Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September

This article advances the discussion of the contentious question of links between global inequalities of power and violent responses, focussing on globalisation and non-inclusive forms of governance. Drawing on international political economy, the article criticises the nationstate-centrism in much political discourse, suggesting that both authority and security need to be reconsidered - to account for less plausible national borders and controls. It suggests that human security (including issues of development and equality) ought to replace national security as the primary focus of public policy. It draws attention to the intractability of difference, insisting that the terrorism of 2001 has complex transnational antecedents. Realist approaches to international order have become part of a problem to be overcome through further intellectual debate.

The Society of States under siege? An English School perspective on the emergence of global civil society

In this article I critically examine the theoretical and empirical relationship between world society, whereby global civil society is taken to be its physical or empirical counterpart, and the society of states. This relationship is typically portrayed as contradictory or confrontational, and I contend that this mainstream perspective is reliant on a superficial analysis of the relationship. If one examines the deeper dynamics, viewed in their contemporary international normative context, then one can identify the more constructive and permissive aspects of the relationship. Rather than being wholly incompatible I argue that world society and international society are mutually constitutive and mutually dependent regimes, whose relationship is more often marked by cooperation than by conflict. English School theory provides the conceptual framework for this analysis. The relationship between international and world society presents a core ontological tension within this theory, and again they tend to occupy polarised positions. A synthesis of four international theories - pluralist international society theory, solidarist international society theory, critical international theory, and the discourse of global civil society - informs the hypothesis that the relationship can be normatively and empirically reconciled. In order to empirically support this explanation I analyse two phenomena in world politics - transnational advocacy networks and humanitarian intervention - where there is an apparent tension between international and world society.

Diplomatic divergence in the antipodes: Globalisation, foreign policy and state identity in Australia and New Zealand

This article compares the constitutive relationship between foreign policy and globalisation in Australia and New Zealand. Drawing upon insights from constructivist international relations theory we argue that foreign policy instantiates a state's social identity, its self-understanding of its role and moral purpose by projecting a distinctive image onto the global stage. We explore the differences and the similarities between Australia and New Zealand by examining how each country views international order, global trade, global governance and human rights and international security. Although both countries appear to be transforming themselves into more 'globalised' states, there are significant differences in the way each seeks to balance the competing strategic and normative demands. This diplomatic divergence, we argue, stems from different conceptions of state identity.

Liberal Democracy and the Inferior 'Other'Other’: Could the peace liberal democracy promises to bring not extend to ‘Others’?

Advocates of liberal democracy argue that its principles and practices contribute directly to peace (at both inter-state and domestic levels). They rely on ideals such as the rule of law, institutional checks and balances on power, an ethos of tolerance, and free market economics to deliver the liberal peace. Liberals, however, overlook three important features embedded in the construction of liberal democracy which can serve to facilitate political violence: 1) the fixed and thus non-negotiable nature of liberal democracy’s core principles, 2) the inferior manner in which it conceives ‘Other’ social orders that do not share its core principles, and 3) the urge to proselytise Others. Together, these constitutive qualities can facilitate moves by leaders of Other groups to argue that liberal democracy threatens ‘their’ preferred identity, and thus its promised peaceful outcomes can be put in doubt.