Read on Twitter
In response to @shifrinson, I shared the definitions of "international order" used in #ChicagoIntroIR (including my preferred definition by @SlaughterAM)
Here, I'll highlight some work specifically focused on defining international order (and why defining it is tricky)
[THREAD]
Here, I'll highlight some work specifically focused on defining international order (and why defining it is tricky)
[THREAD]
To start, here is @shifrinson's original question... https://twitter.com/shifrinson/status/1163095795094163456
...and here was my thread with definitions covered in #ChicagoIntroIR: https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1163190865239650306
So, what have scholars had to say about efforts to define order?
A nifty @RANDCorporation report (by Michael J. Mazarr, @MirandaPriebe, @andrewmradin, & Astrid Stuth Cevallos) has a whole chapter on defining order
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1598/RAND_RR1598.pdf
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1598/RAND_RR1598.pdf
The chapter contains this table: the first column essentially defines order as a tool of US power, while the second column defines order as a way of moving beyond a "balance of power" system
If we are going to talk about different "Conceptions of Order", then we need to look at Shiping Tang's Chinese Political Science Review piece (as suggested by @Prof_BearB): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41111-016-0001-7
In particular, Tang's piece has this terrific table summarizing the different elements (or levels) of order:
Tang classifies the different levels here (page 31) and says how no existing work (as of 2016) really adequately defines order
Written just a few years before these two works was Evelyn Goh's @OUPPolitics book https://books.google.com/books?id=mp7NAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Goh (page 7) acknowledges the various aspects of order and how this can complicate our ability to define it. Nevertheless, Goh boils it down to an arrangement that sustains the primary goal of states:
Of course, that requires defining the primary goals of states. These are often at cross purposes.
@segoddard makes this point succinctly in her new @CornellPress book https://books.google.com/books?id=vUVQDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
@segoddard makes this point succinctly in her new @CornellPress book https://books.google.com/books?id=vUVQDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
@segoddard writes
Hence, what constitutes the "rules and rights" of an order may well depend on who's in charge -- i.e. the hegemon, as described well by @dhnexon in his @PrincetonUPress book: https://books.google.com/books?id=7u5NuuVMOWgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
@dhnexon writes that "The Preeminent power...establishes and enforces the `rules and rights' that govern international economic and political relations, as well as sets standards of relative prestige among states"
You'll notice that @dhnexon uses the word "govern". Mitzen, in her @UChicagoPress book, points out that one must be careful when using this term when defining order https://books.google.com/books/about/Power_in_Concert.html?id=rSE3AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
Mitzen essentially points out that governing (through a forum, like the UNSC) is a means of achieving order
Anyhow, I could likely go on and on.
The point is that scholars have not only written a lot about "international order"; they've written a lot about DEFINING "international order" (or how it's difficult to define international order).
[END]
The point is that scholars have not only written a lot about "international order"; they've written a lot about DEFINING "international order" (or how it's difficult to define international order).
[END]
