1. IOs, Global Governance and the Evolving International Order Flashcards
five key dimensions to identify various manifestations of liberal international order and their evolution according to Ikenberry
- (Participatory) Scope – Is the order regional (e.g. Western bloc) or universal?
- Sovereign Independence – How much sovereignty do states retain or pool?
- Sovereign Equality – Are states formally equal or is the order hierarchical?
- Rule of Law – Are international interactions governed by strong, consistent legally binding frameworks?
- Policy Domain – How wide is the scope of issues covered (e.g., trade only, or also climate, human rights)?
def liberal international order according to Ikenberry
open rule based system in which states trade and cooperate to achieve mutual gains
what are the 3 possible futures beyond liberal internationalism 2.0 (US-lead post-WW2 order) according to Ikenberry
- Liberal Internationalism 3.0 (Post-Hegemonic Order)
- Liberal Internationalism 2.5 (Modified Hegemony)
- Breakdown / Post-Liberal Order
explain liberal international order 3.0
-Participatory Scope: Universal (includes rising powers like China, India, Brazil).
-Sovereign Independence: Lower (states pool sovereignty more deeply, particularly in human rights and security).
-Sovereign Equality: More equal (less dominance by the U.S., more shared global authority).
-Rule of Law: Stronger (multilateral institutions become more formal and inclusive).
-Policy Domain: Expansive (cooperation across climate change, tech governance, pandemics, etc).
📝 Idealistic, but hinges on buy-in from non-Western powers and trust in multilateralism.
explain liberal internationalism 2.5
-Participatory Scope: Broader than the past (2.0), but still Western and U.S.-centered.
-Sovereign Independence: Moderately reduced (U.S. and allies deepen cooperation but maintain privileges).
-Sovereign Equality: Unequal (U.S. retains special influence).
-Rule of Law: Selective (formal institutions exist, but exceptions benefit the U.S. and allies).
-Policy Domain: Broad (covers many areas like trade, security, and values).
📝 A likely near-future scenario; maintains stability but risks backlash from excluded or subordinate states.
explain breakdown
-Participatory Scope: Fragmented (return to regional blocs, multipolar competition).
-Sovereign Independence: Reinforced – strong national sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
-Sovereign Equality: Mixed – some blocs more hierarchical, others more balanced.
-Rule of Law: Weakened – rise of ad hoc deals, bilateralism, informal coalitions.
-Policy Domain: Narrow – focus on hard power, security, and economic interest.
📝 This path reflects growing nationalism and skepticism toward global institutions.
Newman argument on EU’s 2016 global strategy (Aimed to reaffirm the EU’s role as a global actor through multilateralism, liberal values, and normative power)
EU’s ambitions to lead globally are limited because it remains committed to outdated, liberal multilateral norms that no longer align with a shifting international landscape dominated by rising non-Western powers and increasing global complexity.
-> Three Central Challenges to Global Governance
* Political and Normative Challenges: Nationalism, protectionism, and norm contestation (e.g., China and Russia opposing liberal interventionism) are rising.
* Legitimacy Challenges: Global governance structures lack accountability, transparency, and inclusivity; they are seen as Western-dominated and elitist.
* Systemic Challenges: Traditional, state-centric approaches cannot adequately handle global issues like climate change, cyber governance, or pandemics.
IOs during CW
Most IOs today were created during or right after World War II, in the context of the Cold War (1947–1991).
The Cold War’s bipolar world order (US vs. USSR) shaped the international system:
There were frequent stalemates in global IOs like the UN due to superpower rivalry.
The world had separate blocs: different IOs for the Eastern bloc (Soviet-aligned) and the Western bloc (US-aligned).
90’s: post-CW transition
The Cold War ended, and the rigid East-West divide broke down.
Many Western IOs (e.g., NATO, IMF, World Bank) expanded their role and became more “global.”
There was a shift toward “global governance”—IOs began to focus more on cooperative problem-solving at the global level (climate change, trade, peacekeeping, etc.).
The US emerged as the sole superpower—often referred to as the “unipolar moment.”
fukuyama’s end of history
Francis Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy might be the final stage of human political development, suggesting ideological conflicts had ended.
This idea reflected optimism about a stable, liberal international order led by the West.
new dvlpmnts (21st century)
The world didn’t stay static. Major changes and challenges emerged:
Rising powers (like China, India, Brazil) and non-state actors (NGOs, corporations) became more influential.
There was a debate about the decline or retreat of US hegemony.
Global crises like terrorism, pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), and climate change demanded new forms of governance.
Geopolitical tensions returned: violent conflicts, power struggles, and growing interstate competition.
what is the “return of history”
Contrary to Fukuyama’s thesis, liberal democracy is in retreat, and authoritarian regimes are expanding.
Freedom House reports show a decline in global freedom and democratic standards in recent years.
old IOs face new divisions and contestations x New IOs have emerged to reflect new interests and regions:
Old IOs face new divisions and contestation:
Example: WTO’s Doha Round failed due to North-South disagreements.
The IMF was criticized for not giving emerging powers more say.
The UN is seen by some (e.g., the US under Trump) as ineffective.
Controversies over abstentions on UN resolutions, especially concerning Russia.
New IOs have emerged to reflect new interests and regions:
E.g., Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, AIIB, RCEP, International Criminal Court, African Union, etc.
Private IOs like NGOs and multinational corporations now play bigger roles in shaping international norms and policies.
There are also normative changes, like challenges to the Washington Consensus and debates around R2P (Responsibility to Protect).
Weis and Wilkinson def governance
The sum of informal and formal ideas, values, norms, procedures, and institutions that help all actors—states, IGOs, civil society, and TNCs—identify, understand, and address transboundary problems.”
-> Governance is about how the world manages problems across borders, even without a global government.
It involves both formal institutions (like the UN, WTO) and informal practices (norms, partnerships, habits).
It’s a process, not a fixed structure:
Who gets involved?
How do they cooperate?
What outcomes do they try to achieve?
what changed in global gov?
- More Actors
Power is more diffuse:
Emerging powers (China, India, Brazil) have more influence.
Western states (like the US, EU countries) are less dominant.
Private actors (NGOs, tech companies, activists) play a larger role.
Public-private partnerships are increasingly common.
- New Priorities
There’s no longer one dominant model (like the Washington Consensus in the 1990s).
Instead, global focus is shifting toward:
Infrastructure and technology
Sustainability and climate change
Connectivity and resilience
Transversal issues (that cut across many areas), such as environmental concerns and digital governance, now dominate.
- Changing Institutions and Rules
Multilateralism is in crisis:
WTO negotiations are stuck (e.g. Doha Round).
Regional trade deals (like RCEP or USMCA) are on the rise instead.
Security governance in Europe has weakened (e.g. Russia’s war in Ukraine).
Tensions between rules-based governance (promoted by liberal states) vs state sovereignty (asserted by others like Russia and China).
what is “order”
The liberal international order refers to post-WWII global structures based on:
Rules, norms, and institutions
Guided mainly by Western liberal democracies
But:
Order isn’t always planned or coherent—it can emerge from many individual actions and interactions.
Think of it like a web of practices, power balances, and shared understandings.
gov =/ order
Order is about a state of stability: things are calm, predictable, structured. There’s peace, rules are (mostly) respected.
Governance is about the process of managing things to create or maintain that order. It’s about how decisions are made, rules are enforced, and conflicts are handled.
So, order is the outcome; governance is the process.
Ikenberry’s Views: From Western Order to Global Struggles
sees the Western-led post-WWII order as having evolved into a more global system.
He calls its current troubles a “crisis of success”:The liberal order spread widely—but that very success now triggers resistance, adaptation, and competing visions (e.g., by China, Russia).
Ikenberry’s key terms and how they evolved
- Sovereign Independence
Ikenberry’s view:
Modern governance regimes (e.g., trade, human rights, environmental law) often infringe on state sovereignty—states give up some independence to be part of global systems.
Recent pushback:
There’s a renewed emphasis on sovereignty, as seen in:
BREXIT (UK leaving EU),
Trumpism (America First, leaving WHO/Paris Accord),
China and Russia’s rejection of Western liberal norms.
- Sovereign Equality
Ikenberry’s idea:
Global order is becoming “flatter”, meaning less hierarchical—but how this plays out depends on how the US manages its relative decline.
Challenge today:
Rising powers (China, India, Brazil) want a bigger role and to reshape the rules, not just join the existing system.
- Rule of Law
Ikenberry’s ideal:
The expansion of a rules-based international order, where law restrains power and enables cooperation.
Recent reality:
Growing disputes over rules—who writes them, how they’re interpreted (e.g., China’s actions in South China Sea, US withdrawing from international agreements).
- Policy Domains
Ikenberry sees global governance expanding into more and more areas—health, climate, digital space, human rights.
But with growing conflicts over rules and nationalistic trends, this broad inclusion is increasingly difficult and contested.
2 defs of multilateralism
Keohane (1990):
Simply put, multilateralism means cooperation among multiple states, often via institutions.
Ruggie (1992):
Goes deeper—multilateralism is based on general principles of conduct that apply equally to all, rather than ad hoc deals or power-based bargaining.
It’s a core building block of the post-WWII liberal order.
It assumes some shared norms and values, not just cooperation for convenience.
futur of multilateralism
With the US declining and rising powers pushing for change, there are a few possible futures:
Level of Agreement on Global Principles_Likely Outcome
High agreement (shared norms)_Multipolar multilateralism (e.g., more actors, but still shared values)
Low agreement_Shallow multilateralism (cooperation happens, but without strong shared commitments)
No agreement (disagreement on rules and norms)_Multilateralism becomes purely pragmatic diplomacy, not principled cooperation
EU as a regional liberal order
The EU is often seen as a mini-version of a liberal international order:
Limited state sovereignty: Member states share power (e.g., laws from Brussels).
Flat hierarchy: No single dominant state within the union.
Binding rules: Laws apply across all members (e.g., Court of Justice of the EU).
Wide policy scope: From trade to environment to digital regulation.
But even within the EU, there are internal debates—some countries or political groups push back against this model, especially regarding migration, national sovereignty, or democratic values.
EU as a normative power
According to Ian Manners (2002), the EU is a “normative power”:
It shapes what is seen as “normal” in international relations, not through force, but by promoting values like democracy, human rights, rule of law.
Scholars like Newman (2018) argue:
The EU’s liberal identity has global appeal and influences others.
But the EU also has limits—its ability to project these values is declining.
challenges normative power Europe
Global contestation: Rising powers like China, Russia, India often reject EU-style liberal values.
The EU’s vision of governance (rules-based, cooperative) struggles with real-world crises like:
Security threats
Energy dependencies
Migration
Rule of law challenges within the EU
The EU seems tied to a version of Ikenberry’s “liberal international order 3.0”, but with the EU in a more central role (rather than the US). Still, this ideal faces setbacks.
