Double-talk: Russia’s Variable Ideology

For the first time in the history of mankind several powers emerge simultaneously in different latitudes and can interact intensively. The Contemporary Global Order has presented significant changes among which highlight the absolute and relative decline of American power, and the emergence of new actors who have greater agency power in their international relations. One of these actors is the so-called BRICS that brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. For this reason the aim of this investigation is to analyzing the effective and potential power of the BRICS in the Contemporary Global Order. The methodology is it is situated inside the analytical eclecticism which is characterized by explaining a certain phenomenon without using a block of explanations sustained in a single tradition, but it takes and re-means the elements that it considers most pertinent for the case study. The article states that the BRICS do not claim or have the capacity to become hegemons. The objectives and capabilities of the BRICS have been especially notable in terms of international political economy, especially in the financial architecture, where China has its greatest power. The BRICS can promote an alternative to the existing game rules in the international system and promote a more plural world. They have the capacity to reform and build international economic institutions that allow a fairer distribution of material resources. They can curb unilateral global power interventions in regional affairs, framing interventions for humanitarian causes within multilateralism and the Responsibility to Protect. In terms of democracy and human rights, they will not make any contribution since their main actors, such as China and Russia, are examples of disrespect for these values.

Is the contemporary global order under threat? This contribution weighs the case for and against the notion that we are witnessing an existential challenge to the contemporary global order. We show that there are grounds for optimism with respect to the endurance of the first two ordering principles of the contemporary global order: a state-led global order and economic liberalism, because states remain key actors in the current world order and because overall support for economic liberalism remains strong. However, we see greater challenges to the procedural principle of inclusive, rule-based multilateralism, such as unilateral disintegration challenges and rising popular scepticism about international institutions that provide considerable reasons to worry about the future of the global order. Yet, given that the global order has proven robust time and again in the past, we see some reasons for cautious optimism overall, despite considerable risks.

Globalization is notoriously difficult to define, subsuming a staggeringly complex interrelation of social, economic, and political phenomena, which monodisciplinary approaches alone cannot begin to capture (see also Stetter in this volume). Common to most, if not all, these approaches to “globalization” are three ideas: first, that contemporary globalization bears the imprint of a particular historical trajectory inextricable from the “West’s” recent past and present; second, that contemporary globalization involves an accelerated spatiotemporal compression (Scholte; Virilio) driven by the expansion of capitalism (Wallerstein; Frank), often resulting in a complex interrelation of denationalization (Sassen), renationalization, expansion, and resistance; and third, that the diverse phenomena subsumed under this label are crucial if we are to understand the configuration of relations of power in the contemporary global order.

It is safe to say that much of international law—the bedrock of the international order—has been shaped by the Western legal doctrine. How does the Islamic legal tradition relate to international law? What are Islamic law states’ (ILS) stance toward the global order and international relations? This article offers a fresh perspective of similarities and differences between international law and Islamic law. ILS’ patterns of commitments to a number of international treaties and institutions reveal a nuanced picture of these states’ position in the contemporary global order. I bring together the English-language-dominated field of international relations and the Arabic-language literature on global order and Islamic law. I trace Islam's contributions to international law and argue that international law and Islamic law share more similarities than they are given credit for. However, the inherent diversity of Islamic law and the lack of an authoritative body of Islamic international law muddle effects of historical cross-fertilization between Islamic law and international law. In reality, ILS’ position in the global order is not about a fundamental clash of values. A much more intricate picture emerges. In an important way, this paper sketches an emerging research agenda for understanding ILS’ position in the modern global order.

This article examines the question of global order in the contemporary historical conjuncture. I argue that Hardt and Negri's Empire provides a response to such a question. This response is necessary given the manner in which globalisation theory's explanation of global order has been contested by the George W Bush regime. An exegesis of the manner in which Empire delineates global order in the contemporary era provides, moreover, a fruitful encounter between elements of post-structuralist International Relations theory and the subject matter of International Political Economy. The article sketches out the principal characteristics of empire followed by an exegesis of the empirical manifestation of imperial characteristics in the contemporary global order. I argue that the present global order is characterised by the drawing of boundaries or the constitution of thresholds that define what is to be regarded as included and excluded from the imperial realm. Empire vigorously polices these thresholds in order to defer encounters with others that might question its self-asserted timeless pacific civility. Finally, I conclude by noting that the centrality of such boundary constitution to imperial forms suggests that a logic of security underlies contemporary global order. Thus investigations into the political economy of Empire will always already comprise an investigation of imperial logics of security.

This paper explores the intersections of Islamic law, collective obligations, and the pursuit of global justice in the context of capitalism-induced instability. The author argues that the contemporary global order is marked by a state of “abnormality” due to capitalism’s dynamic nature of “creative destruction,” rendering traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) inadequate for addressing modern challenges. Instead, the concept of collective obligations (furūḍ kifāya) in Islamic law offers a promising framework for managing these crises. This paper examines the potential for Islamic legal principles to confront global issues such as inequality and poverty, emphasizing the necessity of reflexive, adaptive jurisprudence grounded in democratic governance and public good. By reimagining Islamic law to focus on collective welfare and institutional reform, Muslim-majority states could play a pivotal role in fostering a more just global order. The paper concludes by stressing the urgent need for political will and collaborative action, informed by Islamic values, to address the systemic inequalities perpetuated by the capitalist global order.

This is a study of legitimacy in a global order, not legitimacy of the global order. It explores the challenging issue of what legitimacy might mean within such a context, and on what basis that order could develop its own principles of legitimacy. Its purpose is to garner further insights into the nature of contemporary global governance, and resistance to it, inasmuch as the latter is widely deemed to be symptomatic of the legitimacy crisis at its heart. A multitude of writers, working from quite different perspectives, is in agreement that it is this lack of legitimacy that threatens the very fabric of the order. Indeed, it is common to regard the emergence of concerns about the declining legitimacy of any system as itself indicative of some kind of failure within it: the concept tends to be associated with the ‘politics of crisis’. Accordingly, we are most likely to ask questions about the legitimacy of a system only when things appear to be going wrong. If this is so, legitimacy provides a vital key to understanding the tensions within the contemporary global order.

The contemporary global order is widely said to be in crisis. But despite a rapidly proliferating literature on the subject, there is little clarity or consensus about wherein the ‘crisis’ consist, or what precisely is under threat. We offer a restricted characterization of the post-war global order based on its fundamental substantive and procedural ordering principles: sovereign inter-state relations and a relatively open global economy, characterized by practices of inclusive, rule-bound multilateralism. We argue that only if one of more of these foundational principles are systematically violated, can we speak of a demise of the order. To this end, we consider the extent to which each of these basic principles is currently endangered. We conclude that what we are witnessing is not the collapse of the current world order, but rather its transformation and adaptation into a broader, more flexible and multifaceted system of global governance – a change within the order rather than of the order.

The contemporary global order, despite its claims of universality and legality, still has deep moral and structural deficiencies, as evidenced by selective justice, disparities in power and the normalization of violence. This article proposes that Islamic jurisprudence provides a coherent and ethically grounded alternative world order based on the Qur’anic injunctions and the ethical limitations of the Prophetic model. The study explores Islam's normative vision of the global order through the lens of juristic and ethical contributions of Syrian and Turkish thinkers—Wahbah al-Zuhayli, Mustafa al-Sibāʿī, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and İbrahim Kalın. Employing doctrinal and comparative analysis, it shows that Islamic thought brings law, ethics, spirituality and institutional accountability into a unified moral framework. The article goes on to demonstrate that the Islamic mode of action (modus operandi) emphasizes the importance of moral transformation, institutional reform, and ethical engagement with the world through the subordination of coercion to justice and restraint, as presented in Qur’an 57:25. It concludes that the Islamic world order is a viable and principled alternative to the morally deficient contemporary global system.

Migration is arguably the single most salient issue in in Western democracies today. Anti-immigrant attitudes have fueled the rise of right-wing populist parties, have proved decisive in swaying a slim margin of the British public to support Brexit and have catalyzed delicate democracies down authoritarian tracks. We contend that because of predominant identity and security concerns, the free movement of people has never become a key element of the contemporary global order despite its qualifying, liberal credentials. Even in the European Union (EU), the integration of migration policy has remained fragmented and differentiated. These omissions are taking their toll as they generate friction between domestic and supranational goals, and as global problems – like the recent refugee crisis – lack ‘global’ or unified solutions. Migration has turned from an orphan of the global order to one of its primary challengers.

The history of global power transitions is a complex and multifaceted topic that has far-reaching implications on various aspects of international relations, including US-China relations. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where the balance of power between nations has shifted, leading to significant changes in the global order. This research is aimed to analyse the prospects and implications of the current global power transition. Since the relative decline of the United States and the rise of China, the US-China relationship is one of the recurring themes in international relations. The pace of rise of the rest, especially China, is shrinking the power gap between the United States and these competitors. This paper suggests that the United States has gone through a relative decline in its military, economic, and soft power capabilities. The current trade war between the two largest economies, COVID-19 and other factors have exacerbated souring US-China relations. The realist theorists suggest that the ‘rising states are always prone to provoke war’, however, as China continues to increase its economic and military capabilities, the US has become increasingly wary of its rise and has adopted a more confrontational approach towards the country. This has led to a series of trade disputes, military tensions, and geopolitical conflicts between the two nations. The rise of China today is possible because of benefitting from the contemporary global order, but at the same time, China is dissatisfied with the role of the United States or a group of certain states in manipulating the laws of international institutions to pursue their self-interest. To avoid hostility, the largest economies should emphasize global issues by endorsing economic interdependence and cooperation.

The contemporary global order is shaped by pressing international relations (IR) issues, including structural inequality, climate change, and geopolitical tensions. This study examines the enduring legacies of colonial rule in shaping global North and South dichotomy through the lens of postcolonialism. While few scholarships have explored these concerns, there remains a gap in holistically applying postcolonial theory to explain their interconnectedness. This study seeks to fill this gap by critically analyzing how colonial structures continue to influence global inequalities, climate vulnerabilities, and power struggles. The study contends that structural inequality in the global south is a direct consequence of colonial exploitation, reinforcing economic dependency and social stratification. Similarly, climate change disproportionately affects the Global South, exacerbating poverty and displacement, while powerful nations evade accountability. The study also argues that contemporary geopolitical tensions, such as the Russia-Ukraine War, can be traced to imperialist legacies and historical power struggles. This analysis underscores the strengths of postcolonialism in elucidating these phenomena, particularly its ability to deconstruct colonial narratives and expose persistent global hierarchies. The study concludes that addressing these challenges requires decolonizing global governance structures, advocating climate justice, and fostering equitable international relations. It recommends structural reforms in global governance, reduction of dependency on exploitative foreign investments and a combination of economic justice, environmental accountability, and political agency.

Since the mid-20th century, literature in English has witnessed the appearance of a plethora of narratives that map the new territorialities of the Indian diaspora in places such as Britain, America, Canada, Australia or the Caribbean. Cauvery Madhavan’s Paddy Indian portrays an Indo-Irish cultural encounter on Irish soil, thus offering a pioneering scenario which echoes Ireland’s position as a country of immigration, rather than emigration. This article offers an analysis of the novel in the light of Homi Bhabha’s notion of “cultural translation” and recent theorizations on transculturalism. It argues that Madhavan’s Paddy Indian provides a fictional insight into cultural translation and transculturalism, not only through its content, but also through the characters’ use of language. Ultimately, the novel puts to the test traditional definitions of “Indianness” and “Irishness”, portraying India and Ireland as transcultural spaces within our contemporary global order.

Introduction to the Special Issue on Challenges to Emerging and Established Powers: Brazil and the United Kingdom in the Contemporary Global Order

Drawing on the theoretical framework of globalization from below, this article examines how global capitalism complicates the lived experiences of racially and socioeconomically marginalized groups in contemporary Asia. Through a close reading of Five Star Billionaire and We, the Survivors, two Anglophone novels by Chinese Malaysian author Tash Aw, the analysis explores the intersection of race, class, and globalization, revealing how neoliberal capitalism entrenches social immobility and exploitation within and beyond Malaysia. While Five Star Billionaire critiques the illusory promises of upward mobility for disenfranchised Malaysian migrants, We, the Survivors highlights the cyclical entrapment of migrant laborers within Malaysia’s racialized capitalist hierarchies. Both novels subvert metropolitan readers’ expectations of the “postcolonial exotic” by challenging dominant narratives of Asian prosperity and instead foregrounding systemic inequalities perpetuated by global capitalism. Through detailed textual analysis, this article argues that Aw’s works transcend the categorization of minor literature by offering a universal critique of globalization’s impact on marginalized communities. Ultimately, the novels underscore the failure of neoliberal globalization to foster equitable opportunities, interrogating the structural forces that sustain economic and racial hierarchies in the contemporary global order.