Liberal World Research Articles

The Future of Liberal World Order from a Central and Eastern European Perspective

It is now generally accepted that the global order is shifting, but the literature is divided on how. Consequently, it is not surprising that there is a lack of strong scholarship on the characteristics of the order from a Central and Eastern European (CEE) perspective. Therefore, this article aims to explore the future of the Liberal World Order (LWO) from this perspective through the lens of mainstream theories. The article looks at the geopolitical dynamics of the region and the evolving strategic perceptions of the LWO. It examines how CEE, traditionally seen as the frontier of the LWO (EU and NATO), is navigating the complexities of the current global political landscape in the light of the changing order. The second part of the article specifically analyses the security perceptions of CEE governments. The article seeks to contribute to the understanding of the future trajectory of the LWO, the potential implications for global peace and security, and the interplay of realism and liberalism in shaping our understanding of this trajectory from the CEE perspective.

Populism and the liberal international order: An analysis of UN voting patterns

AbstractPopulism is often assumed to undermine the liberal world order, but this claim has never been tested systematically. In this study, we do so for the first time. Based on an understanding of populism as a “thin-centered ideology” entailing anti-elitism and people-centrism, we expect populist governments to have foreign policy preferences opposed to the core features of the US-led liberal international order. Our empirical analysis assesses government preferences on the liberal international order as expressed through UN General Assembly votes. Our findings support the expectation that populism has a strong and statistically significant negative impact on foreign policy preferences related to the core norms of the liberal international order. Moreover, we find that populists with a left-wing ideology and those in less democratic countries tend to be more opposed to the US-led liberal international order. However, populist governments do not reject the UNGA as such, as they are not more likely to be absent from UNGA votes than other states. Thereby, this study makes a contribution both to the burgeoning literature on the international implications of populism and to debates on the crisis of the liberal order.

Inhibiting or Contributing? How Global Liberal Forces Impact Climate Change Skepticism

Although climate change remains a top environmental threat, significant portions of the global population continue to exhibit climate change skepticism. Currently, an extensive literature identifies the micro-level determinants of climate skepticism, often manifesting as a form of populist “backlash” to the adverse effects of globalization. However, the potential of macro-level global cultural forces—particularly embeddedness in liberal world society—to counter such pushback is unclear. Using multilevel modeling to analyze International Social Survey Program data spanning 37 countries from 2000 to 2020, we find that in general, increased embeddedness is linked to reduced climate skepticism. However, when global liberal forces encounter anti-liberal undercurrents within nation-states, a situation we refer to as cultural dissonance, the impact of liberal world society on tempering skepticism varies. Embeddedness mitigates skepticism at the national level, particularly within authoritarian regimes, but not at the individual level, especially among right-wing individuals. Paradoxically, world society also heightens ideological polarization of individual worldviews on climate change. By illuminating the contradictory role of liberal world society, which simultaneously exacerbates and inhibits anti-liberal, populist attitudes about climate change, we advance existing work examining the post-liberal turn and holds promise for making sense of other issue domains where liberal perspectives are contested.

Minilateralism and global governance: effectiveness of hybrid models

ABSTRACT The liberal world order is showing signs of disarray: two recent catastrophes in adjoining parts of the world (the Middle East and South Caucasus) have opened the fissures of the international governance gap; and the continuing ramifications of COVID-19 have already paralysed the world. On top of this post-pandemic disquietude, multiple conflicts this year are either in danger of precipitating or wars have already re-ignited over long-standing continuing conflicts, highlighting the failure of international governance institutions, including the UN system. In recent years, one of the central responses to the multilateral failures at multiple levels has been for states to form ‘narrower’ and ‘more flexible’ frameworks called ‘minilaterals’. Thus minilateralism has been contrasted through the lens of receding multilateralism, which has been a long-standing hallmark of the American-led liberal international order. This paper examines how far global governance would be dependent on minilateralism by exploring this growing trend in the Indo-Pacific and explores how minilateralism models can enhance international governance structures. This paper also attempts to analyse whether minilateralism is a product of regional fragmentation, or whether it can reinvigorate the comatose multilateralism. Then this paper posits that minilateralism helps rejig the chaotic multipolar order and thus re-invent global governance.

China’s Rise and U.S.–Iran Standoff: An American Perspective

There has been a notable link/correlation between the rise of China and U.S.–Iran standoff in recent years. The year 2012 marks a watershed moment in U.S. strategic calculation on its relations with China and Iran. Before that year, China was not a peer competitor capable of challenging U.S. preeminence on the world stage and Iran was merely a regional adversary. After 2012, U.S. intelligence reports have consistently assess that China is the only great power with the intent and ability to undermine the liberal world order and its growing ties with U.S. adversaries, Iran included, will pose the biggest threat to U.S. and Western interests. The China factor has become an independent variable in U.S.–Iran relation, and as Beijing continues to grow its economic and military power, the United States will resort to more hawkish policy toward China and Iran, further escalating the U.S.–Iran standoff. Tehran will continue to play a crucial role in its asymmetrical relationships with Beijing and Washington as the two superpowers seek their respective leverage in the triangular relationship to outcompete the other party.

FROM POLITICAL LEADERSHIP TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF THE STRIKE ON THE STATE RAILWAYS. DECREE 1,157 GENERAL LAW OF RAILWAYS (1889-1931)

The Chilean State Railway Company implemented regulations aligned with the liberal world's political circumstances. Key laws included the State Railway Police Law (1863) and State Railway Administration Law (1868), amended multiple times. These regulations aimed at effective management, prioritizing good service, probity, and efficiency. Labor protests from the late 19th to early 20th centuries prompted regulatory adjustments.

Global governance and the promissory visions of education: challenges and agendas

ABSTRACT This article – and the special issue it introduces – contributes to the expanding scholarly literature on the global governance of education, with a particular focus on its future-oriented and ‘promissory’ dimension. Inspired by Beckert’s (2020) concept of ‘promissory’ legitimacy, a key contribution of this special issue is to critically analyse past and contemporary promissory narratives of the major international organisations and other global actors concerning the future of education. We focus on three overarching themes that emerge from the contributions to this special issue: Problems of legitimacy in the global governance of education; a shift towards multistakeholderism, which we explore through the lens of ‘the neuro-affective turn’; the use of crisis narratives as an instrument of global governance, and geopolitical shifts and the decline of the liberal world order.

The EU as a Global Actor: The Significance of Changes in the World Order From 2004 to 2024 as Regards EU Actorness

Contrary to the prevalent focus on the EU’s capabilities, this article analyses the implications for the EU’s global actorness stemming from changes in the world order. These changes are elaborated upon according to Hettne’s (2005) three-dimensional analysis of the world order, namely, its structure, mode of governance, and form of legitimisation from 2004 when the CEE countries became EU members, to 20 years into their membership in 2024. The main changes of the world order are identified as: the evolving multipolar international system; a transition from multilateralism towards plurilateralism; and the sporadic unilateral actions and delegitimisation of liberal world order alongside instances of the major powers’ disregard of international law. The article then elucidates the impact of these changes on EU actorness via illustrative case studies of issues dealt within the UN system and the WTO, namely, international trade, sustainable development, climate change, and international peace and security. Findings show that firstly, in an evolving multipolar international system, the EU aligns strongly with the US which maintains central power in security issues. Secondly, all case studies prove that the EU remains committed to transparent multilateralism. Thirdly, despite instances of increasing state-level disrespect of international law by the US, Russia, and China, the EU’s resolve and advocacy for international norms remains stable. The EU has managed to leverage its economic and normative capabilities along with its positive presence to exert legitimate leadership in, for example, digital trade agenda, the green transition, and artificial intelligence, but not in enlargement policy. And yet, the war in Ukraine has prompted the Union to bolster its military capability and upgrade its geopolitical strategy towards its neighbours. The authors conclude that the potential development of the EU’s defensive security capability – provided it is developed complementary to its unique market and normative power – offers an opportunity for the EU to reduce its capabilities/expectations gap and enhance its global actorness.

The Rise and Decline of the Liberal World Order and the Multilateral Trade System: A Critical-Constructivist Synthesis to International Regime Analysis

This article devises an analytical framework that synthesizes neo-Gramscian and social constructivist perspectives to dissect international regimes amid global hegemonic shifts. It portrays regimes as intersubjective constructs with unique social purposes within the broader hegemonic fabric, shaped by dominant ideologies and power distributions. The study examines the transition of the trade regime from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to World Trade Organization (WTO) through the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) and the Doha Round’s deadlock since 2001. The article posits that the Uruguay Round marked a pivotal hegemonic transformation, transitioning the regime from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism by transforming its social purpose, norms, and generative grammar. Yet, this shift, which precipitated a legitimacy crisis within the WTO and was exacerbated by the Doha Round’s failure to regenerate neoliberal hegemony with a fresh synthesis of free trade and sustainable development, arguably rendered the WTO directionless and contributed to the fragmentation of global trade governance amidst emerging regional pacts and varied ideological visions of economic liberalism.

Trauma in world politics: Memory dynamics between different victim groups

While the international arena is littered with events of war and atrocities, the memory of the Holocaust was institutionalized as the ultimate benchmark of human suffering within the liberal world order. Against the backdrop of such a global memory landscape, this article explores how different memories of trauma interact. Building on literature within international relations, sociology and social psychology, as well as survey data collected from a sample of Syrians, Palestinians and Israelis, its analysis explores how victims of political violence compare their suffering with that of others and why such comparisons slip easily into competition. The analysis found that individuals were competitive with their memories when they showed high levels of patriotic attachment and a real and perceived, yet unrecognized, sense of victimhood. This article thus offers insight into a key issue in peace and conflict studies: the links between traumatic memory, victimhood, international recognition and conflict.

Data as the new panacea: trends in global education reforms, 1970–2018

ABSTRACT This paper investigates changes in the promissory visions articulated in education reforms around the world. We use structural topic modeling to inductively analyze the content of 9,268 reforms from 215 countries and territories during the period 1970–2018 using the World Education Reform Database. Our findings reveal a decline in traditional management-focused reforms and a rise in reforms related to data and information. We also find an expanding commitment to educational access and inclusion, but reforms framed explicitly in ‘rights’ language diminish. We argue that the rise of data-centric reforms and the retreat from rights-based approaches may both reflect and contribute to a broader erosion of the liberal world order.

Challenges to Building a Viable Alternative to Ethnonationalism in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Setting

Abstract The article looks into why, to date, discourses of peace in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict context failed to present a challenge to the hegemony of ethnonationalism. With the liberal world order in crisis and Armenian and Azerbaijani identities entering a period of redefinition following the latter’s overwhelming military victory and exodus of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh, the article argues for a sustained effort towards rethinking peace and ongoing dialogue among realist, liberal, and post-liberal thinkers a road towards a multifaceted and interdisciplinary process that could move the South Caucasus away from violence and towards peace.

Reimagining self-determination: Relational, decolonial, and intersectional perspectives

Self-determination language and practice are increasingly perplexing in the 21st century. Historically linked to decolonization processes and post-imperial transformations of the international system, self-determination has espoused both violent and non-violent resistance, and supported both existing and emergent sovereignty. With the Janus-faced relationship between self-determination and colonialism continuing to this day, the contemporary moment is an opportune time to take stock of self-determination. However, as conventional jurisprudence and international legalism framings have, in many ways, hampered its emancipatory potential, alternative ways of reimagining self-determination are needed. Bringing together scholars from the fields of political and development geography, indigenous studies, international relations, and sociology, this intervention demonstrates how articulations of self-determination in specific sites offer powerful critiques of the state system and the liberal world order and unsettle hegemonic forms of knowledge production. These articulations open up conceptual space to push self-determination beyond the realm of rights, allowing us to reimagine self-determination as a vision and practice, and to recover and reconceptualize the hopeful, emancipatory and aspirational politics that have always underpinned self-determination. This intervention seeks to re-envision self-determination from three novel and interlinked angles: decoloniality, intersectionality, and relationality. Drawing on a range of examples of contemporary and historical self-determination claims and contestations, each author focuses on one or more of these angles to examine the extent to which current practices of and visions for self-determination engender novel understandings of emancipation from ‘foreign’ domination and/or colonial systems of governance.

CASE STUDY OF ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT AND THE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Israel is an established country. And Palestine, despite being a country with rich heritage since ages, has been occupied by the Israel government who refuse to provide Palestine with the status of a sovereign nation. Israeli-Palestine conflict has led to numerous war crimes and most of the victims have always been the innocent and common people of the land. Besides territorial disputes, religious fundamentalism and persecution has also been a major factor. The state of Israel has always supported the ideology of Zionism wherein Israel supported the establishment of a Jewish state. Jews also claim that there is a large-scale antisemitism among the Arabs as well as various other communities because of which they face non-acceptance. But the conflict is not merely confined to one cause and has other grounds as well. This paper takes up the study of the conflict between the two countries and analyse the historical and political background that led to the series of events and how it led to the abuse of human rights in the region. The research further seeks to find out the role of the USA and the United Nations. USA had been the pioneer of liberalism and human rights in todays neo liberal world, but has remained silent in occasions of Israels wrongful claims over Palestinian territories. Hence, the protection and restoration of humanitarian laws is a major field of discussion.

Why We Need a Political Technology Assessment

This paper's central argument is that the frameworks of Responsible Innovation (RI) and Technology Assessment (TA) are rooted in an antiquated political and geopolitical paradigm, necessitating a conceptual overhaul. This argument is supported by two primary reasons. First, RI and TA are not neutral towards technological innovation; instead, they inherently align with a specific political and geopolitical model—the liberal world order (LWO). This model is currently experiencing significant challenges and crisis. We explore this through a literature review of RI and TA in Section 1 and a subsequent political and geopolitical analysis in Section 2. The second reason, as highlighted in Section 3, is that the very essence of our technologies has dramatically transformed over the past twenty years. We now live in a world dominated by intricate global engineering systems that are not only political but also geopolitical in nature. These systems, being transnational, influence the decisions and interactions of nations. The current LWO framework struggles to grasp and manage these influential global systems effectively. Section 4 builds on the findings from Sections 2 and 3, presenting a reinterpreted version of Rodrik’s trilemma. This reformulation is designed to consolidate and expand upon the insights gained in the preceding sections. Section 5 revisits the issues identified earlier in the paper, emphasizing the urgency to revamp both TA and RI, particularly in light of the unique challenges posed by the Anthropocene era. As we embark on this reassessment, the invaluable insights that philosophical reflection brings to the table should not be underestimated.

US-Visegrad Realities in Biden’s World of Democracies

Abstract The ‘liberal world order’ can be considered as an historic exception in the history of ‘realist anarchy’ of international relations. This exception is the result of many factors and it has been significantly influenced by the power of the United States. Thus, the agenda of the world order can be analysed in the context of American foreign policy. The place of Central Europe – and in the Visegrad countries – can be analysed in this frame. This approach elaborates the basis for further inquiries also of the Central European-American relations but here the goal is to understand the place of the Visegrad countries in the context of the American led liberal world order. The goal of this study is to theorise the world order, and to identify the role of the United States and the place of the Visegrad countries in it. Furthermore, the study tries to draw theoretic conclusions in the light of the ‘Biden doctrine’ – which is theoretically coherent with the liberal characteristic of the order – to the Visegrad-US relations.

The post-hegemonic turn in humanitarian intervention: regional ownership and troubled great power management

Since the Great Recession in 2008, the academic debate has been flooded with literature that predicts the sunset of the liberal world order including the practice of humanitarian intervention as initiated at the United Nations (UN) in the early 1990s and regulated by the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. In contrast, this article argues that the practice of humanitarian intervention continues to operate under post-hegemonic and multipolar conditions, but in new ways. Based on a theorization of fundamental institutional change and exploratory case studies of the international reactions to the humanitarian crises in Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Syria and Mali, and supportive evidence from Gambia and DR Congo, we show that contemporary humanitarian intervention is closely related to a normalization of the fundamental institution of great power management and a regionalization of international society. In this post-hegemonic world order, humanitarian intervention is shaped, facilitated or hampered by various practices of great power management including concert, soft balancing and hard balancing. The return of great-power competition means an inconsistent and sometimes counterproductive resort to humanitarian intervention far from the ideals of the R2P, but the growing importance of regional ownership affects the great powers, keeps this potential response to mass atrocity crimes on the table and adds to its legitimacy.

Prisoners of Impunity: What the Global Community Should Know about and Learn from the Russo-Ukrainian War

While the world awoke to the horrors of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russia’s military intervention into Ukraine’s internal affairs had its roots in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas. Long before 2014, Russia had sought to influence Ukraine’s electoral outcomes, foreign policy and political alliances, as well as exert economic coercion through trade wars. The overarching imperialist vision of Ukraine has long been evident in political addresses delivered by Russia’s leadership and the narratives projected by state-controlled media. Much of the world community, however, perceived these actions through the lens of Ukraine as a post-Soviet country presumed to belong to the so-called Russian sphere of influence. Despite numerous historic and modern-day atrocities against those perceived to be part of its geopolitical periphery, Russia enjoyed political, economic and moral impunity. Too often, Western powers prioritized regional stability and trade with Russia over upholding the rule of law and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty. This was evident in the tepid reaction to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the instigation of war in Donbas. Settling for a state of ‘negative peace’ in the case of Minsk accords (2014, 2015) – rather than holding Russia accountable for its actions, revealed a lack of holistic understanding of Russia, Ukraine, and what it truly takes to achieve “positive peace”. This essay offers a broader historical context for Ukraine’s nation building and Russia’s enduring and centuries-long colonial drives toward Ukraine. It argues that the Russo-Ukrainian war, beginning with the annexation of Crimea, marks a unique moment in the post – World War II international world order. This event poses a challenge to the current international legal framework while also presenting an opportunity to draw lessons for preserving the liberal world order.

Vectors of development of energy cooperation between Russia and foreign countries under economic sanctions

The subject of this study is the modern aspects of Russia’s positioning in the global energy space. They are associated with the shift from the previously established liberal world order and the trend towards new polarisation in the world economic system, as well as with the increasing risks of turbulence in world energy markets. In this regard, it is extremely important to assess the real impact of economic sanctions on the nature of relationships and determine promising vectors for the development of energy cooperation between Russia and foreign countries. The research methodology includes analysis and synthesis methods and a historical approach, which are productively used to assess the tactical and strategic actions of our country in the system of international energy cooperation. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the substantiation of theoretical approaches and assessment of the practical implementation of energy cooperation with foreign countries. Those priority interests are considered that determine the economic sovereignty and identity of Russia in the conditions of a gradual but categorical shift of the world community from the previously established imperatives of liberalism and economic globalisation. The article is of an overview nature and describes the key areas of cooperation in the oil and gas and coal industries. Its main provisions may be used for long-term researches related to modernising the strategy of Russia’s foreign economic relations and increasing the level of its foreign economic security in the context of new global challenges.

Russian strategic narratives, 2022–2023

Russia, in its competition with the liberal world for establishing the dominant discourse—alongside hard power military means—deploys soft power, leveraging the allure of illiberal values to forge foreign policy alliances, undermine the credibility of international institutions, and reshape the global order. Russian strategic narratives delineate the political objectives of the Russian government. In a contest for discursive authority with other global actors, Russia presents its vision of a new world order—a world partitioned among major powers—where Moscow holds the authority to determine the fate of peoples in the “Greater Eurasia” region, including Europe