russia, which have been moving toward more autocratic, personalistic, nationalistic, and corporative directions. But the LIO appears to have been significantly challenged by developments within liberal democratic states themselves. Divisions in liberal democracies and populist uprisings have weakened liberal internationalism that has long served as a basis of solidarity and stability among like-minded Western states. Nevertheless, the LIO will not be toppled so easily, as its fundamental values such as basic liberties, rule of law, cooperation, transparency, and progress continue to appeal to many societies and states across the globe. Even so, should these challenges against the LIO remain unaddressed, an increasingly illiberal international order may form into being, and such an order is likely to be less stable and more perilous for those involved. As such, this paper presents the argument that the most urgent issue to solve in order to ‘save’ the LIO is to address the challenges that confront liberal institutions and multilateral rules. In such context, this paper presents a question: “Why must the world ensure the continuation of the LIO through updating its established rules for multilateral cooperation?” There are at least four rationales for changing multilateral rules: i) to make them more encompassing, which allows for the accommodation of the transition from a hegemonic world order to a world of power distribution; ii) to establish effective foreign policies that can resists illiberal autocracies while assimilating rising powers into the LIO; iii) to make such powers more admissible to the current hegemonic state, i.e. the U.S., whose policies in the Trump era are becoming to a greater extent Amerocentric if not ‘America only,’ and increasingly inclined to act unilaterally; and iv) finally to invest in education, as a catalyst for integration, to nurture liberal democratic identity and citizenship.
참고문헌 (32)
- Ahrari, Ehsan M., "The Islamic Challenge and the United States: Global Security in An Age of Uncertainty" (2017), McGill-Queen’s University Press
- Bellah. Robert N., "Civil Religion in America", Dædalus, 96(1), pp.1~21 (1967)[DOI]
- Bonikowski, Bart, "Varieties of American Popular Nationalism", American Sociological Review, 91(5), pp.949~980 (2016)
- Brooks, David, "The Uses of Patriotism", The New York Time, ~ (2016)
- Caporaso, James A., "International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations", International Organization, 46(3), pp.559~632 (1992)
- Deudney, Daniel, "Liberal World: the Resilient Order", Foreign Affairs, 16(24) (2018)
- A New Cold War?, "Doyle, Michael W.", The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, ~, pp.UIPaper, No. 2 (2018)
- The UN Security Council in an Age of Great Power Rivalry, "Einsiedel, David M. Malone", United Nations University, ~, pp.Working Paper Series, no. 4 (2015)
- Friedman, Thomas L, "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century" (2005), Farrar, Straus and Giroux
- Brian Harding, "The Missing Link: Multilateral Institutions in Asia and Regional Security" (2016), Center for American Progress
- Funabashi, Yoichi, "The Crisis of the Liberal International Order", The Japan Times, ~ (2018)
- Hafetz, Jonathan, "Punishing Atrocities Through a Fair Trial: International Criminal Law from Nuremberg to the Age of Global Terrorism" (2018), Cambridge University Press
- Han, Sung-Joo, "How to Save Multilateralism in a World of Unilateralism", IIRI Online Series, (46) (2018)
- Ikenberry, G. John, "The End of Liberal International Order?", International Affairs, 94(1), pp.7~23 (2018)
- Ikenberry, G. John, "Is American Multilateralism in Decline?", Perspective on Politics, 1(3), pp.533~550 (2003)
- Ikenberry, G. John, "Institutions, Strategic Restraints, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order", International Security, 23(3) (1999)
- Keohane, Robert O., "Reciprocity in International Relations", International Organization, 40(1), pp.1~27 (1986)
- Krauthammer, Charles, "The Unipolar Moment", Foreign Affairs, 70(1) (1990)
- Mearsheimer, John J., "Tragedy of Great Power Politics" (2001), Norton & Company
- "What Trump Gets Wrong on Allied Burden-sharing" (2019)[URL]
- "Europe as a Model of Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific?" (2009)[URL]
- Ryoko Nakano, "Beyond the Western Liberal Order: Yanaihara Tadao and Empire as Society" (2013), Palgrave MacMillan
- Rohde, David, "The Obama Doctrine", Foreign Policy, ~ (2012)
- "Russia’s Promotion of Illiberal Populism: Tools, Tactics, Networks" (2019)[URL]
- Ruggie, John G., "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order", International Organization, 36(2), pp.379~415 (1982)
- Schneider, Christina J., "Weak States and Institutionalized Bargaining Power in International Organizations", International Studies Quarterly, 55, pp.331~355 (2011)
- Slaughter, Anne-Marie, "How Asia Can Survive Trump", Khmer Times, ~ (2017)
- Stiglitz. Joseph E., "Beggar-Thyself versus Beggar-Thy Neighbor Policies: The Dangers of Intellectual Incoherence in Addressing the Global Financial Crisis", Southern Economic Journal, 66(1), pp.1~38 (1999)
- Tehranian, Majid, "Global Communication and International Relations: Changing Pardigms and Policies", The International Journal of Peace Studies, 2 (2006)
- "Fact Sheet: U.S. Engagement in the 2014 ASEAN Regional Form" (2014)[URL]
- Voeten, Erick, "United Nations General Assembly Voting Data", Harvard Dataverse, 18 (2009)[DOI]
- Waltz, Kenneth N., "Theory of International Politics" (1979), Addison-Wesley Publishing Company