Perhaps the favorite definition comes from @SlaughterAM's "New World Order": "A system of global governance that institutionalizes cooperation and sufficiently contains conflict.”
Another one the students found useful comes from a recent @RichardHaass's @ForeignAffairs piece: “[World Order] requires a stable distribution of power and broad acceptance of the rules that govern the conduct of international relations."
Of course, they needed to know Ikenberry's definition from "After Victory", though it's a bit vague: "The governing arrangements among a group of states, including its fundamental rules, principles, and institutions"
Instead, I have them think about a statement from his 1977 @Journal_IS piece, "Arms Control and World Order" (which was actually the first ever article in IS).
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"
[THREAD]
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions.... cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s.
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics. worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.
I pointed out the difficulties in answering that question, namely that we don't actually know when deterrence works (i.e. selection bias)... tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
R2P is "the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". This means nations can't hide behind the barrier of "sovereignty" to stop interventions.