In response to @shifrinson, I shared the definitions of "international order" used in #ChicagoIntroIR (including my preferred definition by @SlaughterAM)
Here, I'll highlight some work specifically focused on defining international order (and why defining it is tricky)
[THREAD]
To start, here is @shifrinson's original question...
The chapter contains this table: the first column essentially defines order as a tool of US power, while the second column defines order as a way of moving beyond a "balance of power" system
If we are going to talk about different "Conceptions of Order", then we need to look at Shiping Tang's Chinese Political Science Review piece (as suggested by @Prof_BearB):
Goh (page 7) acknowledges the various aspects of order and how this can complicate our ability to define it. Nevertheless, Goh boils it down to an arrangement that sustains the primary goal of states:
Of course, that requires defining the primary goals of states. These are often at cross purposes.
Hence, what constitutes the "rules and rights" of an order may well depend on who's in charge -- i.e. the hegemon, as described well by @dhnexon in his @PrincetonUPress book:
@dhnexon writes that "The Preeminent power...establishes and enforces the `rules and rights' that govern international economic and political relations, as well as sets standards of relative prestige among states"
You'll notice that @dhnexon uses the word "govern". Mitzen, in her @UChicagoPress book, points out that one must be careful when using this term when defining order
Mitzen essentially points out that governing (through a forum, like the UNSC) is a means of achieving order
Anyhow, I could likely go on and on.
The point is that scholars have not only written a lot about "international order"; they've written a lot about DEFINING "international order" (or how it's difficult to define international order).
[END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.