14 ikenberry liberal leviathan p xii international

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 10 pages.

14 Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan , p. xii. international law on maritime disputes — and thus is of particular relevance to current territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The United Nations Security Council is the final instance that ultimately decides what states can and cannot do. There was a particular evolution of the security order in Europe following 1945 that took place in three phases. First, there was the post-1945 order — the early Cold War system based on the terms of the Yalta Agreement, which was based to a large extent on the Westphalian principle of state sovereignty. Second, there was the post-1975 order — the late Cold War system based on the terms of Helsinki Final Act, which further affirmed the inviolability of borders and created what became the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 15 Finally, there was the post-1990 order the post-Cold War system based on the terms of Paris Charter, which established democracy as “the only system of government of our nations.” 16 These agreements, each of which included the Soviet Union, further “liberalized” the European security order in Ikenberry’s sense by extending the system of rules and institutions that governed it. Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, many in the West have expressed outrage that Russia has broken the rules of the European security order. Some are also concerned about Chinese island building in the South China Sea, which, though more subtle than Russian actions in Eastern Europe, amounts to the same thing — that is, the acquisition 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, the definition of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes and the implementation of confidence building measures between opposing militaries. A second basket focused on economic, scientific, technological, and environmental cooperation. A third basket emphasized human rights, including freedom of emigration and reunification of families divided by international borders, cultural exchanges and freedom of the press. See Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Helsinki Final Act, August 1, 1975. 16 See Charter of Paris for a New Europe, November 21, 1990. Western powers were prepared to break the rules when they believed there was a compelling reason.”
5 G|M|F April 2017 Policy Essay and consolidation of territory using force and in violation of international law. It therefore seems as if it is authoritarian states that are “breaking the rules” — and therefore challenging the liberal international order — while the West seeks to uphold them. Ikenberry argues that “democracies are — in contrast to autocratic and authoritarian states — particularly able and willing to operate within an open, rule-based international system and to cooperate for mutual gain.” 17 However, during the post-Cold War period, it was often the West that “broke the rules” of the security order. In particular, the NATO military intervention

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture