Idea Of World Order Research Articles

What “Introduction to International Relations” Misses Out: Civilizations, World Orders, and the Rise of the West

This essay challenges the traditional Eurocentric or Western-centered view of International Relations (IR) and offers a “global” historical perspective by examining the contribution of non-Western civilizations, especially those of India, China, and Islam. The essay begins by defining some key concepts such as “civilization” and “world order” and discussing the advantages of taking a civilizational, as opposed to the traditional nation-state perspective on international relations. The idea of world order is presented as the political structure of a civilization that is broader than the notion of an “international system”, as it includes both anarchic (a system of independent states interacting without a higher political authority) and hierarchic (such as empire) structures and captures both material (diffusion of economic and military power) and ideational (ideas and innovations) interactions. The benefits of a broader perspective include going beyond a narrow Westphalian and state-centric approach, presenting a more holistic historical view of IR through time and space, and introducing greater analytical depth by questioning the “universality” of concepts and practices that IR scholars have taken for granted and revealing the multiple, diverse and global heritage of IR as a field of study. The subsequent sections of the essay discuss four civilization-based “world orders”: classical Near Eastern, India, China and Islam respectively, to international thought and practice. Each of these sections identifies the structure of the world order, its key underlying ideas and innovations and its legacy. The overall finding is that all three present an eclectic mix of anarchy and hierarchy, idealism and realpolitik, rationalism and spiritualism, which should lead us to seriously question the often stereotyped portrayal of them. A subsequent section discusses the role of Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean in developing the open international trade and the practice of freedom of seas which is often attributed to the West. The last section summarizes the manifold ways in which the ideas and innovations of non-Western civilizations contributed to the rise of Europe and the West. Contrary to historian Niall Ferguson’s view that the rise of Europe was substantially due to it own autonomous knowledge and practice, this section concludes that the West borrowed much from the Rest in its march to global dominance.

The Idea of a World Order

Dooyeweerd was struck by the fact that different systems of philosophy expressly oriented their philosophic thought to the idea of a divine world order. The dialectic of form and matter permeated both Greek and medieval philosophy. The distinction between natural laws and laws of nature is highlighted with reference to Descartes and Beeckman. A key distinction for an understanding of the order of the world is given in the difference between modal laws and type laws. In order to substantiate this claim, an explication of the nature of the order for the world has to explore elements derived from the four most basic modes of explanation: number (the one and the many), space (universality), the kinematic (constancy), and the physical aspect (change). These points of entry serve theoretical thought with terms that may either be employed in a conceptual way or in a concept-transcending way. The influence of nominalism on the thought of Dooyeweerd is analyzed in some more detail.

Promoting Human Rights as an International Policy for World Peace

This essay intends to address the importance of promoting human rights for keeping world peace. In doing so, it emphasizes the relation between peace and law, describing the contribution of the international human rights movement to the solution of international conflicts shaped by the main world views such as: Realism, Liberalism, and the Clash of Civilizations. By comparing these forms of international and world order, the essay analyzes whether the promotion of human rights is compatible with the idea of world order as an international community of independent states or if it is based on the assumption of a world government. The paper proposes a revaluation not only of the legal and institutional mechanisms that prevent violence and protect human rights, but also questions if the philosophical foundations of the international system correspond to the current human condition.

Multinational self‐determination

Even as Woodrow Wilson began to envision a world justice system, with peace as a legal concept, to replace the outdated conventions of the balance of power between nations, the architect himself sought coercive means to mobilize the transition. The times, more than the man, demanded new thinking in matters of international relations, and Wilson himself could rarely reconcile his own political actions with the new legalistic moral ideals. Henry Kissinger explains Wilsonian sentiments of 1917 as follows: America disdained the concept of the balance of power and considered the practice of Realpolitik immoral. America's criteria for international order were democracy, collective security, and self‐determination—none of which had undergirded any previous European settlement. To Americans, the dissonance between their philosophy and European thought underlined the merit of their beliefs. Proclaiming a radical departure from the precepts and experiences of the Old World, Wilson's idea of world order derived from American's faith in the essentially peaceful nature of man and an underlying harmony of the world. It followed that democratic nations were, by definition, peaceful; people granted self‐determination would no longer have reason to go to war or to oppress others. Once all peoples of the world had tasted of the blessings of peace and democracy, they would surely rise as one to defend their gains. But in attempting to implement his new policy Wilson declared, “When the war is over we can force them to our way of thinking, because by that time they will, among other things, be financially in our hands.” Once it was apparent that U.S. participation in the new system was crucial to European approval, Wilson, oddly enough, used the Monroe Doctrine to bolster American support, stating: I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world that no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people ... that all nations henceforth avoid entangling alliances which would draw them into competitions of power ...