The Politics of the Imperfect: Building a Different World

2020

This article examines the prospects for the UN at its 75 th anniversary. First, it questions the conflation of "universalism"the founding principle of the UN, with "Liberal International Order" (LIO), which is conventionally credited to the US and its Western allies. Second, it opens up unrecognized and forgotten voices, especially of women and non-Western advocates, behind the making of the UN and its key normative principles. Third, the article looks at the changing nature of "world order" resulting from a variety of forces, such as the shift in power, constraints on global hegemony, proliferation of consequential actors, the changing nature of interdependence and globalization, the devolution, fragmentation and pluralization of global governance, and the multiple ideational and ideological undercurrents of world politics. Against this backdrop, the final part of the article selectively looks at some of the key areas of UN reform that might render the organization closer to its original ideal of universalism while also adapting it the realities of the 21 st century. Universalism Versus the Liberal International Order (LIO) Gambia is very, very poor... they are kept down because of exploitation….[we need to be] against the exploitation of the poor by the richby governments as well as individuals. I think we can get somewhere if we keep that idea of being against… exploitation everywhere. It will be an awfully good thing for all of us." (Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President, in 1944) 1 As the war has developed and the danger of a possible victory of the fascist powers has receded, there has been a progressive hardening and a greater conservatism in the leaders of the United Nations. The four freedoms and the Atlantic charter, vague as they were and limited in scope, have faded into the background, and the future has been envisaged more and more as a retention of the past…the hundreds of millions of Asia and Africa…have become increasingly conscious of themselves and their destiny…They welcome all attempts at world cooperation and the establishment of an international order, but they wonder and suspect if this may not be another device for continuing the old domination. (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian anticolonial leader and future Prime Minister, in 1944) 1 Roosevelt 1944a. See also Roosevelt 1944b.

ARTICLE ABSTRACT The international system embarked on a process of transformation to a more heterogeneous configuration and debates of multipolarity acquired vibrancy in recent years. The formation of groupings such as the BRICS by emerging powers was interpreted as the harbinger of a novel global order. This study presents a nuanced account of recent global trends through a critical reading of the BRICS both as analytical category and an international actor. Thus, the heterogeneity of its members in terms of political regimes, economic strategies, geo-strategic alignments and national interest formations is emphasized. In contrast to premature 'power shift' arguments, a more subtle approach that underlines complex forms of interdependence between established and emerging global actors is proposed. Consequently, the BRICS is conceptualized as an 'international re-gime' operating relatively well in a specific field of international relations, nothing more. I n the first decade of the new millennium, the international system embarked on a grand process of transformation from the short-lived and unipolar post-Cold War regime to an unprecedented and heterogeneous configuration of international relations and a global political economy. This profound transition is perceived to stem from a multifaceted shift from Western political , economic, and cultural predominance to a more diverse and sophisticated system in which emerging/resurgent powers increasingly assert their respective interest formulations, distinctive values and worldviews. Therefore, in the developing international system, the complex diversification and asymmetric distribution of national/regional and public/private power assets arguably create obstacles to the unilateral temptations of all global powers, albeit with varying degrees. The wider redistribution of political and economic power elements , as well as deepening interdependence among the established and new actors, are the fundamental ingredients of the emerging global order which render issues of global governance increasingly vital. On the side of the global political economy, the main driving forces of the

Rethinking World Politics, 2010

This article aims at addressing the External Policies of the BRICS in a conceptual theoretical platform, based on empirical evidences presented in a previous work (Wache, Baptista Lundin, Gomes & Fainda 2014). In order to do it, it is relevant to consider in this context of change that: 1. It is still strong the domination of the Western World in international relations in terms of values, considering its paternity of the Enlightenment thought which it coordinates the paradigm of behaviour indicating how to be in society, as well as the relationship of the individuals towards the State, where it is also indicated a proper operationalisation for the concepts of justice, human rights, governance, democracy and economy. 2. The power of the United States of America (USA) remains a reality in the realm of the international relations, despite the economic financial crisis that the Western world is facing since 2008, and despite the challenge of the great penetration in the world market of emerging economies, especially China. 3. The emerging economies are playing a great role on the International System, shaping the new world order which has changed from Mono-polar (US) to Inclusive Multi-polar order (US, UE , BRICS among others)

Ethics & International Affairs, 2018

In the early years of the twenty-first century the narrative of “emerging powers” and “rising powers” seemed to provide a clear and powerful picture of how international relations and global politics were changing. Yet dramatic changes in the global system have led many to conclude that the focus on the BRICS and the obsession with the idea of rising powers reflected a particular moment in time that has now passed. The story line is now about backlash at the core; and, with the exception of China, rising powers have returned to their role as secondary or supporting actors in the drama of global politics. Such a conclusion is profoundly mistaken for three sets of reasons: the continued reality of the post-Western global order; the need to understand nationalist backlash as a global phenomenon; and the imperative of locating and strengthening a new pluralist conception of global order.

Kyle Bisnath , 2021

While the United Nations is the only unifying organization that ‘brings together’ almost all the countries of the world, it is obsolete in the context of global governance, not only as a result of the Security Council’s structural prioritization of power and self-interest, but also because of the International Court of Justice’s lack of competency in conflict resolution and its political biases, as well as due to the General Assembly’s problem of voter manipulation.

If we compare today's world with the World(s) from 1914, 1929 or 1939, some similarities occur: multiple powerful actors on the global and regional levels with conflicting interests, economic difficulties of a large number of economies, and the inability of " the international community " to put a stop on the world's most intense conflicts or rivalries. The Great Recession, which hit the developed, especially European economies the hardest, has shifted more economic power into the direction of emerging economies, thereby accelerating an inevitable economic and political change. Various states have managed to accelerate the change in the distribution of economic wealth. These states, grouped mainly in the BRICS, and in the Next Eleven (N11) have shown, contrary to the Western, " culturally superior " geopolitical thought, that they are neither backward nor incompetent, thereby challenging the developed states. After the paradigm of American Empire, which e...

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 2020

This article sketches an analytical framework to account for new patterns of global governance. We characterize the emergent post-liberal international order as a new age of hybridity, which signifies that no overriding set of paradigms dominate global governance. Instead we have a complex web of competing norms, which creates new opportunities as well as major elements of instability, uncertainty and anxiety. In the age of hybridity, non-Western great powers (led by China) play an increasingly counter-hegemonic role in shaping new style multilateralism-ontologically fragmented, normatively inconsistent, and institutionally incoherent. We argue that democracy paradox constitutes the fundamental issue at stake in this new age of hybridity. On the one hand, global power transitions seem to enable 'democratization of globalization' by opening more space to the hitherto excluded non-Western states to make their voices heard. On the other hand, emerging pluralism in global governance is accompanied by the regression of liberal democracy and spread of illiberalism that enfeeble 'globalization of democratization.'

The UN is arguably the most important organization in the landscape of international relations and global governance. The purpose of Thomas G. Weiss's What's Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It is to spell out a diagnosis of the fundamental shortcomings of this institution, as well as to use its history to illustrate with specific examples that substantial change for the better is possible. The assumption is that in its past lies the answers to some of its most hoary problems. In doing this diagnosis, the book actually addresses the bigger question of how international relations are structured, and how the interactions between States should be organized so as to tackle current global issues, such as conflicts, human rights protection, and environmentally sustainable development. In the conclusive chapter, Weiss contextualizes this book within the broader public administration debate on global governance (for further reference, see Weiss & Thakur, 2010).