This is my personal essay whilst completing a Post Graduate Diploma in International Relations at the University of the West-Indies. I WILL REALLY APPRECIATE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCOURSE ON THIS TOPIC AS TO ME IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY MORE RELEVANT IN TODAY'S INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

1. The Increasing Number and Complexity of Global Problems are Indicative of
1
the need for a new Global Order.
INTRODUCTION
The world is in chaos. The irreversible damage of the environment resulting from global
climate change, the residual negative effects of the global financial crises of 2008 on developed
and developing economies alike, as well as the exponential increase, wider geographic spread
and the changing nature of transnational crimes have rendered the world into a fearful state of
instability. These are only a few of the increasing numbers and complexities of global problems
that have emerged over the century. Throughout this paper the three afore-mentioned
contemporary issues that are indicative of current global instability will be prioritised. The paper
will firstly issue a thesis that the world is in disorder, by briefly investigating Global Order as
myth or reality. Consequently, highlight that during different epochs of time the word has
undergone vagaries of convergence and divergence (politically, economically and ecologically),
indicative of an ever-evolving, transitioning globe. For this essay, the immediate Post-Cold War
period and the Globalization era of the 21st century will be considered to demonstrate the
significant transition of the global architecture within one century. This will be addressed in the
chapter entitled the Changing World. Furthermore, the paper will project the view that there is a
need for a new Global Order. Another world is possible, whose structure and purpose is
conducive to an International System that is in transition to that of multi-polarity and global
governance. Finally, it will conclude and project support for a new Global Order in the
International System.

2. 2
GLOBAL ORDER: MYTH OR FACT
The concept of Global Order is both obscure and contentious in its ontology. Stabilising a
globe in the realms of politics, economics and the environment is no easy task as there exist no
supra- national entity above the state. However, generically it envisions a world society seeking
to preserve stability and order everywhere. As such, the questions are: is the world organised?
How is it organised? Is global order a reflection of purposeful geo-political, macro-economic
strategies? Is there an invisible force that has randomly organised the globe? Answers to the
questions postulated have resulted in theoretical concepts like, ‘the Great Divide’, ‘North vs
South’ and ‘developed vs developing’. These inter-paradigm debates are centred in two equally
robust ideologies- positivism and normativism. What is and what should be, fact as oppose to
value. This conflict has strengthened the obscurity of defining global order. However, according
to Hedley Bull, order is “a pattern [in the relations of human individuals or groups] that leads to
a particular result, an arrangement of social life such that it promotes certain goals or values”
(Bull in Hurrell 2007:3). Consequently, global order can be considered as a recognisable
configuration of the International System, which is arranged in a specific manner that promotes
required goals or values. Thus as global goals and values change so too does the configuration.
That is, Global Order or dis-Order is the result of how the world responds to change.
As such, from the inception of statehood- Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the great
depression, World War I, the creation and failure of The League of Nations (1900’s), World War
II and the consequent formation of the United Nations (1940’s), the Cold War (1980’s), to the
modern Globalisation era (2000’s), the world has been in a constant state of transitioning from
order to dis-order and in between, in response to changes in International Affairs. Thus Global

3. 3
Order is de-mythicized as it is a reality the world has lived, in its thrust for survival. Clearly,
“...the core goals of International Social Order are survival and co-existence” (Hurrell 2007:4).
THE CHANGING WORLD
Post- Cold War, the ideologies and policies of the United States (US) emerged as the model
to follow. The Global Order was centred with the US as hegmon, whose mandate was to liberate
and expand the global economy. This dominant neo-liberal order featured a transformation of
political and economic priorities to that of growth and development of commodities and national
income. Trade was internationalised and controlled by the World Trade Organisation (WTO),
where rules of trade were created by the dominant powers and issued for the rest of the world to
follow. The modus operandi of International Trade was focused on an export- oriented model.
Around the globe, national state agencies and companies were deregulated and privatised, in an
attempt to stimulate economic growth. However, undeveloped structures and markets alluded to
corruption and stagnant markets which ultimately lead to political bankruptcy and social unrest,
especially in the labour front. “The bankruptcy of the dominant world order is leading to social,
ecological, political and economic non-sustainability, with societies, ecosystem, and economies
disintegrating and breaking down.” (Ponniah and Fisher, 2003:1). As the modern globalization
processes unfolded, it further exposed socio-economic deficiencies. The corporate- driven globe
was unsustainable. International capital became more fluid, and unregulated, underdeveloped
financial markets crumbled, which catapult strong economies into recession as well as further
weaken developing economies. Internationally, labour was easily and cheaply out-sourced,
creating internal conflicts, with demands for equity. The Seattle riot articulated at the global level
what citizens do not want. Additionally, international production escalated at the expense of the

4. 4
environment. “Unabated economic development can lead to environmental degradation- in both
the short and the long term” (Alam et al 2011:3). Consequently, these deficiencies manifested in
increased transnational financial and human crimes, along with environmental degradation. All
nations were affected regardless of whether developed or developing, rendering the globe
unstable.
Thus, agreeably the global community has evolved over time, with globalisation as the
catalyser of change. “Globalisation is the cluster of technological, economical, and political
innovations that have drastically reduced barriers to economic, political and cultural exchanges”
(Drezner 2001:60). The globe is now a unitary space - actions in one geographic location,
transfer ripple-effects in many. The butterfly effect is clear. However, the rate at which the globe
has transformed within the last century is remarkably astonishing and at the same time cause for
concern as “…globalisation is changing the conditions in which people across the world live”
(Adam etal, 2011:1).The growing number of alliances among civil societies and non-governmental
organisations in the modern globalised era is positively noteworthy. This is a
direct result of increased active engagement in global affairs by all. The robust desire of these
networks of alliances to become involved in the global governance process and to be appreciated
as a vital organ of a transitioning global community is a clear feature of a changing world. This
thrust has been nurtured and facilitated by remarkable advancements in Information
Communicative Technologies (ICTs) vis a vis social media networks, that has made
communication and information sharing instantaneous. This is a clear contrast from the Cold
War era, where information and communication were expensive and tightly guarded by states.
The world has changed and will continue to evolve as time elapse.

5. 5
IS ANOTHER WORLD POSSIBLE?
Almost 7 decades after its inception, the United Nations still remain the premier
international governmental organisation in the world. During its existence it has sporadically
attained both tremendous successes and dismal failures. Optimally, the world has not plunged
into World War III. However, although more states exist now(192) than pre-World war II, which
demonstrates international acceptance of self-determination and state sovereignty, the ‘Great
Divide’ among developing and developed states has deepened and widened. This has been
further compounded; post US-financial crisis of 2008 and the Euro-zone crisis of 2010- a clear
reflection of the unequal accumulation and distribution of wealth in the globe, even among
regional arrangements. In addition, the accelerated deterioration of the environment as states,
transnational corporations and individuals thrust to attain income at the expense of the
environment, leads one to hope that another world is possible.
Clearly, the power dynamics of the international system has remained centred in those
states that emerged victorious post-World War II – United States, Europe and Russia. “Policy-making
always involves power….a synonym for influence” (Wiess et al, 2010: xiv). This is
evident by their powerful presence and role in international affairs and international
organisations. However, a new dynamic is imminent- a transitioning of the balance of power to
include states that are not considered to be members of the global North. China, India, Brazil and
South Africa have all impressively, weathered the storm of the global financial crisis to generate
increases in production and national income that have been sustained to date. This is directly
because these states did not allow their financial sectors to be left un-monitored and un-regulated.
They instituted varying degrees of state protectionism in the face of an international
political economy that demanded open and liberal markets as signalled by the Washington

6. 6
Consensus (1989). This portrays that divergence from the recommended norm is possible and
can lead to success.
The UN can be defended as an organisation that has tried tirelessly to initiate interstate co-operation
to effectively address environmental deterioration. From the creation of the United
Nations Environmental Program (1980) and subsequent international summits on the
environment, namely; the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), the UN
Conference on Environment and Development (Rio, 1992) and the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (2002), all reinforce that global compromise and cooperation is
possible. One example of this is the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to combat climate change, which
was observed by over 1400 NGO’s and to date ratified by 192 states. It is one agreement that has
committed states to account for their individual gas emissions and implement measures to reduce
their emission levels. However, it has been argued that despite the concise contribution the
organisation continues to make in the humanitarian and environmental spheres, it is still
dismissed as a failing institution due to the general perception that it has unable to maintain
international peace and security, as well as enforce best practices with regards to environmental
protection in the international community. To date the US has not signed on the Kyoto Protocol,
despite having the largest economy with one of the highest levels of gas emissions. Detractors
insist that at best the UN is a toothless tiger. As such, and agreeably, “UN decision making
process includes some of the best and worst practices of international diplomacy and institutional
procedure” (Gordenker in Weiss etal, 2010: xxxvii). However, the argument put forward is, can
the UN be the facilitator of world stability? They doctrine of sovereignty is still the convenient
weapon of many states who pursue their own national interests irrespective of the negative
effects of the globe.

7. 7
However, there is still hope. Changing world politics from uni-polarity to multi-polarity can
engender more inclusive collaboration in the international forum. In contemporary times there is
evidence of a globe in transition. Although Africa has the largest continental population and
geographic spread, it has no permanent representation in the United Nation Security Council.
However, South Africa inclusion in the BRICS, as an emerging economy with projected
sustained growth for the next two decades, demonstrates the possibility of Africa’s active
participation in global politics. Additionally, despite the contentious issue of the extent of global
cooperation from state actors on environmental issues. Non- state global schemes have emerged
to fill that void. These non-governmental organisations are able to engage the private sector in
decision making through the use of soft power and smart negotiations. As such, production
health and safety codes, product standards and labelling and recycling have become normal
practice in the production world today. This has fuelled public-private partnerships both at the
domestic and international levels. Their work legitimises the need for full, all-inclusive
cooperation to curb not only environmental degradation but also limit transnational crimes.
Hence global cooperation is possible, among states and non-state actors.
CONCLUSION
It is clear, that the power dynamics of the old era, cannot effect containment of the
traditional global order. “The view of world order to which we have fallen heir is dominated by
the conception of statehood” (Mac Cormick in Hurrell 2007:25). However, in today’s world
insularity at best is myopic. The divergence of issues- climate change, economic collapse and
transnational crime, have transformed the structure of the global community from hegemonic to
systematic. We live in a pluralistic international society and as such at the level of a normative

8. ambition, these evolving issues mandate a reconfiguration of global order to reflect state interests
8
alongside the interests of the global community. Hence, in contemporary times the stability of
the International system depends on all global actors (state and non- state) being able to
functionally adjust to multi-polarity, global cooperation and global governance. The top-to
bottom model of the old world system is unable to address the complexities of issues facing the
globe. An, all-inclusive, systematic model is recommended to institute and sustain stability in the
world. Hence, convergence, of political and social wills to effect the change that can engender
sustainability is mandatory. “Sustainability requires putting the environment and society above
the economic focus of markets” (Fisher et al 2003). As such, an international paradigm shift is
required to respond to the fragmentation caused by the old global order. This can only be
attained by all stakeholders working towards a common goal of survival and co-existence in the
global community with the intended effect of moving societies towards development, “which
would ensure a true, free and just life” (Held 2010, a: 15), for global citizens.

9. 9
References
*Drezner, Daniel. 2001. Globalization and Policy Convergence. International Studies Review.
3(1):53-78.
*Fisher, William and Thomas Ponniah, eds. 2003. Another World is Possible:
Popular Alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum. London: Zed Books
* Held, David. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals, Realities and Deficits. Cambridge: Polity Polity
Press.
* Hurrel, Andrew. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Value and the Constitution of
International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Iriye, Akira. 2002. Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making
of the Contemporary World. USA: University of California.
*Pease, Kelly Kate S. (2008). International Organization: Perspectives on Governance in the
Twenty- First Century. 3rd edition.
USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.
* Rosenau, James.2002. Governance in a New Global Order. In Governing Globalization:
Power, authority and global governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
* Rodrik, Danni. 2011. The Globalization Paradox- Democracy and the Future of the World
Economy .NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
* Suter, Keith.2003. Global Order and Global Disorder, Globalization and the Nation State.
London: Praeger.
*Underhill, Geoffrey and Richard Stubbs. 2006. Political Economy and the Changing Global
Order. 3rd edition. USA: Oxford University Press.

10. 10
*Weiss, Thomas, David Forsythe, etal. 2010. The United Nations and the Changing World
Politics. USA : Westview Press.
*Weiss, Thomas and R. Thakur. Global Governance and the UN- an Unfinished Journey.
USA: Indiana University Press.