Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism

Abstract

The 1990s saw a systemic shift from the liberal post–World War II international order of liberal multilateralism (LIO I) to a post–Cold War international order of postnational liberalism (LIO II). LIO II has not been only rule-based but has openly pursued a liberal social purpose with a significant amount of authority beyond the nation-state. While postnational liberal institutions helped increase overall well-being globally, they were criticized for using double standards and institutionalizing state inequality. We argue that these institutional features of the postnational LIO II led to legitimation problems, which explain both the current wave of contestations and the strategies chosen by different contestants. We develop our argument first by mapping the growing liberal intrusiveness of international institutions. Second, we demonstrate the increased level and variety of contestations in international security and international refugee law. We show that increased liberal intrusiveness has led to a variety of contestation strategies, the choice of which is affected by the preference of a contestant regarding postnational liberalism and its power within the contested institution.

The dog that did not bark: the EU and the clash between sovereignty and justice in the International Criminal Court

“…Deitelhoff has argued that the ICC "imposes significant sovereignty costs on actors" (Deitelhoff 2009, p. 40). The implication is that the Court epitomises the broader clash between the norm of sovereignty and the norm of internationally recognised human rights (Sandholtz and Stiles 2009, p. 22), or to put it differently, the coexistence of a Westphalian order and a post-national order (Lake, Martin andRisse 2021, Börzel andZürn 2021;Zürn, Binder and Ecker-Ehrhardt 2012) that results in the tension between national sovereignty and international justice (Collantes-Celador and Costa 2020, p. 118).…”

“…Indicting sitting heads of state nevertheless meant overriding the immunity prerogatives long associated with the Westphalian norms of state sovereignty and non-interference, which was considered a step too far in the Court's use of its powers (Mills and Bloomfield 2018, p. 106). The outbursts against the ICC from the Trump administration, culminating in Executive Order 13928, on account of the ICC chief prosecutor's use of its own powers to request the authorisation to investigate the actions of US personnel during the war of Afghanistan, and the actions by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank (US Department of State 2020, The President 2020), reinforce the idea that the Court is not immune to this growing surge in the contestation of international institutions with a post-national nature (Börzel and Zürn 2021). 2 In this paper, by way of three in-depth case studies in which processes are traced with the help of the literature and of documentary analysis, we ponder whether the contours of the discussion within the EU have changed too.…”

“…The core of the disagreement has remained basically unchanged, and it has to do with the balance between a Westphalian understanding of sovereignty and a cosmopolitan understanding of justice. In line with Zürn (2019), Lake, Martin and Risse (2021), or Börzel and Zürn (2021), we associate the Westphalian understanding of sovereignty with communitarian views of international relations in which the right of national communities to sovereignty trumps individual rights. This understanding lies in opposition to cosmopolitan norms designed to protect the right of individuals internationally.…”

Disentangling institutional contestation by established powers: Types of contestation frames and varying opportunities for the re-legitimation of international institutions

“…Major international institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Bretton Woods institutions are suffering from a crisis of legitimacy (Börzel and Zürn 2021; Dingwerth et al 2019; Lake, Martin and Risse 2021; Tallberg and Zürn 2019). Their procedures, policies, and principles are increasingly contested.…”

Clubs of autocrats: Regional organizations and authoritarian survival

“…The weak results for the authority variable could be due to the dichotomous measurement, whereby a more differentiated measurement of different facets of authority might produce different results. Current datasets on international authority(Börzel and Zürn 2021;Hooghe et al 2017) do, however, not cover the range of ROs included in this article.…”