Europe and the new balance of global order

While the specifics of Europe's internal dimensions — its ultimate geographic boundaries and its future institutional design — have attracted much attention and caused considerable debate, the future role of the European Union in international relations by comparison has been neglected in terms of both public debate and scientific scrutiny. This is perhaps not surprising, given the massive enlargement of EU membership since the mid-1990s, which has absorbed much of Europe's political energies over the last years, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the near future. At the same time, the European Union since 1990 has also seen its standing and its influence in international relations on balance increase rather substantially, even if this trend has been buffeted repeatedly by setbacks and crises. Indeed, it could be argued that European influence in international relations has grown not despite, but because of major crises which have forced the member states to focus on their shared interests and act accordingly. Whichever it may be, this trend has perhaps been most clearly observed from a distance: several prominent American observers even predicted that the twenty-first century would belong to the new superpower Europe (Kupchan, 2002; Rifkin, 2004).

“Inter-National” Habermas: Contestation and Understanding under Conditions of Diversity

International peace and security is one of the goals of the United Nations for which the entities that take part in international relations have to ensure permanent cooperative resources for the peaceful settlement of any dispute. Knowing the fact that without solutions through the means of peaceful settlement of disputes, there is no other option than the escalation of conflict and the use of force, the United Nations has given a special attention particularly to the promotion of the principles of international law that provide enough flexibility to overcome any deadlock. A principle of major importance is the principle of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. The permanent appeal of this principle in many resolutions and statements offered throughout time, not only by the United Nations, but also by other regional organizations, has the unique purpose of the strengthening international order based on the prohibition of force and coercion in the international relations. In this context, there is only one exception – the right to self-defense, a situation in which the use of force is allowed but without denying or neglecting the obligations to respect international law and justice.The purpose of this article is to identify and present the most important official documents, resolutions and statements of the United Nations and other regional organizations that operate with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, and to highlight its connection with the other principles of international law as the principle of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations, the principle of non-intervention in internal or external affairs of States, the principle of sovereign equality of States, and the principle of good faith in international relations, which all together sustain the goal of not endangering of international peace, security and justice.

The study dealt with the principle of preventing the threat of use of force in international relations within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations by stating the content of the principle of preventing the threat of use of force in accordance with Article 2/4 of the Charter of the United Nations and analyzing legitimate exceptions to the use of force in accordance with the provisions of general international law. In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the descriptive approach was adopted to analyze the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law and the international conventions governing the principle of preventing the threat of force in international relations and the views of scholars of international law. The problem of research is highlighted in the weaknesses of the Charter of the United Nations Force in international relations. The study concluded that the principle of preventing the threat of force in international relations was one of the fundamental pillars of the international legal order established by the Charter of the United Nations. The study reached a number of recommendations, the most important being the re-evaluation of measures to maintain international peace and security through a review of The Security Council acted by reducing the veto.

Current events happening around the world, especially the 'humanitarian interventions' by NATO and the West within the context of the so-called Arab Spring, make the understanding of the role of spheres of influence in international politics absolutely critical. Hast explores the practical implications and applications of this theory, challenging the concept by using historical examples such as suzerainty and colonialism, as well as the emergence of a hierarchical international order. This study further connects the English School tradition, post-war international order, the Cold War and images of Russia with the concept of the sphere of influence to initiate debate and provide a fresh outlook on a concept which has little recent attention.

Contents: Foreword, Marie-Luisa Frick and Andreas Oberprantacher Introduction: a man and his quest for global justice, Chandra Muzzafar Part 1 Power Unleashed? The Use of Force in International Relations and the Future of International Law: From a unipolar to a multipolar world: a post-Bush US presidency for a post-Western world, Anthony Carty Did Captain America kill international law?, Chin Leng Lim Opting for truth: the Roman Catholic Church in international affairs, Jodok Troy Difference arguments in international law and relations, Sienho Yee. Part 2 Conceptual Disputes in Contemporary International Law: Peace through law revisited: Kelsen's vision of international law at the beginning of the 21st century, Andreas Th. MA ller Post-bellum war crimes tribunals and contemporary international law: adjudging state responsibility and 'war guilt' issues, Edward McWhinney The concept of human security: does it add anything of value to international legal theory or practice?, Lyal S. Sunga. Part 3 Knowledge Production and Epistemic Violence in International Relations: The epistemic violence of the international security system in Africa, Belachew Gebrewold Human rights and the challenges of intercultural dialogue in the 21st century: a perspective from sub-Saharan Africa, Michael O. Maduagwu Overcoming cover-science in Latin American social sciences and humanities a an intervention, Johannes Maerk The tyranny of the status quo: economic modeling, economic policy paradigms, and the financial crisis, JesA * s Crespo Cuaresma. Part 4 Global Social Justice and the Question of Power: International economics and the question of power: a manifold but obscured relationship, Andreas Exenberger Was Marx right after all? A critical analysis of the global financial crisis, Elmar Altvater Capitalism vs. ecology: nature, too, expects justice!, TA rkkaya AtaA v Cooperation and global public goods: aspects of fairness in international relations, Ulrich Metschl Index.

In recent years, both state and non-state religious actors have become important for understanding international outcomes in many parts of world. Fundamental norms of international relations were enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - particularly the notion of state restraint in religious matters. This encouraged belief that international relations discourse is predominantly secular. Religion now influences international outcomes involving international society. All religious actors’ influence in international relations is linked to their ability to exercise ‘soft power’. The chapter examines the theory and practice of religion’s involvement in international relations.

This article conducts a discussion on the questions: how does global political economic order generate legitimacy? Of which, this article wishes to shed some lights on the mechanism of legitimacy construction at the international level and provides theoretical explanation of how newly growing powers participate in the current construction of the global political economic order and establish legitimacy of the global order they advocate. This article uses "legitimacy" and "global order" or "world order" or "international order" as the keywords and conducts search on datasets of Google Scholar, Jstor, Tylor & Francis, Elsevier to researches since 2000 onward to gain as wide scope as possible. After screening, 17 articles are included to review the source of legitimacy. This literature review thus concludes that compellence, substantial interests, and value as three sources of legitimacy. Then this article investigates "Belt and Road Initiative" as the case and the English School of International Relations theory to provide a path of building legitimacy of the global political economic order via common interests and value shared. Furthermore, by utilising the English school's perspective, common interests and common values generate legitimacy of the order, this article also finds that China's participation in constructing and shaping global order through the "Belt and Road" Initiative encounters two major legitimacy challenges: performance challenge and value challenge. This article then argues that China needs to consider the interest convergence path and value convergence path of generating legitimacy for global order China advocates.

Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 41, No.4, Summer 2018 Mode of Global Production and Islamic Culture Of Violence NedZad Basic* Introduction According to one group of scholars, the economic, political and cultural changes in the late 20th century did not have a major effect on the internal relations between the political and the cultural/religious structures in the Islamic world. Ernest Gellner emphasized that the process of secularization in industrialized society did not provoke much of a response in the Islamic community. Moreover, the influence of Islam on the feelings and beliefs of his followers increased.1 Another group of prominent scholars, however, came to the conclusion that the global changes in the late 20th century had a significant impact on the creation of ideas about the necessity to change the relationship between the political and the cultural/religious structures in the Islamic world. Famous Saudi Islamologist Abubaker A. Bagader, professor at King Abdul Aziz University, in his studies of the Islamic ideal in the historical context 66 *Nedzad Basic, former Fulbright scholar, is Professor of Public International Law and International Relations and European Studies. He graduated from the Faculty of Law in Belgrade (Yugoslavia), where he earned master's degree at the Department of International Public Law and International Relations. He earned his doctorate at University of Sarajevo. Post-doctoral specialization he completed at the University of St. Thomas University in Canada. He was elected as a visiting researcher at the Faculty of Law, Columbia University in New York, in 2000-2001 academic year. At the Law Faculty in Bihac he has established the teaching courses: Legal and Political System of the EU and International Relations and Security Studies. N. Basic is author and co-author of numerous scholarly papers published in international journals the most recent are: “Secularism and Islamic Law” (Handbook), ARCult Media (2016), Koln, Germany; Specification and Redefining Global Security Paradigm, International Studies, University for Diplomacy Dag Hammarskjöld, Zagreb (2016); International Law in the Shadow of Multi-ethnic Conflict, Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest, 2016; He is also the author of several textbooks and monographs 1 Ernest Gellner, foreword to Akbar S. Ahmed and Hastings Donnan (1994), “Islam, Globalization and Post-modernity”. 67 of global structural changes, emphasized that the main problem in Islam is not the awareness that the Islamic community has to be changed. The main question is what kind of changes need to be made, and how fast and in what way they can be realized. And while some appeal to gradual and peaceful change involving the education and social activity of the masses and their active participation in political life, with respect and appreciation for the legal system and the state as a guarantor of peace and order, others are seeking faster and violent revolutionary change with the establishment of a new global revolutionary Islamic order.2 According to this view, the contemporary crisis of the territorial identity of the state has caused intensive cultural vibrations in Islamic countries, resulting in a dramatic confrontation between the state and society in the Islamic world. Global structural changes require a new space for fluctuations of capital, labor, information and the creative linking behind new knowledge and technology, which has brought about a major crisis in international relations, seeking a new global order in which the state no longer plays a central role in creating the interests and identity of social groups. Since historically the state in the Islamic world was more the agent of the interests of foreign capital rather than that of the interactions between the identity and interests in the Islamic community, this will lead to a serious identity crisis of the state in the Islamic world. As the individual and group identity in Islam is primarily associated with the identity of the global Islamic community of believers (umma), and not with the territorial-political identity of the Islamic state (Watan), whose borders were decreed by the former colonial powers, the “crisis of the territorial identity of the state” in the Islamic world will be automatically transferred into an internal conflict between the state and society in Islam.3 The remarkable complexity of this conflict...

This article examines the emergence and transformation of Norway’s peace engagement in the context of changing international relations. Focusing on foreign policy discourses and practices, the article portrays peace engagement as a value-based effort to support resolution of distant intrastate conflicts, and a strategy to promote Norway’s interests and influence in international relations. The article also argues that changing international politics after the turn of the century has challenged and reoriented Norway’s peace engagement in a more realist direction. Foreign policy discourses and practices are increasingly based on a broad notion of interests that also include ideals of peace, democracy and development. This means that peace engagement can support a domestic political consensus on foreign policy, and simultaneously promote Norway’s standing, relevance and influence in international relations. Peace engagement has thus been institutionalized as a foreign policy that promotes peace while also addressing the challenges associated with smallness in international relations.

The article notes that modern processes taking place in the world are causing the reformation of the system of international relations, forcing scientists to think about the conceptualization of the concept of "political influence". Any influence is a process whose goal is to change behavior, preferences, positions, feelings and emotions, beliefs, as well as group norms, mass attitudes, and social consciousness. Political influence is one of the varieties of social influence. Political influence is traditionally seen as a manifestation of power. In international relations, the concept of "political influence" is associated with the concepts of "state power", "state power". It is noted that influence in the international arena can be exercised using various means and mechanisms, in particular, using "hard" or "soft" power. At the same time, the same resources can act as "soft" or "hard" power, for example, economic, human, communication, etc. In the system of international relations, dialogic and authoritarian communication is used, which affects the results of influence. The article analyzes the means of influence, in particular, attention is paid to the classification of resources of political influence. It is noted that political influence in international relations depends on many factors: economic, social, informational. It is pointed out that there are various methods of political influence, the subjects of which are both individuals and large transnational corporations, international organizations and states. The effectiveness of political influence will depend on the specific characteristics of the subject and the object of influence, on their status in the international arena, prestige, will, etc., and the nature of the relationship between the participants. It is concluded that political influence in international relations is an integral part of them.

This chapter sets the question of effective multilateralism within the broader analysis of global order and the ways in which the patterns of global order and the understanding of global order have evolved in the period since the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s, dominant western understandings about multilateralism were firmly rooted within the context of economic globalization and an apparently stable western-centred global liberal order. In the early 2000s, multilateralism was frequently viewed through the prism of US hegemony. Now, the picture is one of flux, fluidity and great uncertainty. This chapter seeks to shed light on some of the principal features of the contemporary global order and some of the major sources of this uncertainty.

The major thrust of contemporary international law is to restrict coercion in international relations as a modality of major change. The use of force as an instrument of change has always been wasteful, disruptive, and tragic. In the nuclear era the renunciation of force as a method of settlement of disputes has become an imperative. These necessities have resulted in a widely accepted distinction between lawful and unlawful uses of force in international relations which is embodied in the United Nations Charter. Force pursuant to the right of individual or collective defense or expressly authorized by the centralized peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations is lawful. Essentially all other major uses of force in international relations are unlawful. These fundamental proscriptions are designed to protect self-determination of the peoples of the world and to achieve at least minimum world public order. As such, they reflect the basic expectations of the international community. Since they are aimed at prohibiting the unilateral use of force as a modality of major change, they have consistently authorized the use of force in individual or collective defense at least “until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This defensive right is, at least at the present level of effectiveness of international peacekeeping machinery, necessary to the prevention of unilateral use of force as an instrument of change. The fundamental distinction between unlawful unilateral force to achieve major change and lawful force in individual or collective defense against such coercion is the structural steel for assessment of the lawfulness of the present military assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam.

Narratives as tools of sociological imagination: a reply to ‘From discourse to legitimacy: narratives as instruments of influence in international relations’ by Armağan Gözkaman

On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society. By Andrew Hurrell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 354 pp., $45.00 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-19-923311-3). The idea of the English School (ES) is now firmly established in the academic community specializing in International Relations. This has resulted in a significant number of publications on a wide variety of themes associated with the School's key texts and research agenda (Dunne 1998; Buzan 2004; Vigezzi 2005; Linklater and Suganami 2006). Hedley Bull's The Anarchical Society constitutes one of the School's foundational texts and therefore it is not surprising that subsequent publications have focused on it. Andrew Hurrell's book, however, represents a significant attempt to move beyond it. Hurrell is mainly concerned with the ability of the anarchical society of states to provide a practically viable and normatively acceptable framework for global political order in an era of globalization. This concern has also been shared by other ES scholars (Buzan 2004; Little and Williams 2006; Stivachtis 2007). For Hurrell, international society faces three essential challenges: the need to capture shared and common interests, to manage unequal power, and to mediate cultural diversity and value conflict. The main problem is how to find a legitimate form of global order capable of meeting these three challenges. In addressing these issues, Hurrell begins by rejecting Bull's suggestion, namely that a thin pluralist international society of states is the best available means of upholding global order. This brings Hurrell into an intellectual confrontation with contemporary ES scholars who advocate a pluralist conception of international society (Jackson 2000). Although Hurrell is very sympathetic to ES scholars who have advanced a solidarist conception of international society (Wheeler 2000), he is very skeptical of the ability of the solidarist approach to address effectively the issues at hand. According to Hurrell, the main reason for this is that solidarist approaches still …