Search

Begin New Search Topic Post-Cold War Political Geography Global Focus

1. El final de la Pax americana. La evolución del sistema internacional. Los nuevos equilibrios

Author:
Adela M. Alija
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
En este artículo, partimos de la idea de que no estamos todavía ante una redefinición de del orden mundial creado tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la Guerra Fría. Ahora bien, nos encontramos ante un cuestionamiento profundo del sistema y ante desplazamientos en los equilibrios de poder que parecen mostrarnos el final de una era. El orden (o desorden) mundial del siglo XXI en el que nos encontramos está marcado por elementos que introducen incertidumbre e inseguridad. Recesión económica, pandemia, guerra, crisis diversas, desaceleración de la globalización (o quizá desglobalización) … hacen un mundo complejo y desordenado. Sobre todos estos elementos mencionados, la guerra en Ucrania representa un momento decisivo para la construcción de un nuevo orden mundial. El concepto de Pax Americana es discutible y ha sido discutido ampliamente, como analizaremos en nuestro artículo. Si consideramos el término desde la perspectiva de la supremacía de Estados Unidos en el sistema internacional, no cabe duda de que el orden mundial del siglo XX ha estado marcado por el poder estadounidense. El final de la pax americana daría lugar a un nuevo orden mundial, el orden liberal internacional habría finalizado y un nuevo orden “postoccidental” se estaría construyendo. Pero, ¿qué clase de orden? La sustitución de la pax americana y, por lo tanto, del orden liberal occidental, es todavía imprecisa. En conclusión, los objetivos de nuestro artículo son: analizar la evolución del concepto de Pax americana, entendido como símbolo de la hegemonía de Estados Unidos y Occidente en el mundo, analizar el contexto de crisis de dicha hegemonía y, por último, analizar las distintas vías de cambio del sistema internacional, partiendo de la base de que está en una fase de transición y transformación todavía incierta.
Topic:
Geopolitics, International Order, Pax Americana, and Post-Cold War
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

2. A Conceptual History: Historical Sociological Analysis of Unipolarity in Structural Realist Literature

Author:
Burcu Sari Karademir
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
Unipolarity has been taken for granted and remains unquestioned in the International Relations literature. This article provides the conceptual history of unipolarity by bringing an immanent critique. It shows the evolution of unipolarity literature in the absence of counterbalancing in four stages. It focuses on the use of history in structural realism and brings a historical sociological perspective to the literature to show how tempocentric theorizing impaired the understanding of unipolarity as a distinct structure. The article concludes by underlying the importance of noticing the cost of reification of concepts for theorizing and by highlighting that unipolarity is still understudied both theoretically and methodologically.
Topic:
International Relations, Unipolarity, Post-Cold War, Balance of Power, Hard Balancing, and Soft Balancing
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Rethinking “Nation-Building:” The Contradictions of the Neo-Wilsonian Approach to Democracy Promotion

Author:
Roberto Belloni
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
Abstract:
International intervention in weak states is the post–Cold War response to fragmentation and conflict. International operations have been deployed across much of the world, from Afghanistan to Bosnia, Cambodia, Kosovo, East Timor, Iraq, and Somalia, to cite just a few of the most prominent cases. These operations have taken place in different circumstances, with some of them justified in the name of the War on Terror, and others more broadly conducted in view of implementing recently achieved peace agreements. All of these operations face similar constraints and dilemmas. The context in which international intervention takes place is one of extreme political, economic, and social instability. Years of war destroy physical and economic infrastructure, provoke massive human displacement, and leave the population traumatized. Moreover, rarely does war end with a clear victory for one of the parties involved. Instead, conflicts frequently terminate with the signing of a peace agreement, which reflects a difficult and unstable compromise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, half of the countries emerging from conflict revert to violence within five years. Even when a return to violence is averted, these countries remain politically, economically, and socially volatile. Accordingly to one estimate, at present around seventy current or potential conflicts exist across the world.1 This situation calls for both a theoretically informed understanding of the goals, possibilities, and limits of international intervention in support of peace processes as well as country-specific knowledge to tailor such intervention so as to maximize its effectiveness. Unfortunately, even the basic vocabulary used to describe international involvement is contested and confusing, with analysts using terms such as “peace-building,” “nation-building,” and “state-building” to describe the same general phenomenon of international intervention in weak states. This paper begins with a brief attempt at conceptual clarification. Second, it explores the limits of the template adopted by international interveners. Wilsonianism, named after the American President who argued that democracy and self-determination are necessary conditions for domestic and international peace and stability, offers a basic model for contemporary international missions. While Wilsonianism was generally successful in the aftermath of World War I and World War II, this has not been the case for more recent attempts. Contemporary neo-Wilsonianism focuses on political and economic liberalization as means to build viable democracies. As increasingly highlighted by a new generation of democracy analysts, such a formula is often unsuitable for war-torn countries plagued by scarce domestic resources and continuing competition between groups wishing to control the state. At least in the short term, liberalization dangerously heightens competition among groups, thus increasing the possibility of a relapse into war. Third, this paper investigates the less often noted contradictions of neo-Wilsonianism. Not only do political and economic liberalization risk promoting further conflict, they are also at odds with other important goals of international intervention in weak states; in particular, the attempt to uphold individual and group rights. In addition, the potentially positive impact of international intervention is limited by the need to demonstrate concrete and visible results in a very short time frame. The paper concludes with a brief exploration of the alternatives to the prevailing practice of international intervention, with particular reference to the newly created United Nations Peacebuilding Commission.
Topic:
Fragile States, Intervention, Post-Cold War, and Nation-building
Political Geography:
Global Focus