How International Orders Emerge And How They Change

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

Defensive theory asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue is ensuring its security . It is very important to say that Mearsheimer is not satisfied with Waltz’s theory. Great powers are seek to maintain the security and thereby the status quo. The international system creates strong stimulus, forcing the great powers to look for opportunities to increase their own power at the expense of competitors. They are interested not only in imbalance of power, but also interested in the maximum weakening of their competitors. Every great power will seek to change the balance of forces in its

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

In studying International Relations, I have realized that, the nature of International politics can be likened to anarchy. This is because in International relations there seems to be no supreme or overriding authority which establishes and maintains rules or laws in international affairs. All States appear to behave in their own interests.

Ikenberry argues that there are many dilemmas within the organization of the international world order. The liberal order is defined by its openness and its rule based order. Order is maintained in these institutions when states agree to follow the rules set by these institutions. The liberal order has sought to establish its rules in a non-biased system that will not discriminate other states, so that the entire institution can agree on these regulations. However, this has raised many serious dilemmas’. There seems to be concern of how the balance of power operates. Ikenberry argues that the international order has been put into place

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

In the years that followed World War 2, the United States original desire to create global institutions to lessen the burden that Washington had to bear changed significantly. It evolved into the United States leading in most global affairs, creating a new form of liberal world order in which a leading state creates international rules and institutions with the purpose of providing public services while at the same time adhering to said rules and institutions. G. John Ikenberry referred to it as a liberal-constitutional order. While similarities exist between this order and the other three that Ikenberry refers to, there are stark contrasts that make the American order

The War and Peace Studies therefore created this foundation of New World Order of movement, aided by economic interdependence; collective security maintaining international order through a multinational police force under compacted authority. "The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms". - U.N World Constitution, which strengthen this world order shift from unilateral actions based solely on national interests, supported the list of action based common

Liberal institutionalism assumes the nature of international system to be cooperative. This theory argues that despite the anarchic nature of international system, states are willing to communicate and cooperate with each other for mutual benefit.1 International institutions and norms are crucial for mitigating hostile tensions between states by creating a platform that allows state to communicate, generate trust and develop peaceful relationship. Additionally, the continued interactions between states increases the likelihood of cooperation.2 In a liberal institutional international

Art and Jarvis bring up the idea that there is a state of anarchy when it comes to international affairs. I will argue that there actually is quite a lot of government in international organization that prevents it from being this anarchic. I will start by giving the reasons why Art and Jarvis believe that international politics features of state of anarchy. The following paragraphs will start to explain why I believe they are wrong in their interpretation of international politics, using Jackson and Rosenberg’s “Concept of Statehood”. I will conclude by summarizing previous thoughts and prove my thesis.

In “To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” Immanuel Kant discusses his view on the desired peace that is needed by the change on the current form of international politics. Kant’s perspective is that international politics is better off with change because people are by nature meant to change. Without change in politics, peace can only be achieved by war between humans. In the Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull, he claims that the current form of international politics need to remain the way it is. Bull’s idea states that international politics is needed because it protects the sovereignty of a state. The main discussions that arise from Kant and Bull are the Balance of Power, the rights of nations, international order based off life,

International system which consist of many actors such as individual, states, non-states actor like multinational company, nongovernment organization and others will always bring the new issues or unstable conditions in every moments. In international system which is anarchy, there are nothing higher than state, that is way the state always try to prove their state as the major state in the world level. In a state, the politic character is the biggest character to influence the individual on that state. That is mean that, everything happen inside the state is influence more by the political aspect which is happened inside and influence the inside and outside of a state.

As he notes that over the last half century, the international order has assimilated many rising powers into the political and economic landscape (Ikenberry, 58). Ikenberry claims this international order, or liberal order, is built upon the system of Westphalian relations (Ikenberry, 60). Furthermore, the liberal order became established when Britain advocated free trade (Ikenberry, 60). After the great wars, in the twentieth century, the United States took reign of the Liberal order and pushed liberal ideologies upon the world (Ikenberry, 60). Such leadership is seen through the creation of the UN, which created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Ikenberry, 61). Notions of rights, sovereignty and global order followed, leaving us with the concept, as Ikenberry put it: “the responsibility to protect” (Ikenberry, 61). The United States led Liberal order expanded further with the development of multilateral institutions, alliances, free trade deals, and client states (Ikenberry, 61). Consequently, the United States created an order of ideals about markets, openness, and social stability (Ikenberry, 65). However, from these ideals states such as China have risen in power greatly, which creates worry in neighboring states (Ikenberry, 65). Nevertheless, China cannot act aggressively unless it is willing to face severe backlash (Ikenberry, 65). As a result,

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.

However, the very nature of the state system breeds feelings of insecurity, distrust, suspicion, and fear. This atmosphere produces a constant competition for power in which each state, to reduce its insecurity, seeks to enhance its power relative to that of a possible foe. If a state perceives its neighbour as a potential enemy, it tries to deter an attack or political coercion by becoming a little stronger than its neighbour, or at least as strong. The neighbour, in turn, also fears attack or political intimidation. It understands that its best interests lie in increasing its strength to forestall either contingency or, if necessary, in winning a war, should matters go that far.