In international relations, the liberal international order (some times referred to as the rules-based international order[1] or the US-led liberal international order)[2] describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization, and is constituted by human equality (freedom, rule of law and human rights), open markets, security cooperation, and promotion of liberal democracy.[3][4] The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.[5]
The nature of the liberal international order, as well as its very existence, has been debated by scholars.[6][7][8][3]
Overview
Debates
The debate about liberal international order has grown especially prominent in International Relations.[9] Influential scholars Deudney and Ikenberry list five components of this international order: security co-binding, in which great powers demonstrate restraint; the open nature of US hegemony and the dominance of reciprocal transnational relations; the presence of self-limiting powers like Germany and Japan; the availability of mutual gains due to "the political foundations of economic openness"; and the role of Western "civil identity."[10] The more supportive views of scholars such as Ikenberry have drawn criticism from scholars who have examined the imperial and colonial legacies of liberal international institutions.[11][12] The contributions of non-Western actors to the formation of the liberal international order have also recently gained attention from scholars advancing global International Relations theory.[13] In the case of Latin America, for example, "From as far back as the 1860s, Latin American jurists have made prominent contributions to international jurisprudence, the ‘mortar’ that binds international order. [...] However, in other ways, historically the LIO has been—and remains—superficial in its reach in Latin America."[14]
International organizations play a central role in the liberal order. The World Trade Organization, for example, creates and implements free trade agreements, while the World Bank provides aid to developing countries. The order is also premised on the notion that liberal trade and free markets will contribute to global prosperity and peace. Critics argue that the liberal order has sometimes led to social problems such as inequality and environmental degradation.[15]
Critics also argue that the liberal order tilts the scales in favour of the United States and its Western allies, as seen in voting shares in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.[citation needed] Others argue that weak states also helped shape the liberal international order.[16]
Relations with individual countries
According to political scientist Charles A. Ziegler, both China and Russia "reject the political dimension of the liberal international order that favors human rights, humanitarian intervention, and democracy promotion."[17]
China
Some see China as a potential challenger to the liberal order, as its initiatives such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and One Belt One Road Initiative appear to compete with existing international institutions.[18]
Van Niewenhuizen is categorical that Xi Jinping, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, seeks to supplant the LIEO. Xi distinguishes his own concept "国际关系法治化", which can be translated as "rule of law in international relations", from international law "国际法" and international rule of law "国际法治". Van Niewenhuizen writes that
Additionally, according to political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, one aim of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was to ensure that liberal democracy could not gain ground in these countries, promoting authoritarian norms in Central Asia.[19]
Rühlig asks in his March 2018 paper why China under Xi would seek to change a system by which it earns enormous profit,[20][21] but Anoushiravan Ehteshami says:[22]
Nisha Mary Mathew remarks that the quest for dominance of the Eurasian land mass in which China finds itself causes Iran to be a favourite.[22] In 2017 alone, the Chinese signed deals for Iranian infrastructure projects worth more than US$15 billion. Joint projects include "high-speed rail lines, upgrades to the nation’s electrical grid, and natural gas pipelines". From 2019 to 2025 the two nations seek to increase bilateral trade to US$600 billion.[22]
Russia
Many scholars agree that the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin seeks to undermine the liberal international order.[23][24] Various viewpoints have been developed on the subject. The first is that Russia is a "revanchist power" seeking to completely overturn international diplomacy, the second is that Russia is a "defensive power" that seeks to push incremental change in the existing order, and the third is that Russia is an "aggressive isolationist", with Putin playing a "spoiler role" in international affairs to boost legitimacy domestically.[23]
Political sociologist Larry Diamond argues that Putin's assault on liberal democracy is exemplified by the 2008 intervention for the enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia against independent Georgia, Russian support for Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, and the Russian intervention in Ukraine by troops without insignia in 2014.[24] Putin has been accused of giving financial support to far-right or national populist parties across Europe.[25][26] For example, the National Front (now National Rally) obtained a 9 million euro loan from a Russian bank in 2014.[26][27] Larry Diamond argues this influenced the policy of the National Front such as Marine Le Pen's support for the annexation of Crimea.
| This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Metasyntactic variable, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |