1. LG117: Introduction to International Relations Lecture 16: A new world order ? – IR after 9/11 Francesco Cavatorta School of Law and Government DCU

2. Old and new theoretical instruments From a strictly theoretical point of view, 9/11 has not radically changed the nature of the debate about the most important theoretical instruments one should utilise to understand international politics. The traditional debates between paradigms still dominate the literature of IR.

3. Anarchy The debate still rages about the very existence of anarchy in international politics. There is not world government, but states seem to cooperate very strongly on a range of measures and after 9/11 this cooperation has further deepened to include matters of national security. At the same time perceived rogue states are targeted. Is anarchy really what states make of it?

4. Balance of power ‘We are all Americans now’ (Le Monde, 9/12). This indicates that in face of US hegemony in the system, states tend to bandwagon, particularly if they share values/institutions. There is however resistance to hegemony and balancing is increasingly the policy of choice for many countries.

5. Conflict Armed conflict still dominates international relations. Inter-state conflict is still a major trait of international relations The discourse of morality surrounding conflict has not changed very much.

6. The role of the US The US as the new Empire Empires have often featured in world history and this current era is not different. The US is an ‘imperial’ actor: Bill Clinton: “we are the indispensable nation.” Madeleine Albright: “yes, we think that the price is worth it.” George W. Bush: “we will stay the course until the final defeat of terrorism.”

7. The Empire…strikes back Manifestations of Empire Lack of respect for international law. Attempt to make international rules conform to US desires. US norms are already better. Lack of respect for international organisations. They are seen to be an unnecessary constraints. Preponderant military force. The ‘two-wars’ scenario. Dominance of international economy. The world depends on the ‘health’ of the US economy. Cultural predominance. The empire always exports its way of life because the way of life underpins its strength and others would benefit by conforming.

8. The US as an accepted hegemon The US is not an empire because in modern times empires are not a possibility. Manifestations of empire are not factually true. US respects intl’ law as much or as little as other actors. US respects intl’ orgs. as much or as little as other actors. Military force is not the only dimension that determines power. The importance of ‘soft’ power, which the US should use more. The US does not control the world economy. There are many other actors that need to be taken into account. The flow of cultural influences goes back and forth and it is not unidirectional.

9. The Empire.. does not strike at all The role of the United States is certainly controversial, but the US is if anything an unwilling Empire, ready to listen to other actors. It distributes benefits as much as it receives them from the position it occupies as an hegemon.