Evolution Of International Order

2964 Words12 Pages
The fall of the Soviet Union had led to the fundamental changes in the international order. Bipolar system could no longer continue to operate, when one of the two superpowers did not exist anymore. However, the term “international order” is understood very differently by various academics and it is important to choose a definition to simplify the analysis. In accordance to Deborah Hanagan “international order refers to the structure, functioning, and nature of the international politics system and the term is useful for describing the broad pattern of interactions among states” (Hanagan, 2012, p. 123). For every international system, the main objective is to maintain peace throughout the globe. “Under what conditions would men be able not…show more content…
Francis Fukuyama, in his famous book “The End of History and the Last Man” was arguing that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the final point of humanity and a triumph of liberalism. “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of global government” (Fukeyama, 1989). Fukeyama was sure that a new international order will be peaceful and continuous; we only have to wait until all the countries will become liberal democracies. The liberal democracy for Fukeyama is the endpoint of political and economic evolution of state and there cannot be a better alternative. In my view, Francis gave the opposed to the Karl Marx view on the evolutionary character of history. Karl Marx believed that socialism is the final form of government and it will spread among the globe because of its success. Fukeyama believed that the whole world would become democratic and liberal and since the social countries had lost the Cold War, eastern European countries and other non-democracies will quickly change. However, Fukeyama was wrong and today, there are many countries that remain…show more content…
In his article “Why we will soon miss the Cold War?”, he argues that the bipolar system of international relations was much more peaceful and stable. “We may wake up lamenting the loss of the order that the Cold War gave to the anarchy of international relations” (Mearsheimer, 1990). John is also arguing that the new system will not be peaceful and there will be wars in Europe and outside. “Those who think that armed conflicts among European states are out of the question are projecting unwarranted optimism onto the future” (Mearsheimer, 1990). He is also making the realist argument by claiming that the world will sooner become multipolar and the example of Europe in 1914 shows the dreadfulness of such system. Mearsheimer was right in his prediction that the wars will still take place in Europe and throughout the globe. The Yugoslav wars that started as a war in Slovenia are the examples of bloody conflicts that occurred in Europe because of the religious and ethnic inequalities of people in Yugoslavia. However, Mearsheimer was wrong about the nature of the wars themselves, which evolved due the process of globalization and the rise of non-state actors. “During the 1980s and 1990s, a new type of organised violence has developed, especially in Africa and the Eastern Europe, which is one aspect of the current globalization era” (Kaldor, 1999, p. 1). Mary Kaldor had

More about Evolution Of International Order

Open Document