World Order Research Paper

World Order is known as being the creation of global relationships and maintenance of world peace. It also governs the relationships between nation states and other global participants.

World order are the activities and relationship between the world states, and other significant non-state global actors, that occur within a legal, political and economic frame work. The need for world order has arisen due to the past historical conflicts, colonialism, greater interdependence between nations, and the increased impact of the activities of nation states upon other nation states. Legal measures such as the UN, as well as non-legal measures such as the media and Non-governmental organisations, show a mixed effectiveness in response to resolving conflict and working towards world order.

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

To understand changing patterns of global power is no easy feat, but several theories may give us an insight to the shift of power in our modern world, I wish to talk about these theories and how we can use them to better understand our past and present global power situations.

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

Uni-polar there is one sate that so that is so incredibly powerful that there is no other state can actually compete with or be a significant contestant. Uni-polarity helps clarify mediocre levels of military power, while multi-polarity helps explain the high levels of military. Multi-polar there are 4-6 states that are roughly the same size that balance each other out in a very dynamic way. Multi polar there are much more power games that happens. The mass of a multipolar system is equally distributed amongst their allies or those who have come in contact with each other .Every state have an influence on each other. In the case of a multi-polar system the state is in constant defense. The more enemies you have the higher chances are for you

The War and Peace Studies therefore created this foundation of New World Order of movement, aided by economic interdependence; collective security maintaining international order through a multinational police force under compacted authority. "The age of nations must end. The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms". - U.N World Constitution, which strengthen this world order shift from unilateral actions based solely on national interests, supported the list of action based common

Systems are comprised of different actors (states or governments), which interact in a way that can be characterized as a whole. Certain actors in these systems can develop economically and militarily. The actors may be categorized under multipolar, bipolar or unipolar systems. Multipolarity presents itself as multiple countries, typically 3 or more, which have comparable amount of military and economic power. Bipolarity occurs when two countries have equal economic and military capabilities. Unipolarity exists when one powerful entity dominates the rest. The stability of these systems may depend on the category of polarity. A system is considered stable when no more than 10% of a state’s power is reduced after a war. Looking at Chinese/Greek

In the years that followed World War 2, the United States original desire to create global institutions to lessen the burden that Washington had to bear changed significantly. It evolved into the United States leading in most global affairs, creating a new form of liberal world order in which a leading state creates international rules and institutions with the purpose of providing public services while at the same time adhering to said rules and institutions. G. John Ikenberry referred to it as a liberal-constitutional order. While similarities exist between this order and the other three that Ikenberry refers to, there are stark contrasts that make the American order

World Order 2.0 is a policy change on how sovereign states interact with each other and to what degree they will hold each other to. This new world order focuses heavily on sovereign obligation and new norms and responsibilities for sovereign states. World Order 2.0 is the replacement for World Order 1.0, focused on protecting and preservation states. World Order 1.0 is becoming obsolete with the newly globalized world. “What goes on inside a country can no longer be considered the concern of that country alone.” (Haass, R. N.). The world is so interconnected it is almost impossible for a state to not be affected by other factors.We can see examples of World Order 1.0 not working with 9/11, global warming, and Ebola.

The Liberal World Order The liberal world order is as much an economic idea, as it is a political one. The liberal world order is very much based on the rule of law. Such things are apparent in a liberal world order such as individual liberties, private property and free trade.

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Waltz believes that bipolar systems provide more stability and thus provide a better guarantee of security and peace than multipolar systems. ‘With only two great powers, both can be expected to behave in a way to prolong the system’ (Waltz, 1979). That is because in maintaining the system they are maintaining themselves. According to that view, the Cold War was a period of international stability and peace. (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003)

Mearsheimer’s short article “The cause of great power war” explains the occurrence of major power wars. According to Mearsheimer, power gives rise to three kinds of systems which are known as Bipolarity, Unbalanced Multipolarity, and

Moreover, this paper recognizes that polarity does not mean the same as hegemony. To elaborate, hegemon states are the actors and polarity is the structure of the international