The following websites also contain information on key responses in the world order: Examine the role of sovereignty in supporting and hindering the resolution of global order problems Focus: Using examples from the present, students examine the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures for peacebuilding and conflict resolution between nation-states. The Cold War climate, which dominated world politics from the late 1940s for the next four decades, created a tension between a tolerance for choosing an internal future that was either liberal capitalist or Marxist socialist, and an intense struggle for intervention, which produced blood-stained battlefields throughout the Third World that cast dark shadows over many anti-colonial projects. But historical tendencies definitely evolved against colonialism, and the peoples of the non-Western world gained their political independence after struggles of varying duration and intensity. At the same time, the Westphalian ethic continued to affirm the right of governments to wage war to prevent the fragmentation of existing states by separatist claims of ethnic or religious minorities. What has become acceptable under the rubric of self-determination is to support the very legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign forms of political control, but domestic forms of oppression have remained mostly out of reach. This cold-war-era solution was codified in 1970 in the highly influential Declaration of the General Assembly on Principles of International Law Governing Friendly Relations among States. [Resolution 2625, 24 Oct. 1970, principle (e) and commentary] The anti-apartheid campaign was an illustration of this. He mobilized international society for the oppressed majority in South Africa and imposed some sanctions, but he was not prepared to intervene violently in a way that could have ended apartheid immediately, but could also have risked failure and caused great bloodshed.
The political will for such intervention has never been a feature of the world order, for it would presuppose ruling elites in large states motivated by moral considerations in foreign policy-making, and such elites have never existed, except as anomalies. It is possible to consider Woodrow Wilson after World War I and George W. Bush after 9/11 as examples of visionary leaders who were not constrained by a realistic orientation toward the use of power abroad. Wilson represented an idealistic embodiment of visionary geopolitics with its dependence on the international community and the League of Nations, while Bush displayed conservative geopolitics relying on militaristic methods to impose “democratic” results on so-called “bad” states. It is important to understand the extent to which these leaders are anomalies with the Westphlian tradition, which is shaped by a realistic understanding of the world order that involves the marginalization of international law and morality with respect to the use of force and the pursuit of international and global security. Concretely, the absence of intervention, or even prevention of genocidal behavior, remains the modal model of behavior at the global level. It is doubtful that “humanitarian interventions” would be undertaken to prevent future genocide in a European country if measures could not be taken with relatively low risk and low cost. In this regard, as sub-Saharan Africa`s efforts suggest, people remain vulnerable to serious abuses by their governments, and abusive leaders generally enjoy “impunity” for their criminal misconduct. In this respect, the non-reaction in Rwanda in 1994 or in Darfur since 2004 is more indicative of the world order than NATO`s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, which seems to have saved the Kosovo Albanians from a new phase of ethnic cleansing. At the same time, especially in the 1990s, there have been several efforts to humanize the world order.
First and foremost, the protection and promotion of international human rights was of considerable importance, especially since the major movements against Soviet domination in Eastern Europe and apartheid in South Africa were inspired by ideas of human rights, in particular the right to self-determination. This development has undoubtedly been facilitated by the rise of transnational civil society actors who saw their mission as linked to the implementation of human rights standards. Those actors had no interest in the territorial sovereignty of States and could nevertheless invoke rules and norms agreed by State actors in innovative international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A second development during this period was the revival of the Nuremberg idea of accountability for state crimes, which led to the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in the early 1990s and a few years later to a parallel tribunal dealing with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Also noteworthy was the imprisonment of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in Britain in 1998 for seeking to prosecute crimes against humanity and torture in Chile while he ruled the country. These measures, in turn, have led a number of Governments and a coalition of civil society actors to make considerable efforts to establish a permanent International Criminal Court. Remarkably, such an institution was formally established in 2002 despite opposition from several major states, including the United States. These developments, as well as the broader dynamics of globalization, definitively challenge several attributes of the Westphalian concept of global order: non-State actors representing market forces and global civil society must be recognized as participants in the global political process; territorial impunity has been eroded by the influence of international norms and ideas; And realist thinking has been challenged in various statist arenas. [Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society; R.
Falk, Predatory Globalization] Explain the impact of the nature of the conflict on the achievement of world order 3. The impact of changing values and ethical norms on the world order The term world order is sometimes used analytically, sometimes prescriptively. Both uses serve important purposes in capturing the realities of global political life. Analytically, world order refers to the arrangement of power and authority that provides the framework for conducting global diplomacy and politics on a global scale. Prescriptively, world order refers to a preferential arrangement of power and authority associated with the realization of values such as peace, economic growth and justice, human rights, environmental quality and sustainability. For several centuries, the defining framework of the world order was associated primarily with the Peace of Westphalia, negotiated in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years` War and treated as the beginning of the modern world. This modern world order, geographically derived from the experience of Europe, was based on the emergence of the sovereign and territorial state as the dominant political actor. This statist world order was clearly Eurocentric in its essential nature, conceiving international society on the basis of relations between major European states and viewing relations with non-Western political communities as hierarchical, with higher-level Western states ruling subordinate non-Western states.
The characteristic form of this hierarchical arrangement was based on colonial empires. The states that belonged to international society as full members in this early period had an autocratic character, mainly monarchies. It is important to understand that this system of states had a strong tension between a set of legal ideas based on the equality and autonomy of states and the realities of power that reflected inequalities. The world order as an analytical concept encompassed both the legal realm of equality and the geopolitical realm of inequality. The state system developed largely through power tests associated with large states, with war seen as an instrument of discretion of a sovereign state. Indeed, war fulfilled a legislative function, as there was no reliable peaceful way to make the necessary adjustments in the face of changing power relations and divergent political priorities.