This post is the fifth in a series examining the future of the international order. One of the five programmatic series that the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace explores is Global Governance, and in 2018, the Chair began a series of conversations focused on the future of the international order. This series of short reflections highlights the ideas discussed, and the solutions offered for improving international relations.
In June 2019, the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace organized a panel at the joint Central and East European International Studies Association – International Studies Association (CEEISA-ISA) Conference in Belgrade, Serbia. The panel theme was Legitimacy, Authority, and Order in an Age of Anxiety. The theme was selected to fit with the overall conference theme of International Relations in an Age of Anxiety. The conference organizers sought a diverse array of panels exploring a wide range of aspects of the study of international relations with specific focus on the theme of International Relations in an Age of Anxiety.
As the organizers stated
International Relations as a discipline has much to offer in explaining the current moment of anxiety and crisis in Europe and beyond.
They were interested in examining the decline of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism in what had previously been considered “consolidated democracies”, as well as the growing populist and far right movements, the impact of the 2018 recession and subsequent austerity measures as well as the growing fractures within the European Union (EU) signalled most notably by Brexit.
The theme was further explained by highlighting that the ongoing crises come in different forms; structural, with questions around the current institutions of the international system such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU, the decline in US hegemony, and the shifts in a post-hegemonic system; and, human security crises, with a focus on the large scale refugee flows, growing global inequality, climate change and environmental destruction, and the posited decline of state influence coupled with the growing influence of markets.
A key part of the conference was the focus on solutions and as the organizers detailed
the extent to which International Relations, both as a discipline and as a profession, can begin to offer solutions for overcoming the problems of global insecurity.
They provided a list of guiding questions listed below, which included:
- What are the ramifications of political anxiety for world politics? How can the discipline of IR contribute to our understanding of this moment in history?
- There is much anxiety about the current liberal international order collapsing. But, is it worth saving? Can we, instead, imagine a different international order that avoids the inequalities, power imbalances, and hypocrisies of the current structures?
- What does the moment of anxiety imply for research and teaching? What kinds of insecurities are we experiencing across fields, professions, and disciplines? What is the ethical responsibility of the researcher in this age?
- To what extent does IR benefit from a new re-engagement with area studies, sociology, psychology, philosophy and history to explore the long arc of institutional, social and cultural change? How do we engage with other disciplines without losing our analytical edge? And what other analytical, methodological, and professional tools we need to fully understand this moment of crisis and insecurity?
The panel organized by the Bahá’í Chair examined how institutions and structures have adapted to the ‘Age of Anxiety’. It explored how the increasing use of fear to divide populations has impacted on the authority and legitimacy of different institutions in the international system and what impacts this is having on the long term sustainability of these institutions. The panel also explored how the anxiety we are seeing within the international system can be directly connected to structural inequalities, and a historical lack of justice and explained how reforms could increase accountability, and improve the legitimacy of institutions within the system.
From L-R: Professor Hoda Mahmoudi, Professor Michael Allen, Dr. Kate Seaman, and Professor Jana Urbanovska
Professor Michael Allen presented a paper on Realigning Modes of Production, Society, and Governance. His paper highlighted the crisis of authority in the interstate systems of governance, particularly the pushback against the incremental supranationalism exemplified by the rejection of the TPP and the renegotiation of NAFTA in the USA. He argued that states are having to choose among different logics of interstate order – supranationalism, multilateralism, and ad-hoc diplomacy. Professor Allen also highlighted that the international order changes as centres rise and form, and that how states respond will be a function of the degree of success that other classes have in reframing the debate, recasting visions of the future, and claiming places at the table of authority, beside or in place of the classes who currently benefit from global capitalism.
Dr. Kate Seaman and Professor Hoda Mahmoudi’s paper was titled Legitimacy in Decline: Representation, Inequality and Challenging Authority in the International Order. Their paper argued that the current international order is facing increasing pressure from all sides. Questions are being raised about the authority and legitimacy of different institutions in the international system and this has the potential to impact the long term sustainability of those institutions and the wider system of cooperation. They argue that the anxiety we are seeing within the international system can be directly connected to structural inequalities, and a historical lack of justice and their paper explored the question of authority in the international system, and how the limited nature of representation, and the inherent inequalities this causes, has led to growing calls for reform.
Professor Jana Urbanovska’s paper explored Responsibility in the Age of Anxiety: The “New” German Foreign Policy and its Responsibility Discourse. Her paper argued that Germany has positioned itself as a nation that holds “special responsibilities” in international relations. “Responsibility” has long been a traditional hallmark of German foreign and security policy. As Professor Urbanovska highlighted, in recent years, German foreign and security policy has been hit by a new wave of a “responsibility debate”. Top German political representatives unanimously called for Germany to take on “more responsibility in the world” in order to respond to multiple European and international crises. Ever since, the term “responsibility” has become a buzzword within German foreign policy vocabulary. Its meaning, however, remains ambiguous. What does “responsibility” stand for? Where does it stem from and what are its implications? By answering these questions, her paper explored the meaning of “responsibility” in the German foreign policy discourse and the degree to which it moved beyond a mere rhetorical exercise.
The discussion following the paper presentations yielded some insightful questions from the audience, including:
- What type of ideology is underlying the shifts we are seeing in the international system?
- How do we determine who has responsibility or a ‘special responsibility’ for the maintenance of the international order?
- Who are the movers of change, who creates the ripples of change, and who are the key actors/agents in the changes we are seeing?
Together the paper presentations highlight the importance of understanding the choreography of global systems and institutions – how they work together, how they work against each other, and who holds the agency and influence. The papers also emphasized the need for a multiplicity of approaches to understanding the large-scale challenges facing current institutions, and the reforms that are needed to improve the representation and accountability within them. The need for the creation of more inclusive spaces was repeated throughout the discussion and this requires concrete action at all levels of governance to ensure a guarantee of justice moving forward.
About the Author:
Kate Seaman is the Assistant Director to the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace where she supports the research activities of the Chair. Kate is interested in understanding normative changes at the global level and how these changes impact on the creation of peace.
You can find out more about the Bahá’í Chair by watching our video here.