Global Governance
A New World? Changes in the Global Order
This past week, I had the opportunity to host Lowell Schwartz at the Naval War College, and his comments about the shifts he is observing in the global order made a real impression. He posits that we are in the midst of a major shift–that the prevailing assumptions of the last twenty-five years about the […]
America’s Selective Burden Shedding?
At the December meeting of the Loisach Group, I was intrigued by the description of where U.S. foreign policy seems to be headed under the Trump administration offered by my colleague Daniel Hamilton–“selective burden shedding.” This term is a riff off the the more standard proclamation that the United States seeks its partners and allies […]
American Withdrawal from the World?
Even before the 2016 elections, many of us were predicting that the U.S. would go through a period of retrenchment in terms of its global engagement–that a combination of rising costs and the emergence of alternative power centers in the international system would impose limits on America’s freedom of action to set the global agenda–but […]
Can America Still Find a Purpose?
Can the United States, which played such a critical role in the development of the institutions that shaped the post-World War II environment, repeat that feat in this century as well?
EIA Interview with Amitav Acharya on the Multiplex World Order
In this interview, Amitav Acharya and Adam Read-Brown discuss the decline of the liberal world order and the rise of a “multiplex world.”
After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order
In this essay, Amitav Acharya argues that as the U.S.-dominated world order comes to an end, liberal values and institutions will not disappear, but will have to coexist and enmesh with the ideas and institutions of the rising powers. This “multiplex world” carries both risks and opportunities for managing international stability.
Rising Powers, Responsibility, and International Society
This article examines statements made by rising powers Brazil, China, and India in UN Security Council meetings between 2011 and 2016 to identify their perspectives on which international actors are responsible and what constitutes responsible action. Gaskarth then analyzes these statements in light of English School theory on responsibility and international society.
Climate Engineering and the Playing God Critique
The “playing God” critique charges that humans should not undertake to control nature in ways that overstep the proper scope of human agency. In this article, Laura M. Hartman explores the way this critique is used with respect to geoengineering, and concludes that climate interventions should be based on contextual awareness and responsive, communal responsibility.
