Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:58:28.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Michael N. Barnett
Michael N. Barnett
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access

Abstract

The end of the cold war and the attendant security vacuum unleashed aflurryof intellectual activity and international commissions that reflected on the world that was being left behind and the world that should be created in its place. The reports under review are among the best and most influential of the lot. This article focuses on three issues raised by these reports. First, the portrait of the new international order offered by these reports is a liberal international order. Second, the concept of legitimacy appears in various guises, and the UN is considered the site for the legitimation of a particular order. Few international orders are ever founded or sustained by force alone, something well understood by the policymakers who drafted these reports and wisely heeded by international relations theorists who attempt to understand their actions and the international orders that they construct and sustain. Third, these reports envision the UN as an agent of normative integration. As such, it contributes to the development and maintenance of a liberal international order by increasing the number of actors who identify with and uphold its values.

Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , July 1997 , pp. 526 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the rise and decline of the study of international organizations before the end of the cold war, see Rochester, J. Martin, “The Rise and Fall of International Organization as a Field of Study,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kratochwil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John, “International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory ofInternational Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 42, 164Google Scholar. Waltz's lone comment was to reject from consideration any possible role for the UN as a system regulator or in a collective security system because it simply reflects state interests.

3 Mearsheimer, John, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19 (Winter 1994–95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Desmartis, Isabelle, Fournier, Julie, and Thumerelle, Charles, “The United Nations at Fifty: Regime Theory and Collective Security,” InternationalJournal 50 (Winter 1994–95)Google Scholar; Schear, James, “Global Institutions in a Cooperative Order: Does the United Nations Fit In?” in Nolan, Janne, ed., Global Engagement: Cooperation and Security in the Twenty-first Century (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1994)Google Scholar; and Risse-Kappen, Thomas, “Between a New World Order and Norms: Explaining the Re-Emergence of the United Nations in World Politics,” in Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael, eds., Critical Approaches to International Security (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

5 See Franck, Thomas, The Power ofLegitimacy among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. As Franck writes, “The international system's weakness … is its peculiar strength as a laboratory for those seeking to isolate the legitimacy factor” (p. 20). For past statements on legitimacy in international politics, see Kissinger, Henry, World Restored (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964)Google Scholar; and Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964)Google Scholar. For contemporary treatments, see Bukavowsky, Mlada, “American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812,” International Organization 51 (Spring 1997)Google Scholar; Barkins, J. S. and Cronin, B., “The State and the Nation,” International Organization 48 (Winter 1994)Google Scholar; Kratochwil and Ruggie (fn.l); and Milner, Helen, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations,” Review ofInternational Studies 17 (January 1991), 74Google Scholar. The “English School” has also been attentive to the legitimacy of international orders. See Watson, Adam, The Evolution of International Society (New York: Routledge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Evans, Gareth, “Cooperative Security and Instrastate Conflict,” Foreign Policy 96 (Fall 1994)Google Scholar. See also the related volume, Kevin Clements and Ward, Robin, Building International Community: Cooper-atingfor Peace Case Studies (St. Leonards and Canberra: Allen and Unwin and Peace Research Centre, Australian National University, 1994)Google Scholar; and the interesting collection of responses to Cooperatingfor Peace in Lawson, Stephanie, ed., The New Agendafor Global Security: Cooperating for Peace and Beyond (Canberra: Allen and Unwin, 1996)Google Scholar.

7 Stephanie Lawson, “Introduction: Activating the Agenda,” in Lawson (fn. 6), 7—8.

8 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google ScholarPubMed; Commission, South, The Challenge to the South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

9 Issues in Global Governance: Papers Written for the Commission on Global Governance (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1995)Google Scholar.

10 See also Helman, Gerald and Ratner, Steven, “Saving Failed States,” Foreign Policy 89 (Winter 1992–93)Google Scholar; Ratner, Steven, The New UN Peacekeeping (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

11 It is impossible to determine whether these proposals led directly to these and other reforms; after all, the proposals built on both already existing “lessons learned” in recent peacekeeping operations and the recommendations of other documents and commissions. At the least these commissions lent greater credibility to these and other proposals.

12 Those scholars whose work is informed by a Gramscian approach also situate the UN system within a global, though largely economic, context and focus on its role as an agent of liberal change. See Murphy, Craig, International Organizations and Industrial Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; and Cox, Robert, “The Crisis of World Order and the Problem of International Organizations,” International Journal 35, no. 2 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Zacher, Mark and Matthews, Richard, “Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,” in Kegley, C., ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neo-Liberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 110Google Scholar.

14 I derive these tenets from Keohane, Robert, “International Liberalism Reconsidered,” in Dunn, John, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Andrew Moravcsik, “Liberalism and International Relations Theory,” Center for International Affairs, Working Paper Series, no. 92–6 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1993); Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, “Structural Liberalism: The Nature and Sources of Western Political Order” (Manuscript, 1995); Zacher and Matthews (fn. 13); and Michael Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” in Kegley (fn. 13).

15 Zacher and Matthews (fn. 13), 110.

16 See also Rosenau, James, The UnitedNations in a Turbulent World (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1992)Google Scholar.

17 See Jackson, Robert, “The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization: Normative Change in International Relations,” in Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O., eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Emerson, Rupert, “Colonialism, Political Development, and the UN,” International Organization 19 (Summer 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jacobsen, Harold, “The United Nations and Colonialism: A Tentative Appraisal,” International Organization 1 (Winter 1962)Google Scholar.

18 This raises a potentially interesting, though generally unexplored, question: what role did the UN play in helping to manage the end of the cold war? As international relations theorists isolate various explanations, they tend to focus on the Soviet Union's “new thinking” and the emerging belief that the U.S. would not take advantage of its international retreat and domestic reforms. Was the easy fall of the Soviet Union facilitated by the existence of the UN? The U.S. and the Soviet Union worked jointly and multilaterally to end various regional conflicts, and they did so under the auspices of the UN. It is conceivable that by working through the UN, the Soviets (1) could rest assured that there was a forum that guaranteed them superpower status and decision-making power despite their declining stature (and perhaps caused the U.S. to give it more due than otherwise might have been the case, for example, in the negotiations preceding the Persian Gulf War in January 1991); and (2) learned through doing that the U.S. would not try to settle these and other conflicts in a manner immediately disadvantageous to the Soviets. As Roberts and Kingsbury note, Soviet premier Gorbachev increasingly and simultaneously stressed the necessity of a framework of international cooperation and the importance of the UN. See Roberts, and Kingsbury, , “The UN's Roles in International Society,” in Roberts, A. and Kingsbury, B., eds., United Nations, Divided World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 46–47Google Scholar.

19 Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, “Global Leadership after the Cold War,” Foreign Affairs 75 (March-April 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See Ruggie, John, ed., Multilateralism Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Thomas Pickering, “Power and Purpose: Making Multilateralism Work,” Foreign Service Journal (July 1992).

21 Hume, Cameron, Ending Mozambique's War (Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 1994)Google Scholar; The United Nations and Nuclear Non-Proliferation, United Nations Book Series, vol. 3 (New York: Department of Public Information, 1995).

22 The peacekeeping literature has exploded over the past few years. For overviews and analysis, see James, Alan, Peacekeeping in International Politics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Featherston, A. B., Towards a Theory of United Nations Peace keeping (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Diehl, Paul, International Peacekeeping (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Durch, Paul, ed., The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Doyle, Michael et al. , eds., Keeping the Peace: Multidimensional UN Operations in Cambodia and El Salvador (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John MacKinley and Jarat Chopra, “Second Generation Multinational Operations,” Washington Quarterly (Summer 1992); and Weiss, Thomas, ed., The UnitedNations and Civil Wars (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995)Google Scholar. For the factual side, see United Nations Peacekeeping Information Notes (New York: United Nations Press, 1995); and Blue Helmets, 3d ed. (New York: United Nations Press, 1996).

23 See also Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, “An Agenda for Peace: One Year Later,” Orbis 37 (Summer 1993), 329CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Democracy: A Newly Recognized Imperative,” Global Governance 1 (Winter 1995), 3–12Google Scholar; and the recently published Agendafor Democratization (New York: UN Publications, 1996).

24 See also Boutros-Ghali (fn. 23,1995).

25 Bull, Hedley, Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in WorldPolitics (New York: MacMUlan, 1983)Google Scholar.

26 Jackson, Robert, Quasi-States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

27 These reports draw on the growing literature on the “democratic peace.” See Doyle, Michael, “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

28 Jacobsen (fn. 17), 47; and Henkin, Louis, “The United Nations and Human Rights,” International Organization 19 (Summer 1965), 512CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 See, for instance, Alston, Philip, ed., The United Nations and Human Rights (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Forsythe, David, “The United Nations and Human Rights at Fifty: An Incremental but Incomplete Revolution,” Global Governance 1 (September-December 1995)Google Scholar; and Ofuatey-Kodjoe, W., “The United Nations and the Protection of Individual and Group Rights,” International Social Science Journal 144, no. 3 (1995)Google Scholar.

30 This is not the first time that an international organization has argued that domestic politics matters for international order and is a legitimate concern of the international community. The League of Nations, too, through its mandate policies and various commissions on minority rights and plebiscites in Europe, made the case that there was an important relationship between domestic and international order. See Jones, Dorothy, Code ofPeace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar. As reflected by the League of Nations mandate system, at issue was whether or not the recognized state could maintain some semblance of order—that domestic order and the capacity to govern should be used as criteria for independence and recognition.

31 For substantive legitimacy, see Berger, Peter, Berger, Brigitte, and Kellner, Hansfried, The Homeless Mind (New York; Vintage Books, 1973)Google Scholar; Scott, W. Richard, “Unpacking Institutional Arguments,” in Walter Powell and Paul Dimaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 169–71Google Scholar; and Weber, Max, The Theory ofSocialandEconomic Organization (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1964), 124Google Scholar. For procedural legitimacy as applied to the UN, see Franck (fn. 5), 24,25; idem, Fairness in International Law andInstitutions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; and Russett, Bruce, ed., The Once andFuture Security Council (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

32 Claude, , “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations,” International Organization 20 (Summer 1966), 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Kissinger (fn. 5).

34 Claude (fn. 32).

35 Javier Perez de Cuellar, “The United Nations and the United States” (Address at the fiftieth anniversary celebration, Dartmouth College, May 10,1988). Cited from Franck (fn. 5), 9.

36 Canadian House of Commons, External Affairs Committee; quoted from Lawson (fn. 7), 3.

37 Young, Oran, “The United Nations and the International System,” International Organization 22 (Autumn 1968), 906CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Cited from Scott, W. Richard, Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Press, 1995), 10Google Scholar.

39 Durkheim, Emile, The Division ofLabor in Society (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Ruggie, John, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity,” in Keohane, Robert, ed., Neorealism andIts Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

40 The importance and potential behavioral impact of the UN's symbolic role is also raised by Roberts and Kingsbury (fn. 18), 19–22.

41 Claude (fn. 32); Franck, Thomas, Nation against Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

42 Ernst Haas argues that a rough measure of the legitimacy of the United Nations is the degree to which “member states invoke its purposes and principles … to justify national policy.” Haas, See, Beyond the Nation-State (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964), 133Google Scholar. For a good discussion of how to verify empirically whether a political order has some measure of legitimacy, see Stinch-combe, Arthur, Constructing Social Theories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 162–64Google Scholar.

43 These principles of state action are “sovereign equality of states; territorial integrity and political independence of states; equal rights and self-determination of peoples; nonintervention in internal affairs of states; peaceful settlement of disputes between states; no threat or use of force; fulfillment in good faith of international obligations; cooperation with other states; and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” See Jones, “The Declaratory Tradition in Modern International Law,” in Nardin, T. and Marpel, D., eds., Traditions ofInternationalEthics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 44–45Google Scholar.

44 Jones (fn. 43), 48–49. On constitutive norms and state action, see Jepperson, Ron, Wendt, Alexander, and Katzenstein, Peter, “Identity, Norms, and Security,” in Katzenstein, Peter, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World olitics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

45 “Nations, or those who govern them,” writes Thomas Franck, “recognize that the obligation to comply is owed by them to the community of states as the reciprocal of that community's validation of their nation's statehood.” See Franck (fn. 5), 196.

46 See also Schroeder, Paul, “New World Order: A Historical Perspective,” Washington Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1994), 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruggie, John, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, Stephen, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

47 Claude (fn. 32), 374–75.

48 See also Abraham Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes, “On Compliance,” International Organization (Spring 1993).

49 Roberts and Kingsbury (fn. 18), 57.

50 Beetham, David, The Legitimation ofPower (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1991), 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Claude (fn. 32), 368.

52 For a discussion of these points, see Barnett, Michael, “Spheres of Influence?” in Lepgold, Joseph and Weiss, Thomas, eds., Collective Conflict Management and Changing World Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

53 Gene Lyons and Michael Mastanduno tie legitimacy to the multilateral character of humanitarian operations. See Lyons and Mastanduno, “Introduction,” in Lyons, and Mastanduno, , Beyond Westphalia? State Sovereignty andInternationalIntervention (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1996), 12Google Scholar; and Finnemore, Martha, “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention,” in Katzenstein, Peter, ed., The Culture ofNational Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

54 Parsons, “The UN and National Interests of States,” in Roberts and Kingsbury (fn. 18), 111—12.

55 Boutros-Ghali (fn. 19).

56 Robert Cox, John Ruggie, and Tom Biersteker have examined various features of how a liberal political order was established and to whose advantage it operates. Cox, See, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Ruggie (fn. 46); and Biersteker, “The Triumph of Neoclassical Economics in the Developing World,” in J. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Cziempel, eds., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). See also Beetham (fn. 50), chap. 4.

57 Eagleton, Terry, Ideology (New York: Verso Press, 1991), 56Google Scholar.

58 Habermas, Jurgen, “Legitimation Problems in the Modern State,” in Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

59 Alger, “United Nations Participation as a Learning Process,” Public Opinion Quarterly 27, no. 3 (1963), 425. See also Claude (fn. 32), 373; McNeely, Connie, Constructing the Nation-State: International Organization and Prescriptive Action (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1995)Google Scholar; and Finnemore, Martha, NationalInterests in International Society (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

60 Boli, John and Thomas, George M., “World Culture in the World Polity: A Century of International Non-Governmental Organization,” American SociologicalReview 62 (April 1997)Google Scholar; and McNeely (fn.59).

61 For broader theoretical statements on the relationship between organizations and the transmission of norms and acceptable practices, see Dimaggio and Powell (fn. 31); Scott, W. Richard and Christensen, Soren, eds., The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International andLongitudinal Studies (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1995)Google Scholar; Ruggie, John, “Territoriality and Beyond,” International Organization 47 (Winter 1993)Google Scholar; and Finnemore, Martha, “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms,” International Organization 47 (Autumn 1993)Google Scholar.

62 For an expanded discussion of this argument, see Barnett, Michael, “The New U.N. Politics of Peace: From Juridical Sovereignty to Empirical Sovereignty,” Global Governance 1 (Winter 1995)Google Scholar.

63 Amnesty International, Peacekeeping and Human Rights (Mimeo, January 1994); Sally Morphet, “UN Peacekeeping and Election-Monitoring,” in Roberts and Kingsbury (fn. 18); Helman and Ratner (fn. 10); and Padilla, David and Houppert, Elizabeth, “International Election Observing: Enhancing the Principle of Free and Fair Elections,” Emory International Law Review 7 (1993)Google Scholar.

64 Vincent, R. J., “Order in International Politics,” in Miller, J. D. B. and Vincent, R. J., eds., Order and Violence: Hedley Bull andInternational Relations (New York; Oxford University Press, 1991), 54Google Scholar.

65 Keohane (fn. 14).

66 On institutional isomorphism, see Thomas, George et al. , Institutional Structure: Constituting the State, Society, and the Individual (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

67 Hurrell, Andrew and Woods, Ngaire, “Globalisation and Inequality,” Millennium 24, no. 3 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smouts, Marie-Cloude, “International Organizations and Inequality among States,” International Social Science Journal 144, no. 3 (1995)Google Scholar; Whitworth, Sandra, Feminism and International Relations: Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non-Governmental Institutions (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 See, for instance, Mallki, Liisa, “Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization,” Cultural Anthropology 11 (Fall 1996)Google Scholar; Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations” (Paper presented at the International Studies Association annual meetings, Toronto, March 20—24,1997).

69 Wendt, Alexander, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security 20 (Summer 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jepperson, Wendt, and Katzenstein (fn. 44); and Emanuel Adler “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism and World Politics,” EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations (forthcoming). See also Wrong, Dennis, The Problem of Order (New York: Free Press, 1994), chap. 3Google Scholar; Alexander, Jeffrey, Twenty Lectures (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), chap. 1Google Scholar; and Rhoads, John, CriticalIssues in Social Theory (College Station: Penn State Press, 1991), chap. 5Google Scholar.