The liberal order and the modern project

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 535-543

  Dunne, Tim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Emerging powers; Expansion of international society; Liberalism; Modernity; Order

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953204795     PISSN: 03058298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0305829810366476     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. The outline ideas in this paper derive from a research project on Liberal World Orders involving the University of Exeter and the Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS). The theoretical architecture draws on the framing paper for this project, co-authored by Marjo Koivisto and published later in this special issue.
2. Walt Rostow's stage-theory of growth being paradigmatic, Walt W. Rostow, The Five Stages of Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Third Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 123-31;
3. Mitchell Seligson and John Pass-Smith, Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Global Inequality (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003).
4. For exponents of the idea of democratic entitlement see Thomas M. Franck, 'The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance', American Journal of International Law 86, no. 1 (1992): 46-91.
5. For a version of this argument which connects sovereignty to responsibility, see Chris Reus-Smit, 'Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty', Review of International Studies 27, no. 4 (2001): 519-38.
6. Charles Krauthammer, 'Holiday From History', The Washington Post, 14 February 2003.
7. Samuel P. Huntington, 'The Clash of Civilizations', Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (1993): 22-49.
8. Azar Gat, 'The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers', Foreign Affairs 86, no. 4 (2007): 59-70.
9. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, 'The Unraveling of the Cold War Settlement', Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 51, no. 6 (2009-2010): 39-62.
10. To describe all proponents of a post-liberal order as being 'anti-liberal' would be a mistake. See, for example, Martin Jacques, When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order (Middlesex: Penguin Press, 2009).
11. What is overlooked in these realist accounts is how selective engagement with the rules and institutions of international society is convenient to Russian and Chinese strategies of strengthening national sovereignty. This complex interplay between power and law is underplayed in realist accounts of the new league of autocracies. For an excellent discussion of this in relation to Russia, see S. Neil MacFarlane, 'Post-1945 Soviet Perspectives on Order and Justice', in Order and Justice in International Relations, eds Rosemary Foot, John Lewis Gaddis and Andrew Hurrell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 202-5.
12. Gat, 'The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers', 59-70.
13. In light of the history of Indian, Russian and Chinese empires, it is churlish to talk about them as though they were rising for the first time - consequently, I employ the term re-rising.
14. G. John Ikenberry, 'Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order', Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 1 (2009): 83.
15. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
16. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds. The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
17. Barry Buzan's excellent critique of the expansion thesis in 'Culture and International Society', International Affairs 86, no. 1 (2010): 1-25.
18. Other revisionist accounts of 'the expansion' include Shogo Suzuki, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge, 2009).
19. Fred Halliday, 'International Relations in a Post-Hegemonic Age', International Affairs 85, no. 1 (2009): 43.
20. It is possible to overstate the degree of Eurocentrism in 'the expansion' story. Bull's essay on 'The European International Order' recognises that the interwoven history of certain institutions of international society, and that what Alexandrowicz and others have to say, calls for 'minor qualification' of the proposition that the rules and institutions evolved by the European powers 'were of their own making'. See Hedley Bull, 'The European Order', in Hedley Bull on International Society, eds Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 180.
21. Timothy Mitchell encapsulates the singular logic of modernity argument neatly: 'Modernization continues to be commonly understood as a process begun and finished in Europe, from where it has been exported across ever-expanding regions of the non-West. The destiny of those regions has been to mimic, never quite successfully, the history already performed by the West', Timothy Mitchell, Questions of Modernity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 1.
22. More recent English School writing has been sensitive to the interpenetration of the West and non-Western civilisations. See Richard Little, 'The English School and World History', in The English School and its Critics, ed. Alex Bellamy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 45-63.
23. Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
24. C. H. Alexandrowicz, An introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies: 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967);
25. C. H. Alexandrowicz, The European-African Connection: A Study in Treaty Making (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973).
26. Buzan, 'Culture and International Society', 20.
27. This argument is set out in Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
28. S.N. Eisenstadt, 'Multiple Modernities', Daedalus 129, no. 1 (2000): 1-29.
29. Volker H. Schmidt, 'Multiple Modernities or Varieties of Modernity?' Current Sociology 54, no. 2 (2006): 77-97.
30. Rana Mitter, 'An Uneasy Engagement: Chinese Ideas of Global Order and Justice in Historical Perspective', in Order and Justice in International Relations, eds Rosemary Foot, John Lewis Gaddis and Andrew Hurrell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 207-35.
31. Ibid., 225.
32. An ambivalence that is neatly captured in Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, eds Brian Schmidt and David Long (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).
33. Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society, 98.
34. So argues Jens Bartelson in his book Visions of World Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
35. Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (New York: Harper and Row, 1984). For an application of these ideas within contemporary political and international thought
36. William E. Connelly, Identity/ Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991).
37. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, 'The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail', Foreign Affairs 88, no. 1 (2009): 93.
38. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe.