The Illusion of an ‘Illiberal International’: Why the Global Order Isn’t About to Flip
For decades, the narrative of a liberal international order – built on institutions, economic cooperation, and the spread of democratic values – has dominated discussions of global politics. But recent years have witnessed a surge in authoritarianism, prompting talk of a counter-order: an “illiberal international.” While acknowledging the growing cooperation between authoritarian regimes is crucial, framing it as a cohesive, alternative order risks oversimplification and obscures the more complex reality of a contested, fragmented world.
Beyond Cooperation: Fragmentation and Pragmatism
The idea of an illiberal international suggests a coordinated effort to dismantle the existing order. However, much of the observed cooperation is ad hoc, driven by immediate self-interest rather than a shared ideological project. Consider the relationship between Russia and China. While they frequently align on procedural issues within the UN Security Council, blocking resolutions critical of each other, this doesn’t translate into a comprehensive alliance. China’s economic dominance in Central Asia, for example, often operates independently of Russian interests, creating friction rather than synergy. Similarly, the sharing of surveillance technologies between nations isn’t necessarily born of ideological alignment, but a pragmatic desire to suppress dissent.
This transactional nature is key. Authoritarian regimes cooperate when it suits them, but readily compete when their interests diverge. The recent tensions between China and Russia over energy pipelines in Central Asia demonstrate this point. The “illiberal international” isn’t a bloc; it’s a shifting constellation of tactical alignments.
The Resilience of Institutions – and Liberal Ambivalence
Liberal institutionalism, the theory that international organizations promote cooperation and shared norms, hasn’t collapsed. It’s being contested. Authoritarian states are actively working within existing institutions – the UN, the WTO, even the WHO – to reshape norms and procedures to their advantage. This isn’t a rejection of institutions, but a manipulation of them.
However, the problem isn’t solely with authoritarian actors. A significant factor is the inconsistent application of liberal norms by Western democracies themselves. The selective enforcement of human rights standards, prioritizing short-term strategic gains over long-term values, and the rise of nationalist sentiments within liberal democracies have eroded their credibility and created space for alternative narratives. The US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, for instance, undermined the principle of multilateralism and emboldened those seeking to challenge the existing order.
Pro Tip: Don’t underestimate the power of hypocrisy. When liberal democracies fail to live up to their own standards, they lose the moral authority to criticize others.
The Role of Technology and Globalisation
The increased prominence of authoritarian cooperation is partly a product of technology and globalisation. Digital tools facilitate the sharing of surveillance techniques and disinformation campaigns. Global financial networks allow for circumvention of sanctions. However, these tools are also available to democratic actors, highlighting the inherently dual-use nature of technology.
The Cold War provides a historical parallel. Non-liberal regimes engaged in extensive cooperation during that era, but it didn’t result in a unified alternative order. Today’s situation is similar, albeit amplified by the speed and reach of modern technology.
Normative Contestation, Not Systemic Transformation
The core issue isn’t the emergence of a rival order, but a period of heightened normative contestation. Authoritarian regimes are pushing for a redefinition of sovereignty, emphasizing non-interference and procedural legitimacy over democratic values and human rights. This contestation is playing out within international institutions, creating a more complex and ambiguous landscape.
Did you know? The concept of “sovereignty” itself is constantly being renegotiated. Authoritarian regimes are attempting to redefine it in ways that protect their internal repression from external scrutiny.
This isn’t necessarily a sign of institutional failure. As scholars like Anne-Marie Slaughter have argued, international institutions are inherently political spaces, shaped by bargaining and compromise. The fact that illiberal actors are contesting liberal norms is a sign of institutional politics at work, not a collapse of the system.
Reintegrating Power into the Analysis
A crucial oversight in much of the discussion is the underestimation of power dynamics. Authoritarian regimes don’t simply “ride roughshod” over institutions; they exploit ambiguities, mobilize procedural rules, and forge issue-specific coalitions. Their success depends on the actions – and inactions – of others.
Reintegrating a focus on material, discursive, and normative power is essential. Understanding how authoritarian regimes leverage their resources, shape narratives, and build alliances is crucial for developing effective responses.
FAQ: The ‘Illiberal International’ and the Future of Global Order
- Is a new world order emerging? Not in the sense of a cohesive, alternative system. We’re seeing a period of heightened contestation and fragmentation.
- Are international institutions failing? They are being contested, but not necessarily failing. They remain important arenas for bargaining and cooperation.
- What can liberal democracies do? Recommit to their own values, consistently enforce norms, and address the internal factors that undermine their credibility.
- Is technology the main driver of this shift? Technology amplifies existing trends, but it’s not the root cause. The underlying drivers are political and ideological.
The current international order isn’t being supplanted by a coherent illiberal substitute. It’s undergoing a period of profound stress, marked by fragmentation, selective cooperation, and normative ambiguity. Over-theorizing authoritarian coordination risks misdiagnosing the problem and hindering the development of effective solutions. The challenge isn’t to defeat an “illiberal international,” but to navigate a more complex and contested world with clarity, resolve, and a renewed commitment to the principles of a rules-based order.
Further Reading: Explore the work of scholars like Anne-Marie Slaughter on the complexities of global governance and the role of networks. See also the research of Thomas Carothers on the challenges of democracy promotion.
What are your thoughts on the future of the international order? Share your perspective in the comments below, and explore our other articles on global politics and international relations for more in-depth analysis.
Related reading
