The political and economic global transformations are widely discussed nowadays, especially in the context of building the New World Order. This term is used in politics for various phenomena and forecasts for the future form of the world. Despite its various interpretations, the term is mostly associated with the ideological concept of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or solve global problems that go beyond the capabilities of individual countries. This paper aims to analyze the existing approaches to the New World Order theories. Then, based on the conducted analysis, the paper will conclude with my vision of the world one hundred years from now.
According to Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler, there are three main approaches to analyzing possible scenarios for global politics: fatalist, mitigator, and transcender (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, Booth & Wheeler). The fatalistic approach implies globalization as a tool for the consideration of interests. It might as well be that globalization will become the economic basis for creating a New World Order. But to have a stable world order, we need mutual understanding and agreement. In other words, there must be some kind of competition regarding which state is better, faster, or stronger; and this competition should be considered fundamental if people adhere to the fatalistic approach. This approach might as well include some concepts of realism that, as Edward Carr notes, “tends to emphasize the irresistible character of existing tendencies and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and these tendencies” (London: Macmillan, 1962, Carr). Although realists and globalists differ in basic theoretical principles, they share a common perception of international relations as an arena of inevitable conflict, which allows us to classify them as fatalists, according to Booth and Wheeler’s classification.
The mitigator approach implies the need for international cooperation based on common interests and mutual trust. This idea was expressed by the American President Woodrow Wilson. In his message to the US Congress of January 8, 1918, which became known as the “Fourteen Points,” W. Wilson called for the formation of a “general association of nations […] for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike” (January 8, 1918, Wilson). According to W. Wilson, this organization was to become an intermediary between nations, helping them build partnerships and mutual trust. Thus, according to the mitigator approach, states will choose to invest part of their sovereignty in the international institutions – regimes and organizations they will create in the future world order. The expectation is that voluntary compliance with collectively established rules will help reduce uncertainty in international relations and prevent a potential confrontation between them.
By contrast, the transcender approach suggests that it is only possible to establish a new, non-confrontational world order by eliminating the notion of the state as such. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out, conflicts are a characteristic of the international system based on the exploitation of man by man, in which the sate enslaves the poor classes: “Political power is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” (International Publishers Co; New edition, February 7, 2014, Engels & Marx). Adherents of the transcender approach view the existing world order as a relic of the past that will sooner or later give way to a new, just, and humane world order. The new world order, in their interpretation, means uniting all of humanity, which is still separated by national borders, into a global, transnational community. Representatives of this theoretical direction differ significantly in their assessment of the future world order: from the creation of the World Federation to the complete elimination of state institutions around the world – which, however, does not mean that they do not agree that the world needs a global political transformation.
After learning the three approaches discussed above, it became obvious to me that they should be recognized as complementary rather than competing. While it is also clear that the world order’s fatalistic vision still remains relevant, I envision the new world order as a certain consolidation of the mitigator and the transcender approaches. Even though the transcender approach seems like a utopia, it should be recognized that transcendentalists’ problems require urgent solutions at the global level. Thus, in my perspective, the world order will look like a global community, with each state preserving its borders and cultural heritage but operating by the collectively established rules to ensure cooperation and assistance. Moreover, such collaboration will require serious reforms and laws to reduce the effects of global warming, air emissions, and environmental contamination; eliminating gender, race, and personality discrimination. The problems of hunger, poverty, war, and the infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms by the state bureaucracy will be discussed and dealt with on the global scale between representatives of all existing nations equally.
To conclude, the New World Order, as I envision it to be, will become a place of positive change, cooperation, and mutual assistance between nations. To ensure that these notions will be possible in a hundred years to come, we should not fall for the confrontational logic of fatalists. The problems formulated by the transcendentalists should not be ignored, though they might seem naive or unattainable. Additionally, it is necessary to do everything possible to strengthen international regimes and organizations that are a direct tool for shaping the democratic foundations of the future world order.