established global order has been greatly exaggerated, then you will doubt that those changes are likely to pose any existential challenge to the humanitarian international, be it in terms of the efficacy of what relief groups do in the field or in terms of the political and moral legitimacy they can aspire to enjoy. But if, on the contrary, you believe that we are living in the last days of a doomed system – established in the aftermath of World War II and dominated by the US – then the humanitarian international is no more likely to survive (or to put
With the rise of new powers and the decline of seemingly unchallenged US dominance, a conventional wisdom is gaining ground in contemporary discourse about world politics that a new multipolar order is taking shape. Yet ‘multipolarity’ – an order with multiple centres of power – is variously used as a description of the current distribution of power, of the likely shape of a future global order, or even as a prescription for how power ‘should’ be distributed in the international system. This book explores how the concept of a multipolar order is being used for different purposes in different national contexts. From rising powers to established powers, contemporary policy debates are analysed by a set of leading scholars in order to provide an in-depth insight into the use and abuse of a widely used but rarely explored concept.
War. US hegemony was almost incontestable. The US of course still faced certain political challenges, but the concepts guiding international relations at this time, authored by the US, were dominant. We would hear about ‘reaching out’ and, later, Obama’s formulation ‘leading from behind’, but always leading. Returning to the main change we see today… of course, there are forces that have been working for a long time… Trump arrives and says: ‘No, I don’t want a global order. I prefer global disorder.’ I am referring here only to what is manifest
of liberal order, pointing to the humanitarian hypocrisy of the US. But as they vie for leadership of the multilateral system, they also attempt to resignify it, demonstrating almost no concern for liberal ideals themselves. Liberalism might yet be recovered as the basis for global order. But it is unlikely that liberal institutions undermined in recent years can recover their legitimacy; and it is unclear what will emerge in their stead. ‘The crisis’, Gramsci noted, referring to the detachment of the masses from traditional ideologies and
beyond borders. Yet, UNHCR-endorsed corporate and celebrity humanitarians are located within immense privilege and power, as well as being immersed in the colonial, gendered and capitalist logics of humanitarianism, rather than being wedded to the transformation of the global order and decoloniality ( Bergman Rosamond, 2015 , 2016 ). Directly relevant is also the contention that humanitarian actors, many of whom are located within a neoliberal feminist logic
citizenry of photography. From June 1918 to April 1919, the American photographer Lewis Wickes Hine made photographs of refugees and other European civilians affected by World War I while working overseas for the American Red Cross (ARC). Refugees emerged as a new humanitarian subject in direct result of the changing global order that came with World War I. Hine’s photographs and the ARC’s use of them, both shaped and restricted public imagination with regard to refugees, and international spectators’ responses to them. Here, I explore Hine’s refugee photographs and more
by a rhetoric that was resonant of the political campaigns of decolonisation, it was animated by the vision of an independent state, of nationalism and the right to self-determination as a human right. As a political campaign and in its rhetoric, Biafra was in many respects a revenant of many decolonisation projects. However, global order had of course changed, the political forums in which the Biafrans tried to formulate these claims have changed. Many of these forums
The ascent of globalisation captures the sweeping drama of postwar globalisation through intimate portraits of twenty of its key architects. These profiles provide insights into what inspired these pioneers of globalisation — the beliefs they each imbibed in their youth, the formative experiences that shaped their ideas and their contributions to the global architecture. Engaging anecdotes and telling personal details, many of which have never been told, enliven each of the stories, as well as the behind-the-scenes dramas that accompanied the creation of institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, UN and World Trade Organization and the informal governance structures that are part of the postwar global architecture.
Their legacies are critically examined, both their successes and their disappointments: a global financial system that is fragile and unstable; an international trading system that is unfair; the unintended consequences of largely unregulated transnational capital; and dysfunction that plagues institutions like the European Union and the United Nations. The book ends by examining what implications the flawed architecture may have for the future of globalisation.
security, crime and the environment, just to name a few. Part II describes how the private sector, and particularly executives from transnational corporations, challenged government hegemony over the nature and governance of globalisation. Armed with the ideas of neoliberals, with Friedrich Hayek being a major influence, they advocated a new model of globalisation in which markets are central. This was not a return to laissez-faire policies that had dominated the first wave. Instead, the neoliberal global order was built around the ‘international Rule of Law’, which
grievances that combined through the device of a referendum to start the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The place of the Anglosphere in the referendum campaign illustrated the way that Brexit could be profitably understood as a nationalist project that sought to realign the United Kingdom’s place in the global order framed within powerful English national narratives. These narratives operated to legitimise a significant rupture in the British, European and global order and sought to provide a reassuring sense of continuity (in England