On the concept of international disorder

Abstract

International relations today are widely considered to be experiencing deepening disorder and the topic of international disorder is gaining increased attention. Yet, despite this recent interest in international disorder, in and beyond the academy, and despite the decades-long interest in international order, there is still little agreement on the concept of international disorder, which is often used imprecisely and with an alarmist rather than analytical usage. This is a problem if international disorder is to be understood in theory, towards addressing its concomitant problems and effects in practice. As such, this article identifies and explores two ways international order studies can benefit from a clearer and more precise conception of international disorder. First, it enables a more complete picture of how orderly international orders have been. Second, a greater understanding of the problem of international order is illuminated by a clearer grasp of the relation between order and disorder in world politics. The article advances these arguments in three steps. First, an analytical concept of international disorder is developed and proposed. Second, applying it to the modern history of international order, the extent to which there is a generative relationship between order and disorder in international systems is explored. Third, it specifies the deepening international disorder in international affairs today. It concludes by indicating a research agenda for International Relations and international order studies that takes the role of international disorder more seriously.

The Liberal International Ordering of crisis

“…123 In turn, such conceptions of crisis also risk drawing attention away from substantive considerations of 'patterns' and processes of disordering within international relations. 124…”

Revisiting the World Order Models Project: A Case for Renewal?

“…In the decline of global order, debate has emerged concerning the sources of its crisis and gathering disorder, whether the order's ‘liberal’ elements will endure, and what kind of order is emerging, as the pathways to a more stable global order have become increasingly unclear and contested (Acharya, 2018; Adler‐Nissen & Zarakol, 2021; Chu & Zheng, 2021; Cooley & Nexon, 2020; Goddard, 2018; Jahn 2018; Kissinger, 2015; McKeil, 2021, 2022; Mearsheimer, 2018, 2019; Parmar, 2018; Porter, 2020; Ikenberry, 2020; Walt, 2018). These debates on the crisis and emerging future of global order are gaining increasing interest, but its major contributions are generally near‐term in strategic analysis and are often great power and US‐centric.…”