Suchergebnisse

Abstract
While the United States (US) acted as a liberal hegemon in setting up the Liberal International Order (LIO), it is increasingly contesting the inclusive legacy institutions underpinning the LIO and is instead moving towards alternative, more exclusive institutions. Why is the US contesting the institutions it once set up to stabilize the LIO? We argue that hegemonic contestation is the result of a reactive sequence that is endogenous to cooptation-based orders where hegemons face a trade-off between inclusion and control. This Cooptation Dilemma is particularly pronounced in strongly institutionalized liberal (sub-)orders, such as the international trade regime. It unfolds in three stages: Privileging control, the liberal hegemon first creates exclusive institutions, which are likely to breed contestation by excluded states. To tame their contestation, the hegemon secondly includes previously excluded states into the order, making the previously exclusive institutions more and more inclusive. To compensate for the related control loss, the hegemon finally promotes alternative, more exclusive institutions, successively turning away from the inclusive legacy institutions. We demonstrate this reactive sequence by tracing the process that led to the US contestation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Our findings suggest that cooptation-based orders in general and strongly institutionalized liberal orders in particular are prone to dynamic instability.

Internationale Institutionen werden vermehrt durch westliche Mächte attackiert, die gemeinhin dem Kern der "liberalen internationalen Ordnung" zugerechnet werden. Die Intensität und die Modi ihrer institutionellen Kontestation variieren jedoch stark. Unser Beitrag untersucht, inwiefern institutionelle Faktoren - Merkmale und Effekte der kontestierten Institution - die Wahl unterschiedlicher Modi der institutionellen Kontestation durch westliche Mächte beeinflussen. Wir konzeptualisieren vier Modi der Kontestation internationaler Institutionen: Kritik, Subversion, Rückzug und Sabotage. Wir argumentieren, dass der Modus der Kontestation wesentlich von spezifischen institutionellen Machtkonfigurationen beeinflusst wird. Diese ergeben sich aus dem Grad der internen Kontrolle, die eine Institution unzufriedenen Mächten gewährt, und aus den externen Effekten, die eine Institution auch nach einem Rückzug auf diese ausübt bzw. ausüben würde. Wir überprüfen die Plausibilität unserer Theorie anhand der Kontestation der Weltbank, der Welthandelsorganisation, des Übereinkommens von Paris zum Klimawandel und des Iran-Atomabkommens durch die USA unter der Trump-Administration.

The third edition of this popular core textbook provides wide-ranging coverage of the structure, internal working, policies and performance of international organizations such as the UN, EU, IMF and World Bank. Such organizations have never been so important in addressing the challenges that face our increasingly globalised world. This book introduces students to theories with which to approach international organizations, their history, and their ability to respond to contemporary issues in world politics from nuclear disarmament, climate change and human rights protection, to trade, monetary and financial relations, and international development. Underpinning the text is the authors' unique model that views international organizations as actual organizations. Reacting to world events, political actors provide the 'inputs' which are converted by the political systems of these organizations (through various decision-making procedures) into 'outputs' that achieve varying levels of real-world impact and effectiveness. This is the perfect text for undergraduate and postgraduate students of Politics and International Relations taking courses on International Organization and Global Governance, as well as essential reading for those studying the UN, the EU and Globalization

AbstractInternational institutions underpinning the 'liberal international order' are increasingly contested by established Western powers. This article contributes to a better understanding of this novel challenge 'from within'. We conceptualize four types of contestation frames according to (1) whether contesting states attribute the source of grievances to specific practices or the underlying principles of an international institution; and (2) whether they present their own nation or the international community as the subject of grievances. Combining these two dimensions, we distinguish between globalist-reformist, nationalist-reformist, globalist-revisionist and nationalist-revisionist contestation frames. These contestation frames are consequential as they open up or shrink the discursive space for contested institutions' re-legitimation. Drawing on the Trump Administration's contestation of the World Bank, NATO, the UNHRC, and the WTO, we demonstrate that contestation frames and defenders' responses varied greatly across institutions, ranging from accommodative deliberations about institutional reforms to principled rejection and the justification of the status quo.

This edited volume analyzes mistakes in different areas of international relations including the realms of security, foreign policy, finance, health, development, environmental policy and migration.