Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations
The problem of political and economic regulation of contemporary global transformations, taken in the context of the New World Order discourse, attracts attention in Russia and abroad alike. Considering this problem, British analysts Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler underline three major approaches to...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Jurist, Publishing Group
2016-04-01
|
| Series: | Сравнительная политика |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.sravpol.ru/jour/article/view/428 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849399359029903360 |
|---|---|
| author | K. A. Efremova |
| author_facet | K. A. Efremova |
| author_sort | K. A. Efremova |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The problem of political and economic regulation of contemporary global transformations, taken in the context of the New World Order discourse, attracts attention in Russia and abroad alike. Considering this problem, British analysts Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler underline three major approaches to security dilemma, namely, fatalist, mitigator, and transcender logics. Followers of the fatalist approach (neo-realists, globalists) believe that world order is a zero-sum game, where interstate interactions are mostly confrontational, and their pattern depends on the current balance of power. Mitigators (neo-liberals, functionalists, constructivists, etc.) insist that the emerging world order is a win-win game, where nations opt for investing some of their sovereignty into newly created international institutions (regimes and organizations), hoping that conventional rules adopted by them would help to decrease international uncertainty, which otherwise might lead to confrontation. Transcenders (neo-Marxists, feminists, anarchists, federalists, etc.) consider the existing world order an archaic one, calling for a new, fair and humane pattern of international relations. According to their logic, the new world order is the end of the game among sovereign states, because it derives from the idea of humankind not divided by national boundaries but united into a global transnational society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b46dbc6cef7e45afafe3a9ba6adc6e79 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2221-3279 2412-4990 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-04-01 |
| publisher | Jurist, Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Сравнительная политика |
| spelling | doaj-art-b46dbc6cef7e45afafe3a9ba6adc6e792025-08-20T03:38:19ZengJurist, Publishing GroupСравнительная политика2221-32792412-49902016-04-0172(23)51310.18611/2221-3279-2016-7-2(23)-5-13357Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical ImplementationsK. A. Efremova0MGIMO UniversityThe problem of political and economic regulation of contemporary global transformations, taken in the context of the New World Order discourse, attracts attention in Russia and abroad alike. Considering this problem, British analysts Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler underline three major approaches to security dilemma, namely, fatalist, mitigator, and transcender logics. Followers of the fatalist approach (neo-realists, globalists) believe that world order is a zero-sum game, where interstate interactions are mostly confrontational, and their pattern depends on the current balance of power. Mitigators (neo-liberals, functionalists, constructivists, etc.) insist that the emerging world order is a win-win game, where nations opt for investing some of their sovereignty into newly created international institutions (regimes and organizations), hoping that conventional rules adopted by them would help to decrease international uncertainty, which otherwise might lead to confrontation. Transcenders (neo-Marxists, feminists, anarchists, federalists, etc.) consider the existing world order an archaic one, calling for a new, fair and humane pattern of international relations. According to their logic, the new world order is the end of the game among sovereign states, because it derives from the idea of humankind not divided by national boundaries but united into a global transnational society.https://www.sravpol.ru/jour/article/view/428new world ordergame theorynational sovereigntyinternational institutionsinternational relationssecurity dilemma |
| spellingShingle | K. A. Efremova Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations Сравнительная политика new world order game theory national sovereignty international institutions international relations security dilemma |
| title | Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations |
| title_full | Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations |
| title_fullStr | Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations |
| title_short | Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations |
| title_sort | towards the new world order theoretical interpretations and practical implementations |
| topic | new world order game theory national sovereignty international institutions international relations security dilemma |
| url | https://www.sravpol.ru/jour/article/view/428 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kaefremova towardsthenewworldordertheoreticalinterpretationsandpracticalimplementations |