Advanced Search

The story appears on

Page A7

January 26, 2017

GET this page in PDF

Free for subscribers

View shopping cart

Related News

Home » Opinion » Foreign Views

Rise of global spaces calls for new world order

By Richard N. Haass | January 26, 2017, Thursday | Print Edition

FOR nearly four centuries, since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, the concept of sover­eignty has formed the core of the international order. And for good reason: as we have seen in century after century, includ­ing the current one, a world in which borders are forcibly violated is a world of instabil­ity and conflict.

But, in a globalized world, a global operating system pre­mised solely on respect for sovereignty — call it World Order 1.0 — has become increasingly inadequate. Little stays local anymore. Just about anyone and anything, from tourists, refugees to e-mails, diseases, dollars, and greenhouse gases, can reach almost anywhere. The result is that what goes on inside a country can no longer be the concern of that country alone. Today’s realities call for an updated operating system — World Order 2.0 — based on “sovereign obligation,” the no­tion that sovereign states have not just rights but also obliga­tions to others.

A new international order will also require an expanded set of norms and arrangements, be­ginning with an agreed-upon basis for statehood. Existing governments would agree to consider bids for statehood only in cases where there was a historical justification, a com­pelling rationale, and popular support, and where the pro­posed new entity is viable.

Another essential element of a new international order is cooperation on climate change, which may be the quintessential manifestation of globalization, because all countries are ex­posed to its effects, regardless of their contribution to it. The 2015 Paris climate agreement — in which governments agreed to limit their emissions and to provide resources to help poor­er countries adapt — was a step in the right direction. Progress on this front must continue.

Cyberspace is the newest do­main of international activity characterized by both coopera­tion and conflict. The goal in this area should be to create international arrangements that encourage benign uses of cyberspace and discourage ma­lign uses. Governments would have to act consistently within this regime as part of their sovereign obligations — or face sanctions or retaliation.

Global health presents a dif­ferent set of challenges. In a globalized world, an outbreak of infectious disease in one country could quickly evolve into a serious threat to health elsewhere. Fortunately, the no­tion of sovereign obligation is already advanced in this sphere: countries are responsible for trying to detect infectious dis­ease outbreaks, responding appropriately, and notifying others around the world.

When it comes to refugees, there is no substitute for ef­fective local action aimed at preventing situations that gen­erate large refugee flows in the first place.

Trade agreements are, by definition, pacts of reciprocal sovereign obligations regarding tariff and nontariff barriers. When a party believes that obli­gations are not being met, it has recourse to arbitration through the World Trade Organization. But things are less clear when it comes to government subsi­dies or currency manipulation. The challenge, therefore, is to define appropriate sovereign obligations in these areas in future trade pacts, and to create mechanisms to hold govern­ments accountable.

Sovereign obligations

Establishing the concept of sovereign obligations as a pil­lar of the international order will take decades of consulta­tions and negotiations — and even then, its acceptance and impact will be uneven. Progress will come only voluntarily, from countries themselves, rather than from any top-down edict. Realistically, it will be difficult to forge agreement on what specific sovereign obligations states have and how they should be enforced.

Complicating matters further, US President Donald Trump’s administration has espoused an “America first” doctrine that is largely inconsistent with what is being suggested here. If this remains the US approach, prog­ress toward building the sort of order that today’s interconnect­ed world demands will come about only if other major pow­ers push it — or it will have to wait for Trump’s successor. Such an approach, however, would be second best, and it would leave the United States and the rest of the world worse off.

Now is the time to begin the necessary conversations. Globalization is here to stay. Moving toward a new interna­tional order that incorporates sovereign obligation is the best way to cope. World Order 2.0, predicated on sovereign obliga­tion, is certainly an ambitious project — but one born of real­ism, not idealism.

Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of the new book, “A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order,” from which this article is adapted. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017.

Www.project-syndicate.org

Foreign Views


 

Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend