Policy Essay

| Liberal International Order Project | 2017 | No.17

What is the Liberal International Order?

By Hans Kundnani

In the last five years or so, U.S. and European

foreign policy think tanks have become increasingly
preoccupied with threats to the set of norms, rules,
and institutions known as the liberal international
order, especially from “revisionist” rising powers and
above all authoritarian powers like China and Russia.
But even more recently it has also become increasingly
apparent that support for the liberal international order
Although Western analysts and policymakers in Europe and the United States is declining as well.
often to refer to the “liberal international order,” the This has become particularly clear since the British
phrase is far from self-explanatory. In particular, it is vote to the leave the European Union last June and the
not obvious in what sense the liberal international U.S. presidential election last November — not least
order is “liberal.” The lack of precision about what is because the United Kingdom and the United States
meant by the liberal international order is a problem
are two of the countries historically most associated
with liberalism and were generally thought to be most
because it obscures the complexities of the concept
committed to it.
and inhibits self-criticism by Western policymakers,
especially Atlanticists and “pro-Europeans” who seek However, although the phrase “liberal international
to defend the liberal international order. order” is widely used, it is far from self-explanatory.
The liberal international order has evolved Theorists of the liberal international order understand
since its creation after World War II and has different
it as an “open and rule-based international order”
that is “enshrined in institutions such as the United
elements — some of which are in tension with each
Nations and norms such as multilateralism.”1 But this
other. It is also perceived quite differently outside
still leaves big questions unanswered (in what sense
the geographic West than within it. Western analysts it is “open” and what are the “rules”?) that tend to be
and policymakers need not just to defend the liberal glossed over. One particular ambiguity is around the
international order but also to think about how to sense that the liberal international order is “liberal.”
reform it — and perhaps even reverse elements of the Does this refer to political liberalism (in opposition
evolution of it since the end of the Cold War — in order to authoritarianism)? Or economic liberalism (in
to save it. opposition to economic nationalism or mercantilism)?
Or liberalism in the sense that international relations
theorists use it (in opposition to realism and other
theories of international relations)?

1 G. John Ikenberry, “The Future of the Liberal World Order.” Foreign Affairs, May/June
2011, pp. 56-68, here p. 56.
 Policy Essay
The easy answer is that it refers to all three — because how to reform it — and perhaps even reverse some
they go hand in hand. But the relationship between elements of the evolution of it since the end of the
the three senses of liberalism is not as straightforward Cold War — in order to save it.4
as this implies. Though the history of each of these
strands of liberalism is closely related, and they may
have gone together seamlessly in the minds of thinkers Evolution of Liberal International Order
in Victorian Britain, it is not clear that it is always
and everywhere the case — as recent debates about As John Ikenberry has shown, the current international
authoritarian capitalism and the “Beijing Consensus” order is actually a kind of fusion of two distinct order-
illustrate.2 Moreover, there may also be tensions building projects: firstly the modern state system, a
between the three senses of liberalism. For example, project dating back to the Peace of Westphalia in
Dani Rodrik argues that “hyperglobalization” is 1648; and secondly the liberal order, which over the
undermining democracy — in other words, that the last two centuries was led by the United Kingdom and
particular form of economic liberalism the West has the United States and which in the twentieth century

“
pursued and promoted was aided by the “liberal ascendancy” — that is, rise
during the last thirty years There was of liberal democratic states.5 The Westphalian order
or so is undermining no document was based on the concept of the sovereignty of states.
political liberalism.3 that laid out The “liberal vision” of Western democracies, on the
the basis for other hand, included “open markets, international
This essay explores the institutions, cooperative security democratic
tensions within the concept a specifically community, progressive change, collective problem
of the liberal international liberal solving, shared sovereignty, [and] the rule of law.”6
order. It argues that the international
lack of precision about order that In other words, what we think of as the “liberalism”
what is meant by the was agreed of the current international system is based on an
liberal international order by all the older foundation of “order” — what might be called
is a problem because it a “realist” rather than a “liberal” international order.
obscures the tensions
world’s The post-World War II liberal international order
within the concept and powers.” did not simply replace the previous order but rather
inhibits self-criticism by developed on top of it. Thus, Ikenberry suggests,
Western policymakers, especially Atlanticists and the liberal international order can be thought of in
“pro-Europeans,” who as a result tend to become terms of a geological metaphor of layers or “strata”:
uncritical defenders of the status quo. The liberal the Westphalian system is a kind of “bedrock” on
international order has evolved since its creation after top of which various forms of order have developed
World War II and has different elements. Western that have become gradually more liberal over time.7
analysts and policymakers need not just to defend Moreover, within the liberal international order there
the liberal international order but also to think about is a tension between “liberalism” and “order,” which
can be seen most clearly by examining the evolution
of the liberal international order since the end of
World War II.
2 The phrase “Beijing Consensus” was originally used by Joshua Cooper Ramo in a
report published in 2004. See Joshua Cooper Ramo, “The Beijing Consensus, Foreign 4 For a similar argument about the need to reform the liberal international order in to
Policy Centre,” May 2004. See also Stefan Halper, The Beijing Consensus: How China’s save it, see Jeff D. Colgan and Robert E. Keohane, “The liberal order is rigged.” Foreign
Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-first Century. New York: Basic Book, Affairs, May/June 2017.
2012. Halper writes that states outside the West are “learning to combine market
5 G. John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the
economics with traditional autocratic or semiautocratic politics in a process that
American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011, here p. 1.
signals an intellectual rejection of the Western economic model.”
6 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. 2.
3 See Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World
Economy. New York: Norton, 2011. 7 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. xii.

G|M|F  April 2017 2

 Policy Essay

“
Western analysts These institutions: they aspired to be global but were
sometimes see the dominated by Western powers and to some extent
Atlantic Charter — a
documents reflected Western economic interests.
joint declaration between based on
President Franklin D. liberal After the end of the Cold War, the liberal international
Roosevelt and Prime principles order evolved further. In some respects, it is Western
Minister Winston were signed democracies rather than authoritarian, non-Western,
Churchill signed in August only by or rising powers that have been the “revisionist”
1941 — as the founding Western powers during this period. In particular, they drove
document of the liberal the creation of the International Criminal Court
international order.8 The powers.” (ICC) (though the United States has not joined it) and
principles set out in the developed the ideas of a “responsibility to protect”
charter included peace and security (including the (R2P), which was adopted by the United Nations in
right to self-defense and the preservation of the 2005, and of “humanitarian intervention.”10 These
territorial status quo), self-governance (self-rule, innovations have qualified the sovereignty of states in
open societies, the rule of law), economic prosperity important and controversial ways. If state sovereignty
(economic advancement, improved labor standards, is an essential element of the liberal international
social welfare), and free trade and the preservation of order (and some would argue that it is its essence),
the global commons. The Atlantic Charter drew on sovereigntist powers such as China and Russia have
the “four freedoms” — freedom of speech, freedom a point when they argue that it is they rather than
of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from Western powers that are defending the principles
fear — that Roosevelt had outlined in his State of the of the liberal international order — albeit the 1945
Union Address earlier in 1941.9 It in turn informed version of it. 11
the U.S. commitment to the postwar recovery and
security of Europe through the Marshall Plan and the Seen against the background of this evolution, current
North Atlantic Treaty. arguments between the West and authoritarian
powers such as China and Russia are not so much
However, these documents based on liberal principles about the liberal international order itself but about
were signed only by Western powers. There was no different versions of it and in particular about the way
document that laid out the basis for a specifically Western powers have sought to change it since the end
liberal international order that was agreed by all the of the Cold War. In particular, Russia seems to want
world’s powers. The only shared basis of the postwar to go back to the order agreed at the Yalta conference
order was the United Nations Charter, which was in 1945, in which states with different ideologies and
signed by 50 of the 51 original member countries political systems co-exist and in particular respect
of the United Nations in June 1945. However, this territorial sovereignty — a “purely Westphalian
was based largely on Westphalian principles rather world,” as Peter Harris puts it, which would be
than the liberal principles to which Western powers “tolerant of pluralism among nations.”12 In contrast,
committed after 1945. The global economy did the more “liberal” order for which many in the West
become somewhat more liberal after 1945 though the
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). 10 The Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, but
But the Bretton Woods institutions — the World did not submit it for Senate ratification. Under the Obama administration the United
States became an observer at the ICC, but the Rome Statute remains unratified by the
Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) — United States.
were somewhere in between Western and global 11 See Richard Haass, “World Order 2.0.” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2017.
Haass calls this version of the liberal international order based on the concept of
8 The Atlantic Charter, August 14, 1941. I would like to thank Dhruva Jaishankar for a classical Westphalian sovereignty “World Order 1.0.” He proposes an updated “World
helpful discussion of the points in this paragraph. Order 2.0” based on the principle of “sovereign obligation.”
9 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union,” 12 Peter Harris, “Losing the International Order: Westphalia, Liberalism and Current
January 6, 1941. World Crises.” The National Interest, November 10, 2015.

G|M|F  April 2017 3

 Policy Essay
argued in the post-Cold War period “demands that international law on maritime disputes — and thus is
states be obedient to liberal principles in foreign of particular relevance to current territorial disputes
policy (and in significant aspects of domestic policy, in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The
too).” United Nations Security Council is the final instance
that ultimately decides what states can and cannot do.

Elements of Liberal International Order There was a particular evolution of the security order
in Europe following 1945 that took place in three
If examining the evolution of the liberal international phases. First, there was the post-1945 order — the
order is one way to get at the complexity inherent early Cold War system based on the terms of the Yalta
in the concept, another is to disaggregate it into its Agreement, which was based to a large extent on the
constituent parts — in other words, thematically Westphalian principle of state sovereignty. Second,
or by policy area. A straightforward typology of there was the post-1975 order — the late Cold War

“
the liberal international order might include three system based on the terms
elements: the security order, the economic order, and of Helsinki Final Act, Western
the human rights order.13 Disaggregating the liberal which further affirmed powers were
international order into these three elements allows the inviolability of borders prepared to
us to see more precisely how each has evolved since and created what became break the
the end of World War II — and the consequences the Organization for
this evolution has had for the other elements. It also Security and Cooperation
rules when
takes us beyond the shorthand of an “open and rules- in Europe.15 Finally, there they believed
based order” and shows the different senses in which was the post-1990 order there was a
the liberal international order can be seen as “liberal” — the post-Cold War compelling
– and thus illustrates even more clearly the tensions system based on the terms reason.”
within the concept of the liberal international order. of Paris Charter, which
established democracy
The Security Order as “the only system of government of our nations.”16
These agreements, each of which included the Soviet
It is to a large extent the security order that Union, further “liberalized” the European security
analysts have in mind when they speak of the order in Ikenberry’s sense by extending the system of
liberal international order as being “rules-based.” rules and institutions that governed it.
In particular, Ikenberry writes that an order that is
liberal in the sense of being “rules-based” contrasts Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014,
with one that is “organized into rival blocs or many in the West have expressed outrage that Russia
exclusive regional spheres.”14 What this means is that has broken the rules of the European security order.
it is an order in which what states can and cannot Some are also concerned about Chinese island
do is not simply determined by power. Rather, building in the South China Sea, which, though
international law constrains the action of states. For more subtle than Russian actions in Eastern Europe,
example, the United Nations Convention on the Law amounts to the same thing — that is, the acquisition
of the Sea, which was signed in 1982 (though it still
has not been ratified by the United States) defines 15 The Helsinki Final Act dealt with a variety of issues divided into “baskets.” A first
basket included ten principles covering political and military issues, territorial integrity,
13 For a different typology, see Daniel M. Kliman and Richard Fontaine, “Global the definition of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes and the implementation of
Swing States. Brazil, India, Indonesia, Turkey and the Future of International Order.” confidence building measures between opposing militaries. A second basket focused
German Marshall Fund/Center for a New American Security, November 2012. Kliman on economic, scientific, technological, and environmental cooperation. A third basket
and Fontaine break the liberal international order down into five elements: the trade emphasized human rights, including freedom of emigration and reunification of families
order, the financial order, the maritime order, the nonproliferation order, and the divided by international borders, cultural exchanges and freedom of the press. See
human rights order. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Helsinki Final Act, August 1, 1975.
14 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. xii. 16 See Charter of Paris for a New Europe, November 21, 1990.

G|M|F  April 2017 4

 Policy Essay

and consolidation of territory using force and in “breaking down of artificial barriers to the flow of
violation of international law. It therefore seems as if goods, services, capital, knowledge, and (to a lesser
it is authoritarian states that are “breaking the rules” extent), people across borders.”19 In fact, the liberal
— and therefore challenging the liberal international international order and globalization are so closely
order — while the West seeks to uphold them. connected that it has become increasingly difficult to
Ikenberry argues that “democracies are — in contrast separate the two.
to autocratic and authoritarian states — particularly
able and willing to operate within an open, rule-based During the immediate postwar period — the
international system and to cooperate for mutual era of GATT — the liberalism of the economic
gain.”17 order was limited. Trade was liberalized but states
retained substantial autonomy in policymaking —
However, during the post-Cold War period, it was a compromise that John Ruggie called “embedded
often the West that “broke the rules” of the security liberalism.”20 But since the end of the Cold War, the
order. In particular, the NATO military intervention economic order has become much more liberal — in
against Serbia in 1999, which was carried out without particular with the creation in 1994 of the World Trade
a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, Organization (WTO), which, according to Ikenberry,
was perceived by many, especially outside the West, is “the most formal and developed institution of the
as a violation of international law. This was followed liberal international order.”21 Alongside the rules that
by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The question govern the security order, WTO rules are another
here is not whether each or both of these interventions, a key element of what is meant when Western
which were justified in various ways, was right or analysts speak of a “rules-based” order. This liberal
wrong. It is also important to emphasize that these economic order became truly global when China
interventions also did not involve the annexation joined the WTO in 2001 and Russia joined it in 2012.
of territory. But they illustrate that Western powers During this period, the economic order has become
were prepared to break the rules when they believed closely connected with what Rodrik calls “hyper-
there was a compelling reason to do so. It is only globalization.”
more recently, as other powers have broken the rules,
that Western powers have insisted on the paramount During the last decade, economists like Rodrik have
importance of the “rules-based” order. become increasingly critical of aspects of this extreme
form of globalization. But many defenders of the
The Economic Order liberal international order often refuse to accept that
the reform of the economic order may be needed. Thus
It is implicitly to the economic order that Western they become uncritical defenders of the particular
analysts refer when they speak of an “open” liberal version of economic liberalism that Europe and the
international order. Thus Ikenberry writes that United States have pursued over the last 30 years —
“openness is manifest when states trade and exchange what critics call “neoliberalism” — and even argue
on the basis of mutual gain” — in other words, when that “hyper-globalization” must be taken further.
economic relations between states are organized on During the last few years many Western analysts
the basis of liberal principles.18 Thus the “openness” and policymakers argued that “mega-regional” trade
of the economic order, which is a key element of
the “liberalism” of the liberal international order, 19 This definition of globalization comes from Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its
Discontents. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 2002, p. 9.
is closely connected to globalization — that is, the
20 See John Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded
Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2,
17 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. 63. 1982, pp. 379-415.
18 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. 18. 21 Ikenberry, “The Future of the Liberal World Order,” p. 62.

G|M|F  April 2017 5

 Policy Essay

agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and liberal international order more “liberal,” the West
Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific undermined order. This illustrates that there can be a
Partnership (TPP) were crucial for the maintenance tension between “liberalism” and “order.”
of the liberal international order. This illustrates a
tendency to elide European and U.S. policy with the
liberal international order itself. Western and Non-Western Perceptions
The Human Rights Order The differences between Western and non-Western
perceptions of the liberal international order
The human rights order goes back to the United illustrate why it is important to think more clearly and
Nations Charter, which “reaffirmed faith in consistently about what exactly it is. Many outside
fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the West see the liberal international order — and in
the human person” and committed all member states particular understand the role of the United States in
to promote “universal respect for, and observance it — in quite different terms than those within the
of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for West. For example, at the Munich Security Conference
all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or in 2016, Fu Ying, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs
religion,” and the Universal Declaration on Human Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress,
Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations distinguished between three elements of the “U.S.-led
General Assembly in 1948.22 But this element of the world order”: “the American value system,” “the U.S.
order “took root more slowly” than the others, as military alignment system”; and “the international
Ikenberry puts it, and during the Cold War remained institutions including
largely declaratory.23 However, in the post-Cold War
period, Western powers have sought to expand the
human rights order in controversial ways that have
qualified state sovereignty.
the UN system.”25 When
Chinese officials talk
about supporting the
international order, she
“
By trying
to make
the liberal
said, they meant the third international
In particular, the ICC and concepts of R2P and “liberal element — that is, they order more
intervention” became vehicles for an attempt by the support liberalism in one ‘liberal,’
West to develop the human rights order. During the sense (a “rules-based” the West
1990s, it seemed as if other powers had accepted these order) but not in another (a undermined
innovations. More recently, however, it has become system based on Western order.”
apparent that this expansion of the human rights values like democracy).
order has had costs. In particular, Russia has sought
to use Western military interventions to justify its However, it is not only in authoritarian states such as
own interventions, which Western analysts now see China and Russia that the liberal international order,
as a challenge to the liberal international order.24 It and American “hegemony,” is perceived differently
now seems, in other words, as if by seeking to develop than in the West. In fact, in what Dan Kliman and
the human rights order, the West undermined the Richard Fontaine called “global swing states” — that
security order. Put differently, by trying to make the is, democracies like Brazil and India that are crucial
for the future of the liberal international order —
many people seem comparatively relaxed about
22 Charter of the United Nations, June 26, 1945; Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, December 10, 1948. what is seen in the West as a crisis of the liberal
23 Ikenberry, “The Future of the Liberal World Order,” p. 61. international order. Some even see the end of the
24 See Michael Ignatieff, “The End of Intervention?” Talk at Chatham House, London,
March 19, 2014. 25 Speech by Fu Ying at the 52nd Munich Security Conference, February 13, 2016..

G|M|F  April 2017 6

 Policy Essay

liberal international order as an opportunity. For international order are, therefore, seen as desperate
example, Neelam Deo and Aditya Phatak argued in attempts to preserve their own power and privilege.
the spring of 2016 that the election of Donald Trump In other words, this is a less benign view of American
as U.S. president could lead to “the dismantling of “hegemony” — hence the openness to the idea of
the geopolitical Bretton Woods” and could therefore “multipolarity,” which is equated with greater equality
“energize a multipolar world.” Thus “Trump may be (or even “democracy”) in the international system.
the unwitting catalyst for a more equitable era.”26
The complex reality is that both sides of this
The reason for this disconnect is a fundamental argument have a point. Western foreign policy elites
difference in the way the role of the United States in do often have a somewhat idealized view of the liberal
the liberal international order is understood. Within international order. Both Americans and Europeans
the West, it is understood in terms of the provision by tend in different ways to identify their own interests
the United States of public goods such as international with those of humanity as a whole — in part because
security, free trade, financial stability, and freedom they see those interests as based on universal values.
of navigation. Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State They think about the liberal international order in an
Anthony Blinken put this view in an op-ed published imprecise way. They are not always clear about the
in The New York Times after the election of Trump sense in which the current order is “liberal” and can
as follows: “The liberal order led by the United be blind to the ways in which it negatively impacts
States favored an open world connected by the free others around the world. In particular since the Iraq
flow of people, goods, ideas and capital, a world war and the financial crisis, the idea that the United
grounded in the principles States provides stability — according to hegemonic
of self-determination and
sovereignty for nations
and basic rights for their
citizens.”27 In short,
“
Western
foreign policy
elites need to
stability theory the central function of a hegemon —
has become less credible.

Probably the best example of this idealized view is the

American “hegemony” is think more economic order. Europeans and Americans like to
benevolent. precisely think that the current liberal economic order reflects
about the shared rather than particular interests. Liberal
However, this is not a liberal economists like to see trade in “win-win” terms and
description of the U.S.-led international believe that the liberalization of trade is therefore a
liberal international order and kind of public good. This thinking has informed
order that many outside Western trade policy in recent years. In particular,
the geographic West
the problems through “mega-regional” trade agreements like TTIP
recognize. There, many see with it.” and TPP, Europe and the United States have in the last
the liberal international few years sought to set the “rules” for trade in the 21st
order not in terms of public goods, but in terms century. But supporters of these trade agreements
of a particular ideological agenda (such as the often fail to see how those rules — for example on
“Washington Consensus”) and, ultimately, the intellectual property rights — might be skewed in
interests of the “haves” in the international system favor of the most developed countries. As a result,
— that is, Europe and the United States. Attempts by some outside the West saw TPP as “geo-economic
Europe and the United States to “maintain” the liberal containment” not just of China but of emerging
economies more generally.28
26 Neelam Deo and Aditya Phatak, “Dismantling the geopolitical Bretton Woods.”
Gateway House, March 31, 2016.
27 Antony J. Blinken, “What Is America Without Influence? Trump Will Find Out.” The
New York Times, December 13, 2016. 28 Author conversation with former Indian official, July 2016.

G|M|F  April 2017 7

 Policy Essay

“
At the same time, the liberal international order is policy experts is to try
not simply a cynical cover for the interests of Europe to defend it. But, in part The ultimate
and the United States, as some outside the geographic because of the lack of objective
West believe.29 U.S. security guarantees have pacified clarity about what exactly should be to
regions such as East Asia and prevented the emergence the liberal international identify a set
of regional hegemons (whose “hegemony” would order is, this often tends to of changes
likely be of an even less benign kind than that of the lead to a tendency to refuse that need to
United States). The trade order and the globalization to engage in discussions
for which it was the basis has not only benefited about the problems with
be made to
Americans and Europeans, but has also lifted millions the liberal international the liberal
outside the geographic West out of poverty. In fact, order as it currently exists. international
the current backlash against globalization in Europe The implication is that one order in order
and the United States is caused partly because of is either for it or against it. to save it.”
the way it has negatively impacted some within the This binary logic usually
geographic West – particularly those who worked in narrows the discussion to
manufacturing industry.30 the need to communicate better with citizens, both
within the geographic West and beyond it. Thus
The challenge now is to find some common ground. supporters of the liberal international order often
Western foreign policy elites need to think more become uncritical defenders of the status quo.
precisely about the liberal international order and
the problems with it — and how they can be fixed Instead Western policymakers need to both defend
to create a more equal world. But at the same time, and reform the liberal international order. They
people outside the West (and those within the West should insist on a more nuanced discussion in which
who are critical of American power) need to take it is possible simultaneously to identify problems
seriously the Western argument about public goods. with the current liberal international order while at
There are certain public goods — especially freedom the same time seeking to defend it from those who
of navigation — that, were the United States to cease want to destroy it altogether. The focus should be on
to provide them, cannot (yet) be easily provided by identifying the elements of the liberal international
other powers. A world without these public goods order that need to be changed and the elements of
could be disastrous for many outside the West. Thus it that are fundamental and non-negotiable. The
Western and non-Western powers need to reach a ultimate objective should be to identify a set of changes
shared understanding of how the liberal international that need to be made to the liberal international order
order can be reformed in order to save it. in order to save it. Beyond a few obvious changes
like increasing the representation of non-Western
countries in the IMF, there is little consensus about
To Defend or Reform? what a reformed liberal international order that
would both accommodate rising powers and regain
In the context of the current external and internal support within the geographic West would look like.
threats to the liberal international order, the
understandable instinct of many Western foreign One necessary change may to be to reluctantly
recognize that, even where it may be justified in
29 Here and in the remainder of this essay, I use the term “geographic West” to moral terms, the cost of military intervention without
differentiate it from other — in particular, normative and strategic — versions of the
concept of the “West.” a mandate from the United Nations Security Council
30 See Branko Milanovic, “Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and
in terms of order is too high. This may already be the
Now.” World Bank, November 2012. reality — illustrated by the Obama administration’s

G|M|F  April 2017 8

 Policy Essay

reluctance to intervene in Syria even as 400,000 without rejecting globalization altogether. The policies
people were killed in the conflict (though of course, of the last thirty years — for example the abolition
it remains to seen how the Trump administration’s of capital controls — have made the global economy
policy will evolve). In effect, this means accepting more liberal but they may have also undermined
a liberal international order that is one sense less order. Instead of a simple assumption that any change
“liberal.” Robin Niblett has recently argued that, on to the current trade policy will lead to the end of the
this basis, the liberal international order will “evolve liberal international order, a serious debate is needed
into a less ambitious project: a liberal international about whether and how it is possible to rethink the
economic order that encompasses states with diverse economic order — and perhaps even to reverse some
political systems.”31 But though it would be less elements of the evolution of it since the end of the
“liberal” as a price for greater “order,” it would also Cold War — without this leading to an unraveling of
be, in Harris’s terms, an order that is more “tolerant.” it.

However, there may also be a need for change in the

economic order in order to create what Ikenberry
calls a “post-neoliberal consensus on the rules and
regulation of an open world economy.”32 Rodrik
argues for an adjustment in the “balance between
national autonomy and economic globalization.”33
Critics have long criticized the effects of globalization
on developing countries – for example the way WTO
rules have limited policy space and in particular made
it harder to pursue an industrial policy. It has now also
become increasingly apparent — not least since the
emergence of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in
2016 — that support for globalization is also declining
within the geographic West. Yet supporters of the
liberal international order often refuse to engage in
discussions about whether globalization has gone
too far and in particular about whether WTO rules
have limited the ability of national governments to
take measures to protect citizens from the disruptive
effects of globalization.

Instead of accepting the binary logic of the populists

who believe there is an elemental struggle between
“globalists” and “nationalists,” those who believe in
the liberal international order should insist on a more
nuanced discussion in which it is possible to accept
that there are problems with “hyper-globalization”

31 Robin Niblett, “Liberalism in retreat.” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2017.

32 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, p. 307.
33 Dani Rodrik, “Put Globalization to Work for Democracies.” The New York Times,
September 17, 2016.

G|M|F  April 2017 9

 Policy Essay

The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views
of the author alone.

About the Author

Hans Kundnani is a senior transatlantic fellow in the Europe Program,
based in the Washington office.

About the Liberal International Order Project

GMF’s initiative on the future of the liberal international order seeks
to preserve the open, rules-based system the transatlantic allies built
together — and to develop a comprehensive action plan to reform and
strengthen it. We must address today’s political and economic turbulence
in a manner that is attuned to long-term economic, technological, politi-
cal, and power dynamics. Before we can act, we also need to understand
what is happening. What liberal international order are we defending?
What are the driving forces (from populism to technology to globaliza-
tion) behind the fraying consensus and what scenarios could lead the
international order to unravel or adapt? What can we learn from history?
Are there models for success we can learn from? All of these questions
and more inform our work on the liberal international order, and our
aim to identify a way to reinforce and adapt it.

About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens
transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges and
opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by sup-
porting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic sphere,
by convening leaders and members of the policy and business communi-
ties, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and
by providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed commitment to
the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF supports a number of
initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 as a non-partisan,
non-profit organization through a gift from Germany as a permanent
memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong pres-
ence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in
Washington, DC, GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade,
Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations in
Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.

1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T  1 202 683 2650 | F  1 202 265 1662 | E  [email protected]
http://www.gmfus.org/

G|M|F  April 2017 10