Activity 5

Of the contemporary global order, crisis, and change

By: Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Stephanie C. Hofmann

Abstract:

The contemporary global order is widely said to be in crisis. But despite a rapidly proliferating
literature on the subject, there is little clarity or consensus about wherein the ‘crisis’ consist, or
what precisely is under threat. We offer a restricted characterization of the post-war global order
based on its fundamental substantive and procedural ordering principles: sovereign inter-state
relations and a relatively open global economy, characterized by practices of inclusive, rule-
bound multilateralism. We argue that only if one of more of these foundational principles are
systematically violated, can we speak of a demise of the order. To this end, we consider the
extent to which each of these basic principles is currently endangered. We conclude that what we
are witnessing is not the collapse of the current world order, but rather its transformation and
adaptation into a broader, more flexible and multifaceted system of global governance – a
change within the order rather than of the order.

Alarm about the fate of the contemporary global order has emerged as a leitmotif among
International Relations scholars. Yet despite the heated debate over the ‘crisis of the global
order’, there is surprisingly little clarity about what the crisis consists of, or what precisely is
under threat. While there is no shortage of proposed symptoms and causes of the crisis –
President Trump’s policies and diplomatic style, growing populism, the spread of
authoritarianism, unilateral withdrawals from international agreements as exemplified by Brexit,
or the rise of non-liberal powers – the precise nature of the ‘order’ that is threatened by these
phenomena often remains unspecified, making it hard to judge the nature and gravity of the
challenge(s).

In this short essay, we focus on the contemporary global order’s foundations as well as on
current international challenges to it. We argue that the present global order, which has its
origins in the post-war world, rests on three foundational ordering principles: national
sovereignty, economic liberalism and inclusive, rule-based multilateralism. These principles
stipulate general rules of conduct, but leave considerable scope for contestation and renegotiation
of specific norms and agreements. Thus, the global order is a dynamic construct in which crises
and contestations can occur without undermining the order as such. Only if one or more of the
foundational principles are systematically violated, can we speak of a demise of the order.

This definitional exercise allows us to distinguish between crisis of the global order and
challenges to specific norms or power constellations within the order. Today’s world is
politically, economically and technologically more complex than when the institutional pillars of
the current order were founded in the 1940s and 1950s. This has led to contestation, and change.
On balance, however, what we witness at present is not so much a profound or definitive crisis of
the existing order, but rather its ongoing (and messy) transformation into a broader, more
inclusive system of global governance, reflecting the need to accommodate new actors and
problems.

To defend this argument, we briefly elaborate what we understand by the contemporary global
order before turning to the main elements that are deemed to be currently in crisis. We
concentrate on international aspects, as other contributions to this debate cover individual, local
and national developments that might challenge the current order (in particular Bisbee et
al., 2019, and Goodman and Schimmelfennig, 2019).

Conclusions

The purpose of this brief essay has been to sketch an analytic framework to help us judge
whether the contemporary global order is in crisis, and to determine wherein a possible crisis
might consist at the international level. As discussed by other contributors to this debate, there
are numerous important challenges confronting global multilateral organizations. Nonetheless we
argue that – for now at least – the basic pillars of the global order stand.

The dispersion of power in the international system, cited by many as a critical challenge, has not
only been associated with greater heterogeneity of preferences and resulting disputes, but also
with growing participation in core international institutions by both state and non-state actors,
and with the proliferation of new institutions through which diverging preferences can be
arbitrated. Sovereignty and economic liberalism remain important features of these multilateral
fora. This, we suggest, signals a transition from a global order constructed around a few
commanding international organizations dominated by powerful Western states, to a more
multifaceted order based on complex and polycentric governance arrangements among a wider
community of national governments, international organizations and non-state actors. While this
growing complexity presents significant challenges of coordination, it does not fundamentally
contest foundational principles of sovereign equality, economic openness, and rule-based
multilateral interactions. Indeed, it might be said that whereas the global order has previously
rested on a ‘thin’ principle of inclusivity – meaning that participation in global institutions was in
principle open to all states that agreed to abide by their basic rules and goals – we are currently
moving towards a ‘thicker’ notion of inclusivity where more actors and a greater diversity of
interests are represented across different fora.

Of course, what currently appears as critical changes within the global order may over time come
to present a crisis and possible major transformation of the order. The greatest threat we see in
this regard is an erosion of the post-war ‘permissive consensus’ which has enabled national
governments to commit to long-term cooperation and to comply with international obligations
even when these have run counter to short-term national interests. To the extent that growing
nationalist populism threatens to wear down this permissive consensus domestically, a continued
growth in populism may prove detrimental first to specific liberal and multilateral projects, and
eventually to the global order itself. Populist sentiment has arguably reduced appetite for
multilateral cooperation in some countries – witness Britain’s vote to leave the European Union
(EU) or U.S. threats to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Yet, declining support for multilateralism is hardly ubiquitous. Consider that the 2016 Brexit
vote sparked growing popular support for integration in other EU member states (Copelovitch et
al., 2019).

Ultimately, our analysis is upbeat. The contributions to this debate section point to a number of
important challenges to the contemporary global order. We agree that they are clearly indications
of contestation and conflict. However, so far none of these challenges present fatal blows to the
core of the global order. What we are currently witnessing, we suggest, may not be the
impending crisis and collapse of the global order, but rather its ongoing transformation from
within.

Guide Questions:
1. What are the things that I learned from the referenced article?
2. What are the things that are still unclear to me?
3. What are the questions that I want to ask about the article?
4. How is it related to the topic, Contemporary global governance?

ANSWER:
1. I learned that the objective of this essay was to outline an analytical framework that would
allow us to assess if the current global order is in crisis and identify the potential components of
a potential international catastrophe. The worldwide multilateral organizations face a number of
significant issues, as other participants in this discussion have also mentioned. However, we
contend that the fundamental tenets of the world order remain in place—at least for the time
being.

2. Things are clear.

3. None
4. It discusses contemporary global orders, and Crisis.