Basics of Today’s International Relations
- Mar 19, 2024
- 3 min read
3-19-2024
The purpose of this writeup is to help you understand current International Relations and potential future developments.
To understand what I am trying to say in this short writeup, you need to know two books reasonably well: Political Philosophy and International Relations [1,2]. I have written two short commentaries of these books before (in Chinese) [3,4]. They are meant to provide supplements to these books (or get you started) and are in no way to substitute a careful study (each is for one semester course). I should mention that I have yet to find ONE Mainland Chinese scholar or professor who understands either one of these courses, despite these textbooks being written for undergraduate students.
First, there is much talk about rule-based world order. You may look at its two sides. On one hand, there is a world order established by the US and other major powers after WWII. On the other hand, soon or later this world order will break down (will discuss this in future writeups). Let us consider the first part. After WWII, great effort was devoted to establish institutions to maintain world peace. To a large extent, this effort has produced results so far. Niall Ferguson and other historians have written or discussed in videos the 70+ years (since WWII) being largely peaceful. This is quite an accomplishment, especially when compared with some historical periods. So what is the world order? You already know some. The United Nations, International laws, and many international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, International courts, and so on.
Next consider the contents of world order. Since it is rule-based, the question is what are the rules? The first rule should be basic international laws such as respecting the sovereignty of another nation and resolving differences with other nations through peaceful means. Let us now reflect on the past 70 years. No major war broke out, which is a great achievement. There have been local conflicts but none led to direct involvement of major powers (by that I mean UN security council permanent members). Some may question the Korean War. But the Soviet Union did not participate (not directly anyway) in the Korean War and China was not in the UN at the time. The situation now is bad. Russia invaded Ukraine despite having signed the treaty that guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty. It likely will not stop there. China’s claim of Taiwan and South China Sea also poses serious challenges to the world order. The world order faces grim challenges not seen for generations because China and Russia are permanent members of the UN security council. There is no procedure or institution that can handle such wars. Later we will see the UN and related international institutions have fundamental flaws. Can current world order survive? Many scholars (still a minority) warn about the potential large conflicts even a potential world war. Niall Ferguson is one of them.
There are two main thoughts on IR: liberalism and realism [2]. Both have advantages and shortcomings. [5] is interesting; I agree with some, not others.
A short note here. There is also liberal international order [6]. What is the difference between it and world order? The answer is simple: the adjective liberal puts more restrictions on world order. Liberal International Order is gone. However, keeping some international order might still be possible. In the future, we will see why Liberal International Order is always a pipe dream.
References:
Steven B. Smith, "Political Philosophy," Yale University Press, 2012.
Robert Jackson, Georg Sørensen, "Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches," Oxford University Press, 5 edition, 2013.
Stephen M. Walt | Foreign Policy 3-14 It’s not too late for restrained U.S. foreign policy
Niall Ferguson, Fareed Zakaria, Rudyard Griffiths (Editor), “Is This the End of the Liberal International Order?: The Munk Debate on Geopolitics,” House of Anansi Press, 2017
Comments