Difference between international order and world order

can anyone explain about " world order" and "International order" referred by our honorable president in this recent speech at Athens,Greece.
An excerpt from his speech "India is committed to an international order marked by robust, rules-based multilateral institutions; by multi-polarity in international governance".

Comments

  • bhuvana_5 said:

    can anyone explain about " world order" and "International order" referred by our honorable president in this recent speech at Athens,Greece.
    An excerpt from his speech "India is committed to an international order marked by robust, rules-based multilateral institutions; by multi-polarity in international governance".

    The World in the past century can be understood in three categories

    First World Countries : The Industrialized Countries of Europe, USA, Japan etc
    Second World Countries : The Communits Contries led by USSR
    Third World Countries : Us, Recently free countries of Asia and Africa - high population, too many people to feed, and poor, with no proper institutions of governance, except those left my colonial masters.

    The term International Order or World Order can be used interchangebly in my opinion to meet the distribution of power or say or authority in the world.

    In the past century , by which I mean till the 1990s, power was in the hands of the industrialised few, and militarised few.

    The Countries of the First World Could do what they wanted , and get away with it. They dominated the UN via the UNSC, IMF and WB.

    In the 21s century, the power has shifted from the West to East and from the North to the South

    From a bi-polar World (US and USSR ) to a Unipolar World ( Post Cold War Era ) the world is now multi Polar (Rise of India, China, Brazil, Germany in Europe, which was not given due place in the Post WW 2 world order as it lost the world war , South Africa), and hence the power distribution must recognise these changes.

    The President is also talking about rule based world order ( such as UNCLOS and Freedom of Navigation - pointing to hindrances by China in South China Sea ) , multilateral institutions etc. His speech reflects a long standing position of India - due weightage and say of rising powers in world affairs, which constitutes the new world order - than basing the institutional power distribution based on the old world order of World War 2.

    You can think on these lines.
    *No good deed goes unpunished* | I am no knight, do not call me Sir | I write articles for Civil Services Aspirants, you can find them at http://blog.forumias.com/author/neyawn |
  • bhuvana_5 said:

    can anyone explain about " world order" and "International order" referred by our honorable president in this recent speech at Athens,Greece.
    An excerpt from his speech "India is committed to an international order marked by robust, rules-based multilateral institutions; by multi-polarity in international governance".

    Pehle bipolar order tha - communist vs capitalists even when UN was in existence since past 50 years
    Now with advent of globalisation, free trade etc world has become a global village with countries demanding more rights and powers within the structure and mandate of UN, that's why demand of international order by new emerging economies
  • I would explain this in 2 parts:
    i) Difference between international order and world order
    ii) what @newyan has explained is only one part of whole spectrum

    i) Order is defined as a pattern or position of international activity that sustains those goals of the society of states that are elementary, primary or universal.
    At least three kinds of order in world politics can be distinguished:
    1.)Order in social life-interaction of human relations.
    2.)International order-which is order between states in a system or society of states.
    3.)World order- which is order among humankind as a whole.
    World order is more fundamental than international order.Why?
    Because the ultimate units of society of all mankind are not states . . . but individual human beings. States and the society of states are merely temporary—i.e. historical-arrangements of human relations but ‘individual human beings . . . are permanent and indestructible.

  • ii) what @Neyawn explained is a part.
    This is neo realististic view.
    Three elements differentiate global systems:
    (1) ordering principles
    (2) character of the units
    (3) the distribution of power
    First, systems can be classified according to their ordering principle, that is, the way in which units are related to one another. Anarchy for neorealists is an international order within which actors must struggle to survive. Such a system is decentralized. An alternative ordering principle might be centralized and hierarchical – as in world government or empire such as ancient Rome and imperial China. Whereas domestic systems are centralized and hierarchic, the international political system is decentralized and anarchic. Under anarchy, actors stand in relation of coordination and each is the equal of all the others. None is entitled to command; none is required to obey.
    Second, systems can be classified by their type of units or parts. The principal units can be states, empires, or some other type of actor. One can even envision a system in which corporations, ethnic groups, or religious groups are the principal actors. According to neorealists, under anarchy, states remain like unitsbecause all confront the same challenges to security and must act in the same way to survive.

    Third, systems are classified according to the distribution of capabilities among the units, a feature called system polarity. A system’s distribution of power may be unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. In a unipolar system, there is onedominant actor, a hegemon that is so powerful that no other actor or coalition can challenge its dominance. A bipolar system is characterized by two dominant actors or blocs, and a multipolar system has three or more dominant actors or blocs.

    Because the first two elements change slowly, neorealists emphasize the importance of changes in the distribution of capabilities among actors.That’s why people generally explain international order in terms of third concept that is polarity.
  • I would explain this in 2 parts:
    i) Difference between international order and world order
    ii) what @Neyawn has explained is only one part of whole spectrum

    i) Order is defined as a pattern or position of international activity that sustains those goals of the society of states that are elementary, primary or universal.
    At least three kinds of order in world politics can be distinguished:
    1.)Order in social life-interaction of human relations.
    2.)International order-which is order between states in a system or society of states.
    3.)World order- which is order among humankind as a whole.
    World order is more fundamental than international order.Why?
    Because the ultimate units of society of all mankind are not states . . . but individual human beings. States and the society of states are merely temporary—i.e. historical-arrangements of human relations but ‘individual human beings . . . are permanent and indestructible.

Sign In or Join to comment.

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google