International Politics Today Research Articles

Order, Disorder, Reorder: Can The Liberal International Order “Survive” the Sino-American Competition?

The future of international politics today hinges on how the Sino-American rivalry unfolds. Views vary from expectations of peaceful evolution to hegemonic transition, but many fail to recognize the significant role the liberal international order (LIO) can play in shaping the course of events. Thanks to its structure and adaptability, the LIO is more than the mere environment surrounding this rivalry and may be the primary determinant of American and Chinese choices, steering relations toward cooperation. The success of the LIO during the post-WWII era is notably the product of the environment it has managed to create, characterized by mutual gains, as well as considerable costs in the event of a revisionist disruption. Moreover, the LIO has a structural character that enables it to exert influence on state behavior. This article, drawing on liberal internationalist theory, contends that the LIO demonstrates the substantial potential to emerge as the ultimate “victor” amidst the intensifying rivalry between the two major actors. By evaluating multiple arguments, the analysis concludes that a reformed version of the LIO, which accommodates both American and Chinese aspirations, includes a dual leadership mechanism in decision-making, and reflects the newly shaped power dynamics, offers a viable solution to the Sino-American competition.

The History of Imperial Politics and the Politics of Imperial History

This article constitutes a discourse of the essence of the empire, and on ensuing contradictions in what otherwise had been a commonly experienced history by Turks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This article is a moment of reflection on the author’s paradigm of empire, based on his academic research and diplomatic experience. The article addresses three questions: 1) What are empires and what are not, 2) Contradictions in the common history of Muslims/Turks and Armenians and possible explanations for these contradictions, 3) The fate of empires in international politics today. The author’s empire paradigm to these three questions is motivated by two main considerations: (1) How can we explain the fundamental differences between the opposing histories of empires and peoples subject to empires? (2) On an intellectual and scientific level, how can we contribute to efforts that can move us closer to a more thorough history from which we could draw some lessons? Historical discourse shows that differences will always remain, but even these differences should be aimed at enriching our knowledge and perspectives, and not at ignoring, obscuring or otherwise ignoring aspects of history itself. Contemporary interest in such comparative research goes beyond the methodologies that support the social sciences and the integrity of the profession of historian or other scholars of history.

Rising Temperatures, Rising Tensions: Climate Change and Power Transition Theory

Two of the biggest issues in international politics today are climate change and the ongoing power transition between the United States and China. However, very few works examine the way these issues interact with each other. This paper attempts to resolve this by integrating climate change into power transition theory (PTT), which attempts to capture the behavior of states in the midst of transition to or from global power. This paper first analyzes the literatures on the (tenuous) links between environmental degradation and interstate conflict as well as PTT. Opportunities for integration are then examined, especially focusing on climate change's impact on the central variables of power and state satisfaction. These theoretical links are then applied to the looming US-Sino transition and highlight how climate change opens up new arenas of great power competition, exacerbates tensions and impacts relative power in unpredictable ways.

Understanding of democracy and peace Gershon H.Gordon Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel Aviv University

One of the great changes in the world situation after World War II was the long period of peace without war between democracies and even great powers. However, the world is not easy in the halo of peace. The smoke of local wars such as the Iraq war has not yet dissipated, and frequent terrorist groups is worrying. In Asia, Japan's military influence, which is second only to the United States, cannot be underestimated. Its defense strategy changes from specialized defense to outward defense. This situation brings a new threat to the security of all countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The problem of the "security dilemma" remains one of the major issues in international politics today. In this regard, realism puts forward the theory of potential equalization and deterrence, while liberalism puts forward the theory of world government, collective security, economic interdependence, and democratic peace. Among them, democratic peace theory, as a popular theory in the field of western international relations research, has aroused wide controversy in the academic circles. "Democratic peace theory" believes that there is no or little war between democratic countries, and "non-democratic countries" are the root cause of war, and expanding democracy is the inevitable requirement for maintaining peace. "Democratic peace theory" does not conform with historical facts, it is the theoretical basis for neo-interventionism in promoting human rights diplomacy. The relationship between democracy and peace is complex: peace between international society and international relations requires not only a domestic democracy, but also in international life; democracy is only one of the many reasons affecting international peace, It has limited impact on peace; the "democracy peace theory" advocates established peace is essentially local peace between western countries based on unreasonable international political and economic order, the consolidation of overall world peace and the establishment of just and reasonable new international order call for new democracy.

Reflection of the EU Climate Policy Strategic Narrative in the Programmes of Latvian Political Parties—External Convergence and Influence on Shaping Public Opinion

Climate change, as well as the challenges that come with it, is one of the main issues in international and national politics today. Addressing the threats posed by climate change requires close cooperation at the international level and within each country, creating a dialogue between the political elite and society, thus promoting a common understanding and action across the European Union (EU). The aim of this research is to (1) identify what climate policy narratives are projected to the Latvian electorate (public) and (2) assess how these narratives are aligned with the EU-defined strategic climate policy narrative. The theoretical basis and methodological approach of the study is based on the concept of strategic narrative. It is assumed that the viability and impact of a strategic narrative is enhanced when there is coherence between all stages of the narrative life cycle (i.e., the EU level and the national policy level). The empirical basis of the study is based on the identification of the EU climate policy narrative in the sector’s regulatory documents, as well as an analysis of the election programmes of Latvian political parties (the last European Parliament (2019) and parliamentary (2018) election programmes). The results show that the narrative that the Latvian public receives from its political elite through the European Parliament and the national pre-election programmes is significantly different from the EU strategic narrative on climate policy. Based on the theoretical concept of strategic narrative, it can be concluded that the observed dissimilarity of narratives does not stimulate the inclusion of the Latvian public in the common EU space of climate policy understanding and action.

The Power of Geographical Imaginaries in the European International Order: Colonialism, the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, and Model International Organizations

AbstractThis article examines the emergence of early international organizations and efforts to export European institutional models to the periphery as part of the global expansion of a European international order. In particular, it focuses on the 1884–85 Berlin Conference as a pivotal moment in that expansion and the failed attempt to transplant the Treaty of Vienna model for transboundary river governance to the Congo River. Scholarship on the spread of institutions has highlighted the dangers of applying institutional models from one context to another, but there has been limited attention on why European institutional models are so compelling in the first place. Based on primary historical material, I show that despite some awareness among the diplomats at Berlin that the African context differed from the European one, this knowledge did not disrupt their underlying confidence in the Vienna model. I contend that the reason this model was so compelling was that it was built on two interrelated geographical imaginaries that constituted the diplomats’ understanding of the global and the political possibilities available to them. The first imaginary constituted the periphery as conceptually empty and ready to be remade by European models; the second constituted Europe as the generative site of universal models. Together, these taken-for-granted imaginaries made the diplomats’ practices of adopting the Vienna model seem natural and self-evident. These imaginaries continue to have implications for international politics today as we consider one-size-fits-all technocratic solutions and benchmarks for global progress.

Olympism, cosmopolitanism, nationalism: the many face(t)s of the Olympics

ABSTRACT ‘Unity in Diversity’ – this motto of the 2021 Games in Tokyo nicely expresses the tension between universalism and particularism that besets not only the Olympic Games, but almost every aspect of international politics today. Treating the Olympics as a microcosm, this article explores whether the Games are able to overcome that tension. It is argued that their specific symbols, rituals and myths have been hijacked by nationalist ones, to which the International Olympic Committee responded by advancing cosmopolitan ones, as a result of which the Games are effectively contested from both ends of the universalist–particularist spectrum. While this disqualifies Olympism to serve as a viable middle ground and facilitator of peace, the Games may still act as a substitute for war by directing our constant struggle for national identity into peaceful channels. The nationalist penetration of the Games should therefore not be resented but welcomed for the sake of peace.

Four factors in the “special relationship” between China and North Korea: a framework for analyzing the China–North Korea Relationship under Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un

ABSTRACT Background Analyzing North Korea is essential for examining international relations in East Asia as a whole, but North Korea’s tight control over information makes this difficult. Another factor complicating analysis of North Korea is its “special relationship” with China. Purpose The aim of this paper is to examine four factors contributing to the “special relationship” between China and North Korea, how that relationship came about, and how it functions within the context of international politics today. Main Argument This paper is a structural analysis of China–North Korea relations that describes four factors behind their “special relationship.” It continues by analyzing China–North Korea relations under Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un up to the deployment of THAAD in South Korea. Conclusion The “special relationship” between China and North Korea is based on four factors. What is distinctive about these factors is that they can bring the two sides together but also push them apart. In terms of national security issues, the force bringing them together has ultimately prevailed. Socialist ideology issues have surfaced much less frequently now and have lost their capacity to both bring the two together and push them apart. In the area of traditional ties, the two leaders are attempting to use their personal relationship to have closer relations, but this is not having much lasting effect. Where economic relations are concerned, Beijing and Pyongyang have become even more dependent on each other and this is a strong force pushing them closer together.

Модели регионального лидерства в Евразии: к новой исследовательской повестке

One of the important tasks in the study of international politics today is the elaboration and empirical verification of new theoretical models for the coexistence of several regional leadership projects, simultaneously implemented by various countries and international organizations. Until now, the existing models, as a rule, have described this kind of leadership at the international arena in fundamentally hierarchical terms: either as a unipolar world with a hegemonic country dominating global politics, or as a bipolar system. These models unambiguously assume that the world either “belongs” to one hegemon, or is divided between two superpowers. In the latter case, there are practically no regions where both leadership projects would be carried out simultaneously, since such a geographical “overlap” would inevitably provoke conflict. Meanwhile, the task of understanding and explaining the internal mechanics of the simultaneous coexistence of several potential leaders on the same geographic territory for a fairly long time remains unsolved. In the modern world, such parallel (joint or competitive) leadership can no longer be regarded as an anomaly or a temporary phenomenon, it becomes a “new normality”, creating additional opportunities for international players, but at the same time imposing more substantial constraints on them. Thus, the relevance of the agenda put forward in the article is determined by a number of circumstances, the most fundamental of which is the crisis of the global governance system and the neoliberal model of globalization. Today, macro-regions become “building blocks” for the multipolar structure of the world, and the role of individual states or their groups, which begin to play a structure-forming role in “their” macro-regions, is increasing. These are potential leaders with special characteristics and special relations with their “followers”. The problem of leadership is most interestingly actualized in the Eurasian region, the internationalization of which is rapidly growing. In this region, several leaders are observed (such as Russia, China, the European Union) who compete for the same followers, offering them different agendas and using a wide range of power tools – from “soft” to “hard” power. It is in Eurasia that the variability of relations connecting the leader and followers is extremely high. In this article, the authors put forward and ground the possibility and necessity of developing a research agenda on regional leadership based on the material of modern Eurasia – the most important world macro-region where three leadership projects are being successfully implemented at the same time, the description and analysis of which in their interconnection go beyond the Eurasian theme only and can help advance our understanding of the nature of multipolarity in modern international relations.

BRICS and Sovereign Internationalism

The article outlines four types of globalism contending for hegemony today. The struggle of what effectively represents different types of international order is one reason why international politics today looks so disordered. The BRICS association is firmly located as part of one of these orders, that of sovereign internationalism, but is challenged by the disruptive implications of the Trumpian mercantilist order. BRICS and its members as a result are drawing closer to the liberal internationalist model. However, this is made more difficult by liberalism’s shift towards some of the Trumpian exclusionary agenda. Despite some inner contradictions, the BRICS is one of the institutional and normative cornerstones of sovereign internationalism.

Europe’s Authoritarian Challenge

Europe is at the center of two defining trends in international politics today: renewed great power competition and the resurgence of global authoritarianism. Migration, the rise of extreme nationa...

THE DINAMICS OF MAJOR-POWER RELATION AND ITS INFLUENCES TOWARD ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL ORDER IN CONTEMPORARY ERA

<p>Asia-Pacific as the "pivot" of the 21st century area, related to the various issues that became the main agenda when discussing the development of international politics today. The dynamics of major-power relations as the complexity of the USA-China relations has effect significantly to the regional order in Asia Pacific. The urgency of reshaping the regional order in Asia Pacific is when China as an emerging power presenting a threat towards US hegemony existence in the region. The dynamics of major-power relations have indirectly created perceptions of the strengthening of China's influence in the regional level, which leads to the centralistic weakening of US leadership in Asia-Pacific. Simultaneously, the creation of peace and the stability of regional security also demands the re-establishment of an Asia-Pacific regional order that can accommodate the possibility of a truly transitional US power over China.</p><p><strong>Keyword: </strong>major-power relation, world order, Asia-Pacific, United States of America, the rise of China</p>

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHERS OF THE WEST ABOUT THE “COLD WAR”, TOTALITARIANISM AND COMMUNISM: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REINHOLD NIEBUHR’S AND GIORGIO LA PIRA’S CONCEPTS

The author examines the legacy of two great Christian thinkers, the American Reinhold Niebuhr and the Italian Giorgio La Pira, both very influential during the Cold War. Niebuhr was a Protestant theologian and political adviser to the American establishment. The Mayor of Florence, La Pira, was a prominent Italian statesman and an eminent Catholic thinker. The author analyzes their views on international relations, in particularly on the western policy towards the Soviet Union, the use of nuclear weapons, the war in Vietnam and communism. The legacy of two thinkers is highly topical in front of the ethical dimension of choices needed in international politics today.

The last empire: the final days of the Soviet Union

On Christmas Day 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union. By the next day the USSR was officially no more and the USA had emerged as the world's sole superpower. Award-winning historian Serhii Plokhy presents a page-turning account of the preceding five months of drama, filled with failed coups d'etat and political intrigue. Honing in on this previously disregarded but crucial period and using recently declassified documents and original interviews with key participants, he shatters the established myths of 1991 and presents a bold new interpretation of the Soviet Union's final months. Plokhy argues that contrary to the triumphalist Western narrative, George H. W. Bush desperately wanted to preserve the Soviet Union and keep Gorbachev in power, and that it was Ukraine and not the US that played the key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. The consequences of those five months and the myth-making that has since surrounded them are still being felt in Crimea, Russia, the US, and Europe today. With its spellbinding narrative and strikingly fresh perspective, The Last Empire is the essential account of one of the most important watershed periods in world history, and is indispensable reading for anyone seeking to make sense of international politics today.

Systemic evil and the international political imagination

In light of the persistence of discourses of atrocity in the post-Holocaust era, and with the resurgence of talk of evil that followed 11 September 2001, it is clear that the idea of evil still possesses a powerful hold upon the modern imagination. Yet, the interplay of evil and the political imagination – in particular, how different images of evil have shaped the discourses and practices of international politics – remains neglected. This article suggests that evil is depicted through three contending images within international politics – evil as individualistic, as statist and as systemic – and their corresponding forms of collective imagination – the juridical, the humanitarian and the political. It argues further that the dominance of the juridical and, to a lesser extent, the humanitarian imagination obscures our ability to imagine and respond to political evils of structural or systemic violence. Drawing on the example of global poverty, this article contends that the ability to portray and critically judge systemic evils in international politics today depends upon enriching our narratives about indefensible atrocities and reimagining our shared political responsibilities for them.

Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power

Soft power in its current, widely understood form has become a straitjacket for those trying to understand power and communication in international affairs. Analyses of soft power overwhelmingly focus on soft power ‘assets’ or capabilities and how to wield them, not how influence does or does not take place. It has become a catch-all term that has lost explanatory power, just as hard power once did. The authors argue that the concept of strategic narrative gives us intellectual purchase on the complexities of international politics today, especially in regard to how influence works in a new media environment. They believe that the study of media and war would benefit from more attention being paid to strategic narratives.

CHRISTIAN THINKERS ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND GIORGIO LA PIRA)

The author examines the legacy of two great Christian thinkers, the American Reinhold Niebuhr and the Italian Giorgio La Pira. Reinhold Niebuhr was a protestant theologian and political adviser to the Council of Foreign Relations and George Kennan’s Policy Planning Staff. The Mayor of Florence, Giorgio La Pira was a Dominican tertiary and professor of Roman law; he was a prominent Italian statesman and one of the fathers of the Italian Constitution. During the Cold War period both played a significant role in influencing public opinion, both proved to be among most influential religious thinkers of the 20th century. The author analyzes their views on international relations, in particularly on the western policy towards the Soviet Union, the use of nuclear weapons, the war in Vietnam and the communist issue. The legacy of the two thinkers is highly topical in front of the ethical dimension of choices in international politics today. Therefore the names of Christian thinkers are back again to the fore. It is worth noting that President Obama cites Niebuhr as one of his favorite philosophers. In an interview with «The New York Times» Obama felt it necessary to emphasize the Niebuhr's idea that there is “a real evil, fatigue and pain in the world, and one should be careful and modest in his belief of being able to eliminate these things. Nevertheless, we should not use it as an excuse for cynicism and inaction”. European observers and scholars also admit that Obama is following the thought of Niebuhr, who was demythologizing the idea of America as a visible place of the Kingdom of God». Niebuhr was well aware of the limitations of all humane schemes. Giorgio La Pira was aware as well that politics should always base on ethical principles and reflect the existing spiritual, cultural, political and economic diversity. His main purpose was the formation of a new hierarchy of values. Just like Reinhold Niebuhr, Giorgio La Pira, reflecting on key events of the 20th century, looked for a policy based on the precepts of Christianity. Just like Reinhold Niebuhr, La Pira stated the primacy of politics over economics. However there were some differences between the two thinkers. Niebuhr’s ontological pessimism was well known. On the contrary, La Pira was an optimist. He sincerely believed that his personal policy would help mankind to promote the cause of a new world.

Rethinking Beijing's Geostrategic Sensibilities to Tibet and Xinjiang: Images and Interests

The aim of this essay is to examine the ways in which Beijing perceives the issues of Tibet and Xinjiang differently in the context of its geostrategic thinking in international politics today. In doing so, this essay will provide a deeper understanding of Beijing's different geostrategic sensibilities of Tibet and Xinjiang in regard to rising China's national security interests in Central and South Asia. This essay argues that, although Beijing publicly sees the Tibet and Xinjiang problems as issues of securing Chinese sovereignty, geostrategically Beijing alludes to a subtle difference in its perception of the two regions: (i) the Tibet problem is a practical, domestic issue to be handled by Beijing's paternalistic engagement of modernization, and is a symbolic issue regarding how to manage rising China's benign image abroad while harshly oppressing any separatist voices in Tibet; and (ii) in Beijing's geostrategic thinking, Xinjiang's security importance seems to be defined in terms of energy security for China's economic growth, which is integral to social stability and the Chinese Communist Party's legitimacy, as well as the transnational Islamic terrorist movement interlinked with Uyghur separatism in Xinjiang.

Symposium: Interrogating the Use of Norms in International Relations: An Introduction

This symposium is the outcome of an initial workshop held at the University of Sydney in March 2009. Two decades into the reflectivist turn, its purpose was to open up a space for critically re-examining a concept whose widespread currency in the study of international politics today is a testimony to constructivism's success in providing alternatives to rationalist approaches. What was less clear was whether this success had been accompanied by sufficient self-reflective scrutiny to unsettle a persistent underlying assumption that, coarsely put, norms are “good things”; that they are what bring states together to co-operate with one another beyond their narrowly conceived national interests; or better still, that they spread co-operative, liberal values throughout the international system, thereby socializing its actors into “better” behavior. A key question prompted by this success is whether constructivism has …

The State of Deterrence in International Politics Today

In comparison with the Cold War era, deterrence in international politics has changed significantly, even though many of the basic components of that deterrence still exist and continue to have an impact. Deterrence is now less salient in national security policies and international security management, more recessed, particularly nuclear deterrence. This is primarily due to the huge changes in international politics ushered in by the end of the Cold War, particularly in great-power political relationships, and which are continuing to unfold. Important developments are underway with respect to nuclear deterrence, extended deterrence, collective actor deterrence, and other aspects of international system security. While many old topics pertaining to deterrence continue to be studied and generate continuing controversies, often along the same lines as in the past, some important investigations and theoretical analyses have also emerged on pivotal deterrence, the deterrence of cyberattacks, terrorism, and international crime. What is needed most is analysis on how to develop and apply deterrence strategy and practice in new ways as a central contribution to global and regional system security maintenance and management, a function deterrence performed during the Cold War but in ways now largely out of date. Also needed is careful attention to the possibility of the return of more traditional international politics, particularly if this were to occur in relations among the major states, and careful consideration of how best to use deterrence to hedge against such a development.