AbstractThe 1990s saw a systemic shift from the liberal post–World War II international order ofliberal multilateralism(LIO I) to a post–Cold War international order ofpostnational liberalism(LIO II). LIO II has not been only rule-based but has openly pursued a liberal social purpose with a significant amount of authority beyond the nation-state. While postnational liberal institutions helped increase overall well-being globally, they were criticized for using double standards and institutionalizing state inequality. We argue that these institutional features of the postnational LIO II led to legitimation problems, which explain both the current wave of contestations and the strategies chosen by different contestants. We develop our argument first by mapping the growing liberal intrusiveness of international institutions. Second, we demonstrate the increased level and variety of contestations in international security and international refugee law. We show that increased liberal intrusiveness has led to a variety of contestation strategies, the choice of which is affected by the preference of a contestant regarding postnational liberalism and its power within the contested institution.

Over the years the notion of energy security is gaining wider acceptance not only in day to day state practices but also in the epistemological framework of geopolitics as well as International Relations (IR). One may underline here the fact that energy is not only shaping inter-state relations but also plays a role in generating ‘norms’ which in turn governs the practices of international relations. Some of the major approaches of IR discipline like realism, neo-realism, constructivism and neo-liberal institutionalism can be employed to study the epistemology of energy security. The realism and neorealism perspectives can also be correlated with classical geopolitics to underline the fact that ‘accumulation of resources’ and controlling ‘strategic landmasses’ are some of the primary drivers of global politics. Similarly social constructivism and critical geopolitics can also help in mapping accentuation of ‘societal conflict’ as well as ‘resources distribution’ which is taking place mostly in the so-called ‘Southern part of the world’. The present paper is such an attempt to deconstruct traditional notion of energy security and to study them in the ‘disciplinary perspectives’ of IR and Global South as highlighted above.

This article delves into the enduring relevance of Liberal International Relations (IR) Theory amidst persistent criticisms regarding power dynamics and its applicability in emerging states. Despite its detractors, Liberal IR Theory offers a nuanced understanding of state behavior, blending social contexts with power dynamics. It recognizes the intricacies of economic interdependence and advocates for a balanced approach in advancing democracy and human rights. While nationalism poses challenges to international institutions, their adaptability endures. Leaders, albeit constrained, retain the capacity to foster peace through visionary leadership and global cooperation. By acknowledging its limitations and fostering open dialogue, Liberal IR Theory continues to evolve, poised to contribute to a just and peaceful global order.

There has been numerous literature analysing the international expansion of renewable energy utilizing realism as an International Relations theory from both For and Against perspectives, such as casting doubt on fair cooperation or urging individual states to catch up with the global competition. This paper attempts to offer an alternative explanation to the international cooperation between China and the world in the field of renewable energy through the lenses of liberalism. The role and influence of liberalism in explaining this phenomenon will be presented in the form of compare and contrast between liberalism and realism, with secondary theories included such as institutional liberalism, idealism and democratic peace theory. The rapid growth of renewable energy globally in recent decades could be attributed to individual states’ policies, intergovernmental cooperation and advocacy by international organizations. The paper demonstrates that China’s ability to develop renewable energy can be correspondingly attributed to its willingness to cooperate under the framework of liberalism. It actively participates in international agreements, works with international organizations, and trades with other countries. With cooperative efforts, it succeeds in mitigating the traditional energy crisis and further promoting energy transition. In conclusion, liberalism provides a more accurate and innovative explanation to China`s advocacy for renewable energy compared to realism, and it can be argued that China’s model of energy transformation could be learned by the international community to tackle climate change.

Historical institutionalism, one of the important traditions employed in the discipline of comparative politics, has recently begun to be used in international relations. Historical institutionalism in international relations attributes a central role to history in the formation, change and transformation of institutions, as opposed to international institutional studies that were under the domination of rationalist theories during the Cold War and proceeding towards the rationalism-constructivism dilemma since the Cold War. However, since it is an emerging theory, historical institutionalism is often seen as a bridge between rationalist and constructivist approaches, or is attributed an auxiliary role where other theoretical approaches are not able to explain institutional developments. Taking this problem into consideration, Historical Institutionalism and International Relations aims to outline its own paradigm. The book consists of three parts, two of which are the introduction and conclusion, and the other is empirical chapters that examine change, stability and transformations of different international institutions

Neoliberal institutionalism represents the fourth phase in the development of the liberal institutionalism theory. Unlike the previous ones, at this stage of development, theorists focus on international institutions as independent actors in international relations, which are not only the means for the states to realize their national interests, but also influence internal policy in the countries. Ultimately, this leads to seeing the international relations outside the realistic ?self-help principle? as ones defining the behavior of states. The ambiguity in the further positioning of neoliberal institutionalism is regarding the phenomenon of global governance. The global governance is becoming reality. Because of this, states are often forced to act beyond their particular interests, giving priority to solving problems through international institutions. However, this largely does not happen due to state decisions, but thanks to the activities of non-state actors. Although the international politics stay state-centered, nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations have more influence in overcoming anarchy through global governance and the establishment of rules of the game in certain areas of life. For neoliberal institutionalism, this presents somewhat a challenge. The development of the fourth phase of the liberal institutionalism will depend on future explanations regarding the relation to global governance.

Geopolitics has long been associated with material factors, but theories of international relations continue to evade questions about ecological degradation and declining natural resources. One important point of intersection is the relationship between liberalism and natural abundance/scarcity. There are grounds to suggest that liberal ideas and revolutions owe their emergence and endurance to ecological abundance, particularly in the form of immense stores of solar energy in fossil fuels: such fuels have literally powered the modern liberal project. Some ecological thinkers argue that humanity, or “civilization,” is soon to face massive ecological, economic, and social decline as a result of declining resources, but it is difficult to picture just what “collapse” might entail in political terms. This article examines the prospect that what many see as the current decline of liberalism may in fact be a manifestation of ecologically induced collapse, especially due to the limit to growth represented by “peak oil.” It concludes with consideration of the merits of a more ecological perspective on our political existence.

Institutional liberalism, despite the strong criticisms it has received, has emerged as an important hermeneutic theory, especially in the periods of Post-War Reconstruction. The intense activity of the World Bank, the IMF, the EBRD, the UNDP, the European Investment Bank, the BSIC, but also of individual states, Britain, Italy, Poland, and others, in direct cooperation and coordination with international and European organizations for the reconstruction of Ukraine, confirms the explanatory value of institutional liberalism, since the policies of international and European organizations strengthen future expectations, build partnerships and useful connections between actors, and create incentives for further actions. Against the realist version of international relations, where states behave arbitrarily, the logic of post-war reconstruction comes to affirm the social utility of institutional liberalism, with hope for a society of reconciliation and cooperation. European economic integration, a historical product of a long process of cooperation and development, offers, once again, the model of post-war reconstruction.

Realism, constructivism, and liberal institutionalism share the assumption that states are rational and self-maximizing actors. While these theories disagree as to whether states prioritize military power or economic wealth, they converge around the notion that states pursue these goods rationally and predictably. Complaints against and threats of defection from prominent international security and trade regimes, including NATO and the EU, raise doubts about states’ rationality and predictability. Perhaps these theories’ shared assumption about rational action has become an impediment to understanding state behavior and institutional cooperation. To enrich and to expand the conversation within international political theory, my article turns to Rousseau’s international political thought. Rousseau anticipates central arguments in each of the major traditions of IR theory but locates political self-interest in the sub-rational passion amour propre rather than in reason itself. Rousseau exemplifies a more nuanced way to understand the irrational roots of political motivation and the limits of international order. My paper traces the international implications of amour propre through Rousseau’s key texts on international politics and turns to his “Letter to Philopolis” as a way to re-frame Rousseau’s account of political responsibility.

The world has now experienced what could be regarded as 20 years of Institutional Liberalism: the dominance of the view that cooperation in world politics can be enhanced through the construction and support of multilateral institutions based on liberal principles. E. H. Carr was famously skeptical of liberalism as he understood that tradition. This essay, prepared originally as the E. H. Carr Lecture at Aberystwyth University, interrogates Institutional Liberalism through a lens provided by Carr’s most famous book on international relations, The Twenty Years’ Crisis. It points out three trends since the 1990s that may be associated with Institutional Liberalism: increasing legalization; trends toward more legalism and moralism; and a decline in the coherence of some international regimes. Reviewing these trends in light of Realist critiques of liberalism, the essay rejects Realism as a good moral or practical guide to world politics, but reaffirms the value of the Realist view that institutions depend on structures of power and interests. Increases in legalization, legalism and moralism reflect a fusion of the social purpose of liberal democracies with their unprecedented geopolitical power since 1991. But declines in the coherence of international regimes reflect a greater divergence of interests, weighted by power. All international institutions are flawed and in some ways precarious, but strengthening them in ways that reflect legitimate social purposes remains a major challenge for our time.