Theorists of the liberal international order understand it as an “open and rule-based international order” that is “enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism. (Ikenberry, 2011) A more straightforward typology of the liberal international order might include three elements, security order, economic order, and human rights order.
I agree with most theorists to defend it rather than destroy it altogether I would include reforming it, based off of the assumption that there should be a more nuanced discussion with states and individuals to simultaneously identify problems with the current liberal international order and the focus should be on identifying the elements of the liberal international order that need to be changed and the elements of it that are fundamental and non-negotiable to decrease to gap of the haves and have not’s; without the liberal international order the world as we know it would be in worst off shape.
The first element of the liberal international order is security order. When theorists like that of Haass and Ikenberry consider a component of liberal international order to be security order. In particular, Ikenberry writes that an order that is liberal in the sense of being “rules-based” contrasts with one that is “organized into rival blocs or exclusive regional spheres.” (Ikenburry, 2011) This means that regulations of what countries can and cannot pursue on the international spectrum is simply not determined based on their power alone, but international law is another component of security order as it forces the action of states. For example, the UN on the law of the Sea, this is an international law on oceanic disputes like that of the current territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The United Nations Security Council is the final step in deciding what countries can and cannot do. (Ikenburry, 2011)
The Second element of liberal international order is economic order. This is the second component of liberal international order that theorists refer to as economic order. Ikenberry writes that “openness is manifest when states trade and exchange on the basis of mutual gain…” (Ikenburry, 2011) This means that the state’s economic relationship is systematic on the basis of liberal principles. Economic order is based on systems and human behavior as it pertains to supply, consumption, investment, imports and exports. “Openness” is an important concept of Liberalism. This is closely related to globalization, the extension of the economic factors like the flow of goods, services, and human behavior, exchange of knowledge and skills and expertise across international borders. I feel as though Economic order can be the most important factor in international liberal order because of the important and rather direct effect it has on the everyday life of people, perhaps more of an effect then security order. (Ikenburry, 2011)
Finally, the third element of the liberal international order is human rights order. The United Nations is a good example of this, because the UN is a collective organization that is concerned with fundamental human rights, all member states are concerned with not just human rights but more specifically, the fundamental freedoms of people regardless of sex, race, language, or religion this the role of Universal Declaration on Human Rights. However, this element of the order is the last but most sluggish out of all the order, and rather new also not really being considered until the Cold War. A current example of this is Darfur which had extreme human rights violations and needed liberal engagement and aid. (Ikenburry, 2011)
When I think about important parts of the Liberal international system, I think of The World Trade (WTO). The WTO is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. Agreements made within the WTO are negotiated and signed by the majority of the world’s trading nations and approved by their governments. The main goal of the WTO is to ensure that economic components such as trade is flowing as smoothly and freely. The WTO is a place for member states to settle trade disputes and it also serves as a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements which keeps goes back to ensure trade amoung states is moving smoothly. The WTO also sets rules on trade. To be more concise, the WTO is a place where member governments try to reach common ground and settle trade disputes. (“WTO | What is the WTO? – Who we are.”, 2018)
As the WTO sets agreements between member states, those same agreements provide the legal ground work for setting rules of international commerce. They are essentially contract’s that enforce trade policies at agreed limits for participating governments. Although the WTO policies are negotiated and signed by member states, the goal is to provide economic aid to producers of goods and services. As well as exporters, and importers this allows governments to address and meet international social and environmental objectives. (Haass, 2018)
The WTO allows participating states to address complicated problems and avoid conflict. With agreements being signed by a bulk of the world’s nations this plays a huge role in preventing economic conflict, which consist of rules and regulations to make trade beneficial for participation nations; note this doesn’t mean that frustrations with trade does not exist. Part of the WTO’s function is to investigate what functionalities will best serve the interest of solving trade disputes. If a country is found guilty it has the choice of ceasing the offending practice or pay a steep fine for the offense. Also, if there is a failure to respond to the indictments, the accusing country can take measures to offset any harm caused by import blocking or imposing trade tariffs. (“WTO | What is the WTO? – Who we are.”, 2018)
I believe that the WTO serves an essential function to the liberal international order and therefore should be reconstructed to better serve the international system. According to Walzenbach the liberal perspective is that political economists came up with the theory of the supporting uncontrolled markets or having a “Laisse-faire” attitude toward markets with the exception of a strong state intervention in the market. With this being said I believe if a government policy takes freedom of choice away from individuals, or if a state establishes a law that prevents individuals from making choices and functioning freely as participants in a market system, such as the WTO. This is a dangerous move in a geopolitical sense and could hurt countries in the WTO. (Walzenbach, 2018)
On the international front Markets are essential because they can determine supply and demand for goods through a set price, which is the consensus of most economists. Markets are more than economic components, but they are embedded in everyday life and they directly affect the international course of action of states. Economic, social and political life are consistently interacting with each other. In particular, Haass argues the frustrations and advantages of trade. We understand that are advantages of having a self-regulating market process but it can carry certain disadvantages that can lead to a severe disruption of economic and everyday normalcy with states. (Kundnani, 2018)
Imagine a world without the WTO there would be no regulation to prices and a lot of the imports that we take for granted including but not limited to healthcare and materials needed to aid people in illness would not be as likely. Disruptions in trade can result consequences like increased levels of income inequality. Increased levels of health disparity and unfair trading practices that con depress a nations economy.