Read on Twitter
Beyond its impact on 
-
& 
- relations, this assassination highlights hypocrisy by those touting the "liberal, rules-based international order".
But as I explain to my students, hypocrisy & contradiction are baked into the "liberal international order"
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/1332336871482011648
- & - relations, this assassination highlights hypocrisy by those touting the "liberal, rules-based international order".But as I explain to my students, hypocrisy & contradiction are baked into the "liberal international order"
[THREAD] https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/1332336871482011648
To start, what is meant by "international order"? LOTs of definitions out there, but I use the definition from Ikenberry:
"The governing arrangements among a group of states, including its fundamental rules, principles, and institutions"
"The governing arrangements among a group of states, including its fundamental rules, principles, and institutions"
That definition is found in his famous book, "After Victory" https://www.amazon.com/After-Victory-Institutions-Strategic-Rebuilding/dp/0691050910
To drive home the influence of Ikenberry's book, highly recommend reading the contributions to this recent @BritJPIR symposium on the book. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1369148118791402#
If you don't have time to read his book, I recommend instead reading this review in @Journal_IS by Randy Schweller https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/016228801753212886?journalCode=isec
While Ikenberry's definition of International Order is widely used, it's still a bit vague.
Specifically, what is meant by a "Liberal International Order"?
Specifically, what is meant by a "Liberal International Order"?
That's just one reason that I ask my students to read this @EIAJournal interview with @AmitavAcharya https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/interview-amitav-acharya/
He acknowledges that though the definition is a bit unclear, it largely boils down to the extensive presence and use of multilateral institutions
But he also acknowledges that the idea of this "order" being more than a "club of Western countries" is largely a myth
And a KEY myth was that coercion did NOT anchor the order: ummm, no
So "coercion" (read use of force to make states to do what you want) by the "Western major powers" (read, ) is baked into the system.
In other words, assassinations are not "outside" the order, but part of what makes it work.
Shhhh, that's saying the quiet part out loud
) is baked into the system.In other words, assassinations are not "outside" the order, but part of what makes it work.
Shhhh, that's saying the quiet part out loud
Indeed, saying the quiet part out loud was a big part of the critiques raised during the "Great Liberal International Order Debate" that occurred a couple years ago!
Liberal International Order: not "Liberal", nor "International", nor "Ordered". Discuss! https://www.lawfareblog.com/misreading-liberal-order-why-we-need-new-thinking-american-foreign-policy
Liberal International Order: not "Liberal", nor "International", nor "Ordered". Discuss! https://www.lawfareblog.com/misreading-liberal-order-why-we-need-new-thinking-american-foreign-policy
And some folks think that the right to decide when and how to use force to maintain the "order" is a desirable feature
So that's the hypocrisy part. What about contradictions? Well, consider one of the "constitutional documents" of the LIO: the UN Charter
For instance, Article 2 brings up "territorial integrity" as one of the principles of the UN system. But Article 1 says "respect for human rights" is a core Purpose of the UN System.
So if you intervene to protect human rights aren't you violating territorial integrity? No easy answer (see this piece by @OsaigbovoEnabul) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642980802535393?src=recsys&journalCode=fjhr20
And this is just one of many contradictions in the UN Charter
https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article-abstract/23/2/229/5003327?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article-abstract/23/2/229/5003327?redirectedFrom=fulltext
There is so much more that can be (and has been) said on this topic. But the main idea should be clear: when it comes to the "liberal, rules-based international order" contradictions and hypocrisy are a feature, not a bug.
[END]
[END]
