LIO-youtube video Flashcards
What is LIO?
Liberal international National order or Lio is often described as an open and rules based system that is enshrined in the various international institutions like the United Nations, the Bretton Woods orThe World Trade Organisation, with its roots usually traced to the end of World War Two.
What is order?
Order encompasses the institutional and normative expectations, structuring relations between actors within the system
Lake Martin and Risse (2021) define order as patterned or structured relationships among units. These patterns and structure relationships are conditioned both on the material and ideational structures.
Orders are rooted in the specific material conditions and institutions, the organisations that set rules governing the behaviours of actors within the order, for example. But they also have an idiotional component based on a shared understanding that gives rise to shared norms, expectations and behaviours. Such norms behave and expectations are frequently operationalized through rules institutions and laws, suggesting that there is a reciprocal and mutually reinforcing relationship between the two.
Why is LIO international?
by international were simply referring to relations between actors at a level beyond the state.
What do we mean by liberal in LIO?
Here liberalism has three overlapping, reinforcing, even if sometimes contradictory, elements. You can think of political liberalism, that is the support for democracy and human rights and in opposition to authoritarianism. ~
Second, we include economic liberalism or broadly free market oriented economic systems in opposition to economic nationalism or mercantile ISM.
Third, We mean liberal institutionalism, that is, the reliance on international organisations to structure relations, an hopefully at least to maintain Peaceful relations between states
When can the begining of LIO be traced to? With what even did it start with? Explain the event.
Most scholars argue that the roots of the Liberal international order can be traced to the world war Two, when the various institutional structures of the system were founded. From this perspective, perhaps the foundational event in the creation of the Liberal International Order was the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration issued by U S President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941.
the Atlantic Charter outlines the central tenants of the Post War International political economy from the American and British perspective, and included provisions that would later be operationalized through the creation of a new set of global institutions after the end of the war.
Central provisions of the Atlantic Charter included:
-peace and security including the right to national self defence and the preservation of the territorial status quo,
-the right to national self determination including self rule, open societies and the maintenance of the rule of law,
-economic prosperity achieved through economic growth, improved labour standards and domestic social welfare.
-Free Trade and
-the protection of the Global Commons,
Does the LIO really represent the international …?
The Atlantic charter was a Statement issued by just two countries, the United Nations was Founded by just 51 and the principles articulated in the UN Charter were primarily Westphalian rather than liberal an orientation. That is to say, the UN Charter concerns itself far more with the protection of the sovereignty of its Member States than it does with the broader liberal concerns over democracy, free trade and the protection of human rights. And the creation of world bank and the International Monetary Fund did brought membership in the Liberal International order. But these institutions, even while having broader membership, maintain power structures through voting systems and quotas that disproportionately reflect the interests in the world views of the dominant powers.
How do the International criminal court and zenith of LIo relate?
At a minimum, it is clear that the liberal international order reached its zenith. In the early 1990s, with the creation of the International Criminal Court, the adoption of the responsibility to protect doctrine by the United Nations, and the dramatic expansion an focus on democratisation and humanitarian intervention
What does the security element of LIO comprise?
In its simplest terms, the security order is comprised of the institutional arrangements, norms and expectations that condition or constrain state behaviour in the international system
Example: contrary to the assertion that states do whatever is in their interest in the pursuit of power, adhearance to the liberal international order assert that the behaviour of states is limited or constrained in particular ways.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, for example, defines international law governing maritime disputes and outlines certain norms of state behaviour in this area, and states generally operate according to those rules as the international system increases the cost of behaving in ways that run counter to it
What are the 3 phases of security order?
during the early Cold War period, the international system with structured on an agreement reached by the Allied powers at the Yalta Conference. That agreement was largely rooted in Westphalian understandings of Sovereignty .
mid 1970s, broad international agreement, at least within the context of Europe was being rich of the territorial borders of the state were supposed to be inviolable. The understanding was most clearly codified in the Organisation for Security and Co operation in Europe, or the OSCE, which became a central forum to facilitate negotiation and reduce tensions between the Soviet in American blocks during the Cold War
finallyin Early 1990s, the security order was expanded to embrace democratisation. Perhaps the clearest example of this was the Paris Charter for a new Europe. An agreement concluded at the November 1990 Paris Heads of State meeting of the OSC E. Under the Paris Charter, the OSC member States, which remember, included Russia established democracy as the only system of government for our nations,
What does economic order inside LIO comprise?
This economic order was rooted in classical and neoclassical economics, the principle of comparative advantage and the idea that trade and specialisation benefits all parties. The idea that breaking Barriers to the freeflow of goods, services, capital and knowledge, and ultimately perhaps even people would lead to greater efficiency and productivity, thereby promoting economic growth and development.
How has the economic order evolved over time? And how are embebed liberalism and neoliberalism and hyperglobailizationinserted in it?
Its roots rested in the period of Pax Britannica and the promotion of free trade in the 19 century.
But the first real operationalization of the idea in the post war era was the creation of the general Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the GATT in 1947
the GATT committed its members to converting non-tariff barriers to tariffs and then to reducing tariffs in order to promote international trade. Until the early 1970s the GATT system promoted liberalisation of trade at the international level but rested on an uneasy compromise promoting free trade between countries while maintaining extensive social protections domestically, a compromise often referred to as embedded liberalism.
By the late 1970s, the compromise of embedded liberalism began to be dismantled. The social protections and safety Nets afforded people by the state at the domestic level were reduced and, in some cases, eliminated in the name of efficiency and competition. This is the idea of structural adjustment and neoliberalism. That movement which Danny Rodrick first … as Hyper globalisation was symbolised most dramatically by the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and the extension of WTO membership to China in 2001 and to Russia in 2012.
What is the the human rights order of LIO? How has it evolved during time
a human rights order that is rooted most clearly in the UN Charter. It affirms the faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person, and committed all UN member states to promoting universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to raise sex, language or religion.
How has the human rights order evolved over time?
Adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights went even further.
The declaration included 30 articles detailing the
basic rights and fundamental freedoms of all
persons, including civil and political rights like t
he right to life, liberty, free speech and
privacy, as well as economic, social and
cultural rights like the right to Social Security,
health and education.
During the Cold War, the debate between the United States and the Soviet Union often paralyse progress in guaranteeing abroad set of human rights.
After the Cold War, the human rights order was expanded and strengthened, most notably through three broad developments.
First, the creation of the International Criminal Court for the first time establish an institutional framework for protecting human rights beyond the nation state. Specifically, the ICC was created to prosecute individuals for crimes of genocide. War crimes in cases where the state was unwilling or unable to do so.
Second, the articulation of the responsibility to protect, or R2P doctrine by the United Nations in 2005 established the principle that the international community bore a collective responsibility to respond to and prevent acts of genocide, War crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The R2P doctrine represented a dramatic aggregation of the traditional view of sovereignty and the principle of domestic non intervention committing the United Nations and its Member States, at least in principle, through acting to prevent mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations.
Third, the principle of liberal interventionism became more widely employed as the United States and its allies increasingly intervened to affect political change abroad, not just out of immediate self-interest, but under a broader belief that democratisation in and of itself should be a goal of US foreign policy
How were the 3 elements of LIO institutionalized?
through institutions like the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the Security order, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation in the Economic order and the Organisation for Security and Co operation in Europe and the International Criminal Court in the human rights order.
Why has the LIO been under criticism?
the Liberal International order has come under increasing criticism and attack, both from within and without. And the order itself contains some contradictory elements, being perceived in different ways by different actors in the international system. Think, for example, about the willingness of the United States and others to use force to promote Democratisation in human rights.
It seems clearly that this Principle is an important applied unevenly at best. The responsibility to protect, for example, has been applied in some cases like Libya, while it’s not been implied in others like Syria.
Similarly, the willingness of NATO to use force in Syria in 1999 without securing a legal mandate from the United Nations Security Council for such action was widly condemned By countries outside of the West.
And similarly when the United States declared war in an effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq in 2003 without UN Security Council authorisation, the United States was also criticised by a number of countries around the world as this action was viewed as a violation of the Liberal international order and of international law.
The uneven application of the central pillars of the Liberal international order reinforced the hypocrisy of the order itself.
From their perspective, such actions demonstrated that Western powers were willing to operate in violation of the central principles of the order when they believe there was a clear or compelling reason to do so.
