Politics

Governing a World Out of Order

Oct 31, 2014 Anne-Marie Slaughter

In his new book, Henry Kissinger asks whether the world can develop an international order that will keep the peace and allow countries to play by agreed rules. Unfortunately, that is the wrong question.

WASHINGTON, DC – Can we develop an international order that will keep the peace and allow countries to play by agreed rules? That is the question that Henry Kissinger poses in his new book World Order. Unfortunately, it is the wrong question.

Kissinger defines “world order” as a concept of just international arrangements that is “thought to be applicable to the entire world.” Before the advent of the European Union, for example, Europe conceived of world order as a balance of great powers, in which multiple religions and forms of government could coexist.

As a civilization and a religion, Islam envisions the optimal world order very differently – as a caliphate, in which faith and government are united and peace prevails throughout the Dar al-Islam, or house of Islam. That is certainly not the belief of all Muslims or of the governments of Muslim-majority states, but the radicalism espoused by groups like the Islamic State seeks to spread not just codes of conduct but an entire worldview.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

Anne-Marie Slaughter

Writing for PS since 2006
98 Commentaries

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department, is CEO of the think tank New America, Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and the author of Renewal: From Crisis to Transformation in Our Lives, Work, and Politics (Princeton University Press, 2021).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 29 Comments on this article

Lawrence Michael Feb 8, 2015

"We live in a world of global problems and largely national solutions. The need for institutions that can respond swiftly and effectively, as domestic government does in well-governed states, is greater than ever."
This is one insight that is going to remain with us for a long time. However, the transforming of those problems into opportunities is what seems to be a critical concern. A concern that largely "the need for others to believe in what one believes in" or megalomania seems to be engineering via what one set of actors the author has identified as 'Moslem intolerance'. That merely happens to be one of those sets of actors of intolerance - arising from what they believe to be a legitimizing factor: of their 'concern' for peace and order in the world. Thus we run into very real conceptual problems that the notion of 'just international arrangements' throws up to qualify for Kissinger's idea of a world order. Something which Anne-Marie Slaughter perhaps captures rather well in her heading: "Governing a World Out of Order". Yet the central concern of most is: How do we safeguard democracies and democratic populaces (in contemporary terms that easily means states and populaces that encourage and safeguard freedom of the individual, and along liberal cosmopolitan terms as one envisages for the twenty-first century hinged upon Human Rights as the current UN listing shows as a minimum). How do people come around to believe in intolerant megalomania or liberal & cosmopolitan world view hinged upon Human Rights as its basic minomum standards is what perhaps epochs of real-politik and misunderstood applications have all been about in the contemporary modern history. Yet globalization has ensured both shared common speed and also shared common disbeliefs amongst both the groups - about the sets of actors seeking to enlarge their numbers and realms of influence. Thus in the absence of legitimacy, it does become easier to cite malgovernance to encourage dictatorial rules - that one version cites Islam as promising. Yet I look at most religious groups with Christianity emerging as one original sinner of the same megalomania. It also thus is the first de-legitimizing factor for the liberal, cosmopolitan group hinged upon Human Rights - that it seeks to both consume and appropriate. A concern that helps others emerge more easily. Legitimacy doesn't come via attempting to appear liberal & cosmopolitan - that many imagine accrues by incorporating individuals from different religious faiths to offset the charge of Christian-bias. That is merely subsitituting one label with the other of the same spurious liquor that belong to the same set here. Clearly better ideas that encourage liberal cosmopolitanism hinged upon Human Rights and which enjoy a certain legitimacy has to be found, safeguarded and encouraged. While scholars do engage in pragmatic discussions over such terms as 'just' etc., and promote a semantics of peace. Semantics and attitudes are closely related and do not need scholars in psychology to discern and detect. In either individual interactions or those at larger levels. Yet peace always comes well-equipped with the ability to defend itself as well as deter further offences - as the United States emblem so aptly captures. The various semantics from that image indicate the various mindsets and actors too. I feel re-assured if the United States enjoys a credibility and legitimacy in my mind that the emblem so beautifuly expresses. I would be panicking like a hunted deer cornered if it doesn't. Perhaps both the situations help us comprehend the other realm where intolerant but sincere megalomania seems better than a suspicious and spurious liberal cosmopolitanism hinged upon Human Rights. In cognitive terms - the injury in the latter is greater than that of the former. In case we all forget why we look for better pays at all. Peace of the mind. Simple.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joao Lalanda Jan 12, 2015

It's sad to see the 2015 international order being treated w/ a 19th century mindlike, but again, what to expect from Kissinger?
I'd just like to emphasize Slaughter's point of increasingly world problems are located in the domestic area and add the fact that most of today's problems (AIDS, terrorism, crisis) are transnational in its very nature, requiring a global and architected response, rather than being faced as domestic politics.
Even though Slaughter's thought well in respect to geography, I'd like to point out the temporal dimension of environment dynamics: as a bigger share of the world pop. is brought onto the world economy, more pressure is put upon the ecossystem. We need not only to be accountable to the present generations but also its subsequent ones. The world is to little for an ever increasing world population, as a last year's NASA report pointed, and if we want to keep the human race as we know it, we should strecht through the solar system.
This may sound alarmist, and indeed it may be. Yet, it doesn't obscure the fact that XXI century problems are to be met w/ a global face. If we keep waisting resources preoccupied w/ relative gains in a long term beggar thy neighbour transnational dynamics, the less is channelled into reducing poverty, empower critic and intelligent individuals, reducing environment hazard and enabling an economic environmental long-term sustainable order.
It's not only about governing a world out of order but also bringing good life, not only to our generation, but our children's.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Chambers Nov 6, 2014

The answer to that question depends upon one7s citizenship. What looks good to Americans, looks very very different to someone in a country we occupy or whose resources we exploit by means of bribes or violence. We7re little better, in that respect than the imperialists of yore.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Nov 5, 2014

The traditional idea of national sovereignty includes the right of a nation to have an army, form alliances and, if threatened, wage war.
This urgently needs to change. If all nations are defended by a global security force commanded by the UN and controlled by a UN peacekeeping charter, they have no need of their national armies; their sovereignty then ends at their own borders.
They may opt or be persuaded each to join a federal bloc but, subject to any rules laid down by the UN or their federation, they are free to govern without outside interference. It would be the UN’s responsibility to safeguard that freedom.
For a suggestion as to how this global security force can be established, see
http://www.garrettjones.talktalk.net
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bing De La Vega Nov 5, 2014

World order? Under whose authority? China? The USA has been policing the world's "order" the past several decades and several countries unfairly took advantage of the free ride. And to a larger extent, it worked because it still promotes the basic human value - freedom. And there lies the fear about China's aggression given its totalitarian form of governance. China's past an current top members of its politburo have been practicing not Mao's but Wall Street's.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 4, 2014

Henry Kissenger should have posed his question - "Can we develop an international order that will keep the peace and allow countries to play by agreed rules? - differently." Instead of using the word "develop", he should have written "maintain". The West wants to keep the current order. Yet countries like China and Russia see no room for developing it. They want instead to abolish it and build a new "World Order", on their terms. The rising China feels it deserves to be treated as America's equal partner. The resurging Russia sees the US as the backer of the European eastward enlargement, which threatens its security. Putin's revisionist ambition had in recent months disrupted Europe's concept of peace and order, by annexing Crimea and destabilising Ukraine.
With the shifting of powers and demographics, it is becoming increasingly difficult to apply Kissenger's "concept of just international arrangements" to the "entire world.” Europe's influence has shrunk since the rise of the emerging economies - ironically after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Middle East blames the West for their grievances and problems, as a result of long imperialist rule and propping up the autocratic regimes since their departure from the region. America's foreign policies had alienated many there. Yet it was Osama bin Laden's 9/11 plot, that had changed the world. America's military actions - its war on terror - were to blame for the anti-West sentiments.
Kissenger hopes that Brazil and India would be strong enough to build a multipolar world, that would maintain a "stable global balance of power". Slaughter criticises him for focusing on "inter-state-relations," and ignores the fact that "an effective world order for the twenty-first century, however, must do much more than keep the peace." Indeed, "global cooperation" and leadership are as important to tackle natural disasters and the outbreak of contagious diseases etc. International organisations should help forge friendly ties and promote assistance. Yet the "post-WWII institutions have become insufficient". They need to be reformed and equipped with "new structures and tools designed to address global problems" of the 21st century.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 3, 2014

Mr Myers, there are two replies to what you write.

1.) IN CASE YOUR ARGUMENT WERE RÌGHT, the logical step from a sample of one to "almost always" would lead to your immediate nomination for the Nobel Prize.

2.) Remember R. Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." The eurozone overcame any troubles it supposedly had (regards to Mr R. Murdoch) with Draghi's comments on 26.07.2012 and that very same day it entered the fourth phase of the Jonung and Drea (2010) paper: "It Can't Happen, It's a Bad Idea, It Won't Last: U.S. Economists on the EMU and the Euro, 1989-2002".

The new currency never had to be structurally perfect. Once it was clear that it is harder and above parity with regards to its predecessor (whose supporters tried to prevent the petro-euro by lying in order to go to war with the country that had put into danger the petrodollar, while obviously having nothing to do with 9/11), that was enough. It was "satisficing" in Herbert Simon's terms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul A. Myers Nov 3, 2014

The conclusion may be an aspiration one dream too far: "...to devise new structures and tools designed to address global problems."

The experience of the eurozone shows that new transnational structures constrained by national politics and national governments are almost always structurally flawed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Duran Nov 3, 2014

Perhaps Henry Kissinger is posing the wrong question in 'World Order' because of this crass mistake. The fact that Latin America is left out of this analysis is inconceivable, for two reasons. On one hand, this region has proven to be of considerable importance to his analysis on global affairs and the changing role of the US in the world, particularly in books such as 'Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century' . Therefore, any analysis that leaves out Latin America is deprived of much explanatory power.

On the other hand, the inclusion of Latin America as a key analytical component would allow the right question to be addressed. In other words, the caveats that Slaughter exhibits in this article would be more thoroughly answered and studied through looking at the intense exercise of regional integration and the paramount reality of complex interdependence in this part of the world. For example, Brazil, in its quest for regional leadership, has oscillated between institutional strategies of diversification of alliances and productive 'working relationships' with the US and other hegemons, both of which are conducive to formulating the global responses to global threats that Slaughter advocates. In conjunction, and as part of a historical constant, Latin American countries have undertaken efforts of regional integration which acknowledge and factor in conditions of complex interdependence which are both a cause and a catalyst behind global threats such as pandemics, climate change, terrorism and organized crime; these efforts continue to arise despite an ever-more heterogeneous political landscape. Paradoxically, a comprehensive answer to the pressing issues of today may not be found in the 'tinderboxes' of the globe, but rather its 'peace zone'.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Girri Muthhukumar Palaniyapan Nov 3, 2014

Anne's point that addressing global challenges such as epidemics and climate change positively through cooperation is completely valid. But that doesn't dilute the merit of Kissinger's work in any way. While state-state conflicts might not have the same level of directly associated impact, they still affect the world in a profound way. Look at how the specific conflict of Russia-Ukraine has escalated with EU's trade sanctions and Russia's restriction of oil supplies leading to serious consequences for many who level in the region and to a lesser degree the world. Ultimately, the sort of cooperation that Anne envisions can only built on the basis of stable and harmonious state-state ties and it is important to deliberate on the best means to achieve it at an international level.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 2, 2014

Thank you for your story, Mr Singh. Similar stories exist across cultures. An old one is Lessing's "Ring Parable" inside his play "Nathan the wise" (1783), where the religions happen to be monotheistic ones. The ring notion comes back in "The panopticon puzzle" (http://goo.gl/XfPkAF) with each cell representing one religion (or country or other characteristic that apparently separates people but in a deeper way united them).
Another one is "The the blind men and an elephant", originally from India, written down in 1872 by John Godfrey Saxe.
May a cooperative paradigm across religions, languages and civilizations for all people emerge.
- Kuldip Singh Nov 4, 2014
  
  Hello Mr. Kaufmann,
  This reply is a bit of a ramble.
  You wrote, "May a cooperative paradigm across religions, languages and civilizations for all people emerge."
  The paradigm you hope for is in the making.
  Interestingly enough, both these articles appeared a few days apart.
  From the article -
  "Islam came to free people. Islam didn't come to put them in jail," she said. "And the government uses it to put people in jail and under their control. So they control us by Islam.... That makes a lot of people not even want Islam."
  She resents the encompassing role that Saudi religious authorities have claimed and prefers the Tunisian model, in which there is a greater separation of mosque and state. "If anyone wants to be an infidel, it's up to him. If he wants to be atheist, it's up to him," she said.
  And also,
  
  "My main idea is that we cannot build a society without focusing on the basic
  
  values we have," said Abdulkareem. At the moment, he says, Saudi Arabia puts
  
  security above justice -- and this is the foundation of the kingdom's problems.
  
  "We need to have justice above security," he said. "This is the most important
  
  theory that we need to change in our Islamic traditions and preaching.... The first
  
  thing we need to focus on is that justice is above security."
  
  Questioning the Faith in the Cradle of Islam
  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/29/questioning_the_faith_in_the_cradle_of_islam_wahhabi_fundamentalism_saudi_arabia
  
  Meanwhile in the Christian religion,
  Sorry, But Media Coverage of Pope Francis is Papal Bull | TIME
  
  http://time.com/3545844/pope-francis-evolution-creationism/?xid=newsletter-brief
  
  People are beginning to question status quo.
  
  Once you transcend religion, you are into Spirituality.
  
  In Spirituality, you are beyond the debates of eating beef, pork what have you.
  
  In Spirituality, you only see intense love amongst all peoples.
  
  Truly Spiritual leaders have no love for power. They however certainly know to use the power of love.
  
  In their own ways, all religions pray “Thy Will, be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.”
  
  When the Almighty establishes His Will on Earth, folks like Goldman Sachs and their ilk
  
  will rue their actions.
  
  A current example of a Spiritual leader is Pope Francis. If I remember correctly,
  
  Cardinal Bergoglio was not a front runner for the Papacy. I am certain TPTB must be
  
  wondering how Cardinal Bergoglio became Pope.
  
  Other religions too will have Spiritual leaders take the reins. It is just a matter of time.
  
  "Many years ago, I asked my Spiritual Master, "All the chaos in this world, who is responsible for it?"
  The Master replied,"2 classes of people who live by the principle of divide and rule. One is politicians and the other preachers."
  We need to find people who are neither politicians nor preachers to run this World. These leaders would have to be Spiritual Leaders.
  I posted the following comment in April 2012.
  A few years ago, when 2012 was trending, on a Financial blog, somebody asked, “Will the world come to an end in 2012?” The blogger replied, “No, the world will not come to an end in 2012, but the world as we know it will cease to exist.”
  I take this to mean that wars, religious bigotry, hatred, suffering etc will come to an end.
  We are seeing the beginning of the end of falsehood and the commencement of the age of righteousness.
  Short term there will be pain. Long term --There will be peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind.
  The future of Planet Earth is indeed very bright.
  A New World Order is being created. This World Order will be led by truly Spiritual
  Leaders. These leaders cannot be intimidated or bought.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kuldip Singh Nov 2, 2014

A Muslim lady asked my Spiritual Master, "What is the difference between Islam and the Sikh religion?"
The Master replied, "There is no difference."
The lady was astounded at this reply and asked, " Master, how can you say this"
The Master replied, "My daughter, I say this, simply because the Truth is One. It is only our form of worship which is different."
There is no difference between Christianity, Islam, the Sikh religion and other main stream religions.
All main stream religions preach that there is but One God. Unfortunately, some religious leaders now say that theirs is the One True God.
There is unbelievable ignorance re the true message of all the religions in the World. Religion came to the World to unite mankind.
Regretfully, almost all the World leaders are unaware of this fact.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Nov 2, 2014

Kissinger (Teutonic-Jew from Furth/Bavaria) is practicing Bismark’s (Prussian) concept of Realpolitik.

A-MS is intellectually laboring on the real issue of global governance and rule of law; while RH is preoccupied with global disorder – after fall of Berlin Wall – and (WTO) globalization.

Both occupied post of Director of Policy Planning in US State Department – and may have (also) contributed directly to current global disorder – ie Iraq invasion – occupation - aftermath!

Realpolitik is the stuff of international relations.

“In summary, realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive… views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. They are also believed to be fearful...The state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.

The state is the most important actor under realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.

A key concept under realism is the international distribution of power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon.

Under unipolarity realism predicts that states will band together to oppose the hegemon and restore a balance of power. Although all states seek hegemony under realism as the only way to ensure their own security, other states in the system are incentivised to prevent the emergence of a hegemon through balancing.

The state is sovereign and guided by a national interest defined in terms of power. Since the only constraint of the international system is anarchy, there is no international authority and states are left to their own devices to ensure their own security.

Realists believe that Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system, and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage.

International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.

States are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Nov 2, 2014

The uinderlying problem is that we have still not surmounted tribalism. If we continue to allow nation states to spend billions on armies we shall continure to have wars since they will inevitably want to deploy their weapons against competitors they see as a threat. We are supposede to have a UN; why on earth don't we use it, first to guarantee our security, then to address all the global issues which transcend national borders? See http//www.garrettjones.talktalk.net
- harry wilkinson Nov 2, 2014
  
  The reason the U.N cannot be used effectively is because of the major countries that hold a veto power in Security Council. Allowing such legislative action by the main body of the U.N. would require giving up sovereignty, something they will not do. Tribalism at it's worst.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alan Black Nov 2, 2014

Reading this article by Professor Slaughter reminded me of the work of William Strauss and Neil howe "The Fourth Turning". Towards the end of all Crisis generations there are calls for new institutions of governance to overcome the evident problems that afflict the world. After the Great Depression and WWII examples were the passage of the Security and Exchanges Acts of 1933 and 1934, creation of the United Nations, the IMF and other institutions. As much as I understand the call for new (or strengthened) institutions of governance to address problems the world today faces, I am struck by the failure of the UN (for example) as an institution to confront the very problems it was formed to address. I struggle to see how Professor's call for change isn't merely a utopian dream. I recommend "The Heart and the Fist" by Eric Greitens, a person who has far more real world experience than most people confronting the types of problems Professor Slaughter discusses. More or stronger institutions alone are not the answer.
- Kuldip Singh Nov 2, 2014
  
  We need to overcome the culture of greed and replace it with a culture of contentment. The fault is in our attitudes.
  You could strengthen all the institutions you want. However unless the biggest of all institutions, viz homo sapiens is strengthened, we will be constantly blowing our own house down.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sebastian Buurman Nov 2, 2014

A great article that confronts the obsession with rebuilding a functioning world order founded on the principles of the Westphalian system. Prof. Slaughter points out that the risks related to peace, such as famine and disease, bear little relevance to the historic balance achieved between Power and Legitimacy by such a world order. The inherently dispersed nature of economic capital and increasing global dependency, coupled with the relative increase in size of the market vis-a-vis the state, creates the need for a global governance system which appropriately accounts for scarcity. Prof. Slaughters call to action acknowledges the role of business and civil society in the formation of a new global governance mechanism. Great article!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ken Presting Nov 2, 2014

Prof. Slaughter is primarily writing against Kissinger here, but she is raising an issue which pops up consistently here on P-S. I want to point out that there is a family of related issues, and invite the Editors to open a "Focal Point" topic in this area.

J. Sachs has argued recently that the rest of the world should "Let the Mideast Govern Itself" while B. Chellaney has reminded us how oil money finances "Qatar's Jihad." If I understand Slaughter, she is advocating for supra-national institutions which can respond to international problems "as domestic government does in well-governed states." I would concur in this hope, but there is another side to the issue, and it deserves discussion.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tim Chambers Nov 1, 2014

Has not the United States also exempted itself from international law? How do we expect other countries to submit to treaty law if see set the example by invading other countries on false pretenses, and depose elected governments we dislike? The author accuses others of being bad actors, but are we not the absolute worst of them, with a record of far greater treachery, all in the name of making the world safe for American plunderers...er... "investors"?
- Tim Chambers Nov 6, 2014
  
  Tim Chambers NOV 6, 2014
  The answer to that question depends upon one7s citizenship. What looks good to Americans, looks very very different to someone in a country we occupy or whose resources we exploit by means of bribes or violence. We7re little better, in that respect than the imperialists of yore.
  
  Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/henry-kissinger-world-order-misses-the-mark-by-anne-marie-slaughter-2014-10#QvtsmQ1rxOVKlfwz.99
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Nov 2, 2014
  
  At the end of the day, Mr. chambers, the "we" you refer to is "us." You and I -- and those like us -- have not done enough to try and stop things like the Bush doctrine and our well-armed advocates of "American exceptionalism."
  
  It's a difficult question, but ON BALANCE -- is the world better or worse off for U.S. internationalism since WW1?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 1, 2014

Another article continuing along the line of "The Era of Disorder" by Mr Haass and the "g zero world" by Mr Bremmer. Concerning Ebola, your number seems to be somewhat off, Ms Slaughter (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-math-model-is-predicting-the-ebola-outbreak-with-incredible-accuracy).

Anyhow, the search for a new institutional architecture that assures peace and adherence to rules is laudable. The solution to "The panopticon puzzle" (http://goo.gl/XfPkAF) will not only overcome the generalized prisoners' dilemma (generalized since there may be N parties to the conflict and not just two), but also Arrow's "impossibility theorem". In other words, the dictator postulated by Kenneth Arrow is not needed any more. The solution and the proof are available upon request.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Nov 1, 2014

Indeed time perhaps for United Religions, United Races and United Languages - that supplement United Nations - in discharging collective responsibility that ensures a basic minimum program that brings the solutions and dignity to 9 billion shareholders. Advancements achieved elude such a vast majority that can be overcome with Institutional architecture that does not yet exist.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jgury gury Nov 1, 2014

What kind of ridiculous writing style do we have here. Write a ridiculous sentence then say that is certainly not the case? You are supposed to at least combine them or just drop the ridiculous statement.
"As a civilization and a religion, Islam envisions the optimal world order very differently – as a caliphate, in which faith and government are united and peace prevails throughout the Dar al-Islam, or house of Islam. That is certainly not the belief of all Muslims or of the governments of Muslim-majority states, but the radicalism espoused by groups like the Islamic State seeks to spread not just codes of conduct but an entire worldview."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Nov 1, 2014

I hope we look forward to hearing Ms. Slaughter's ideas for those "new structures and tools designed to address global problems" in future articles.
- Zsolt Hermann Nov 2, 2014
  
  I agree with the last paragraph of the article, but I also agree with your expectations.
  
  I think it is not even the new institutions, structure that matters since we have been trying everything we could think of already.
  We could say humanity has already tried all the possible permutations, versions of political, governing or economical structure, but as it stands sooner or later all arrive to a dead end.
  
  The reason for this is that it is not the structure, system that is the main problem but it is the user, more precisely the mindset, worldview, "operating software" driving the user, the human being.
  
  The bottom line is we cannot succeed, and build a sustainable structure as long as we try to do it driven by our inherently self-serving, self-calculating, individualistic nature. And while this nature, this individualistic drive propelled us to great heights before, seemingly providing our development, in the globally interconnected and inter-dependent human system we evolved into our inherent nature has become self-destructive.
  
  In a global, integral system only mutually complementing cooperation can work, or build a sustainable human infrastructure, our inherent tendency for competition, achieving greatness needs to be directed for common purposes, serving the collective.
  
  The difficulty of course is that such a direction is against our nature, and changes can only be sustained when they are positively motivated, and not forced or brought on by "trickery" as we have been doing so far.
  
  And positive motivation can only be achieved by education, by clearly, transparently showing to each and every human being that "together is better", that in a global system that is not man-made, but an evolutionary necessity the success, health, safety of the individual is directly dependent on the success, health and safety of the collective, like us all sitting on the same boat.
  
  If such a "global, integral" education can lay down the foundations, the enormous talent, capability humans possess could easily work out the exact institutions, structure we need.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Oct 31, 2014

The wars in the Middle East including civil war is already causing huge movements of people from there into Europe. This is only the beginning as when climate change really bites, there will be population movements on a biblical scale. Wars will be fought over water, and the world order will be under dire threat. There might be a new meaning to fortress Europe.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/LY8NYAm

Governing a World Out of Order

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Governing a World Out of Order

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification