WORLD ORDER

History
• W.Wilson used the term, ‘world peace’
• Gorbachev
– New security framework, new world order
– advocated strengthening the central role of the United Nations
and the active involvement of all member
• Malta conference
– Fall of berlin wall
– Gorbachev met Bush 1989, declare the end of cold war
• Bush's September 11, 1990 "Toward a New World Order"
speech to a joint session of Congress.
• Bush really only ever had three firm aspects to the new world order:
– Checking the offensive use of force.
– Promoting collective security
– Using great power cooperation.
• In the West it was expected that the only superpower and ‘leader of
the free world’, the US, would indeed lead the fulfilment of the new
world order.
• Russia, China, and other power centres understood world order
differently. Same goes for transnational actors such as jihadists.
 Definition
• World order as a term is used sometimes analytically, sometimes prescriptively. Both
usages serve important purposes in grasping the realities of political life on a global
level.

• Analytically, world order refers to the accepted arrangement of power and authority
that provides the framework for the conduct of diplomacy and world politics on a
global scale.

• Prescriptively, world order refers to

– a preferred arrangement of power and authority that is associated
– the realization of values such as peace, economic growth and equity, human rights, and
environmental quality and sustainability
– Awareness regarding penalties and punishments (in case of not obeying the order) such as
loss of reputation, sanctions, embargos, blockade, armed attack
 World Order (Kissinger)
• An accepted framework does not prevent conflicts; however,
limits their scope and intensity.
• Conflicts would be waged within the existing structure
• Peace would be justified with ‘legitimate’, general
consensus
• However, Cold war was a revolutionary period
 The two frameworks compared (Kissinger)
Legitimate framework
• Usually conflict of interests
arises to bring change
• Mutually accepted terms
could be found
• Often succumb in
traditional ways
Revolutionary period
• International system is the core
concern for revolutionaries
• Lead to the conflict to
overthrow the status quo
framework
• Revolutionary look for absolute
security… means of conquest
 Hegemonic stability theory
• The rise of a hegemon
• Global hegemony maintains stability and continuity at international levels
• Successive dominant powers have shaped world orders that suit their interests by
both coercion and consent (Analysis of UK & USA hegemony)
• Hegemonic idea of Free Trade
• Free trade has attained common sense status
• In reality it hinders social and economic development of peripheral States
• HST in actin
– Bretton Woods system (GATT, World Bank, IMF)
– Provided system of economic rules, values and norms based on US domination of world
system post 1945
Power Transition Theory: An Introduction
• Power transition theory is a dynamic theory of power precisely
because its ability to account for the variety of outcomes of conflict
and cooperation in a regional system
• The theory is about international hierarchy rather than anarchy
• It focuses on the dynamics of power between the first- and second-
place states in the system.
• The tension rises as the challenger gains ground on the leader.
• Danger of war is at a maximum in a zone where the difference
between the two top states is within a 20% margin.
• War is likely to begin in proximity to the challenger rather than the
 Power Transition Theory
• Initial circumstances
– The region experiences preponderance of a dominant power
– Gradual buildup in potential capabilities in the rising power can lead to significant
changes in power dynamics
– Domestic politics in the challenger can lead in multiple directions
• Possible outcomes
– The dominant power will re‐main preponderant STATUS QU
– The rising power will become increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo and thus
seek to challenge (ESCALATION OF CONFLICT IN THE RISING DEMAND OF CHALLENGER)
– Contingency is significant within the power transition process
– changes in power dynamics do not always lead to war, especially when the rising power
is status quo
– In power parity, the rising power does not necessarily challenge; the dominant power
has a key responsibility to create conditions for peace
 Other theorists

• Kaplan
• Ikenberry
– argue that the current international order has the
openness, economic integration, and capacity to absorb
China rather than be replaced by a Chinese-led order
• Joseph Nye “Is American Century over?”
• Mearshimer
 Multipolarity
• Europe
• Russia
• India
• Japan
• China
• “unipolar moment” is over, and the United States will not be as powerful as in the past
• From 2001 to 2010, the West’s share of the world economy shrank by 10.33 percentage points
• Take trade and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as two examples of important economic
and security issues where American dominance is not what it once was
• China passed the United States as the world’s largest trading nation
• questions arise today about the governance of the internet and cyber activities. In its early
days, the internet was largely American, but today China has twice as many users as the US