Search Results
8/7/2025, 11:53:21 PM
>The liberal international order’s authority was already fragile before Trump returned to the Oval Office. Gazing mournfully at the wreckage, some of its supporters are, understandably, calling on its most ardent defenders to rebuild and shore up liberal international institutions.... But this approach is no longer feasible, thanks in large measure to the successes the liberal international order produced. Despite the rise in near-shoring and “friend shoring,” despite increased protectionism and tariffs, the world’s economic interdependence remains impressive by historical standards
>A multilateral, cooperative, and durable international order can rise from the ashes. But not if world leaders cling to legalism, technocratic governance, and the language of universal public goods. This new order must exchange proceduralism for pragmatism, universalism for pluralism, and technocracy for politics.
>Establishing a new, more resilient global order also requires a shift from universalism to pluralism. The liberal order envisioned eliminating difference: inspired by its allegedly universal values, it denied legitimacy to nonliberal political communities and sought to transform them into good liberals, whether through coercion or engagement. A more durable order must acknowledge, embrace, and even celebrate the reality of a world marked by deep differences in values.
>Going forward, regional institutions should facilitate local arrangements on issues such as trade, pollution, and migration. Regional development banks, which are closer to the ground than the World Bank, should set investment priorities, and regional security institutions such as the African Union’s Peace and Security Architecture should be empowered to engage in more diplomacy and peacebuilding.
> Inclusive, representative political bodies sometimes end up representing such a broad range of views and interests that they cannot make headway toward concrete goals:
>A multilateral, cooperative, and durable international order can rise from the ashes. But not if world leaders cling to legalism, technocratic governance, and the language of universal public goods. This new order must exchange proceduralism for pragmatism, universalism for pluralism, and technocracy for politics.
>Establishing a new, more resilient global order also requires a shift from universalism to pluralism. The liberal order envisioned eliminating difference: inspired by its allegedly universal values, it denied legitimacy to nonliberal political communities and sought to transform them into good liberals, whether through coercion or engagement. A more durable order must acknowledge, embrace, and even celebrate the reality of a world marked by deep differences in values.
>Going forward, regional institutions should facilitate local arrangements on issues such as trade, pollution, and migration. Regional development banks, which are closer to the ground than the World Bank, should set investment priorities, and regional security institutions such as the African Union’s Peace and Security Architecture should be empowered to engage in more diplomacy and peacebuilding.
> Inclusive, representative political bodies sometimes end up representing such a broad range of views and interests that they cannot make headway toward concrete goals:
Page 1