Global and Regional Space Order

This article examines the evolution of international thought through the notion of ‘political space’. It focuses on two important domains of international politics, the nation-state and the global, to reflect on spatial categories in the discipline of International Relations (IR). Since its inception, the concept of the nation-state has dominated mainstream IR theory. Yet an investigation of how international order has been theorized over IR’s first century shows that this era has also been defined by globalist visions of political order. Nowadays, globalization is sometimes seen as the apex of the historical interplay of particularity and universality. The progression towards global political and economic order, however, is today undermined by the resurgence of state-centric political nationalism which seeks to challenge the legitimacy of the global political space. By examining how past international thinkers including Alfred Zimmern, Barbara Ward, Hans Morgenthau, E. H. Carr and John Herz, imagined and interpreted the relations of space and politics in the national and global spheres, this article suggests that spatial thinking offers an insightful approach for theorizing international relations. The article argues that the global and national spaces attain their political meanings through divisions as well as interactions and connections. The focus on divisions, exemplified in the writings of Barbara Ward, helps to make sense of the modus operandi of power in the national and global political spaces by investigating differences, tensions and instability.

Introduction. The article shows new approaches to the study of the causes, essence and consequences of social conflicts characteristic of the modern world, which combines both global and regional trends. The threat of social conflicts is largely due to the level of legal culture. However, the effectiveness of legal regulation presupposes the maximum strengthening of moral principles in society. The cause of the conflict may be a situation in which the legal law cannot be compatible with social norms, which is especially evident at the level of a particular global and regional space. Purpose setting. The purpose of the article is to study the ways of resolving conflicts in modern society, which are largely due to the level of awareness of the specifics of social organisms of the new global-regional world order, which involves the development of non-traditional methods for studying the origins and essence of social contradictions. Methodology and methods of the study. Today, new socio-philosophical approaches are becoming especially in demand, designed to comprehend the entire range of organizational public structures that are able to prevent social conflict in the modern global and regional world order. Results. The space for the emergence of social conflicts has expanded significantly in recent decades. Such situations are not always due to the effective work of the relevant state institutions in the context of the manifestation of mondialist tendencies. The likelihood of social conflicts is largely due to the information revolution, because global informatization is gradually destroying the self-sufficient regional space. Thanks to such tendencies, it is possible to control the consciousness of citizens, manipulating them in the interests of certain social groups. Such actions can be destructive, creating various platforms for the emergence of social conflicts. Some of them are increasingly going beyond the boundaries of a specific social space, upsetting the emerging global and regional balance. Conclusion. Conflict prevention and resolution at the level of a specific social space with a minimum expenditure of various resources presupposes an optimal combination of the interests of the largest possible number of subjects that are part of the emerging global and regional world order.

This paper explores the geopolitical dimensions of the relationship between history and theory in International Relations in the context of the ‘return of geopolitics’ through an engagement with the work of German historian Reinhart Koselleck. The core argument of the paper is that history has a geopolitics. International order is a significant node in the relationship between conceptions of geographical and historical unity because of its political claim to and production of global space. The upshot of this is that International Relations are not simply an object of historical investigation but produce the conditions by which historical time is understood. At the same time, Koselleck’s critique of the philosophy of history is implicated in a classical geopolitical imaginary found in the work of Halford Mackinder and Carl Schmitt. The diagnosis of globalisation Koselleck shares with Schmitt and Mackinder informs his view of the mutability of transcendental spatial ideas that enable historical understanding. This geopolitical orientation conceives of globalisation as unification of ‘man’ and ‘nature’ in a manner that resonates with contemporary diagnoses of the reunification of human and natural histories in the context of the climate change. In this way Koselleck’s geopolitics of history both challenges and reinforces the relationship between a global international order and the philosophy of history. Koselleck’s work is thus indicative of wider difficulties in rethinking the relationship between history and theory in International Relations in the context of the return of geopolitics. Finally, this work suggests that advancing the critique of the philosophy of history requires challenging the claim of international order to global space.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical and informative exploration of the emerging roles and rising influence of the Global South in shaping the future of global governance. Specifically, it inquires into the following questions: How is the Global South impacting the way we govern globally? What are the pushers, pulls and weights to the futures of global governance? Using Jim Dator’s alternative futures archetype, what is the future of global governance? What are the emerging issues and trends? Design/methodology/approach – It uses Sohail Inayatullah’s futures triangle to map the drivers – the pushes, pulls and weights of global governance and Jim Dator’s archetypes – continued economic growth, collapse, conserver and transformation – to imagine and construct alternative futures of global governance. Findings – The futures triangle analysis maps and reveals three diverse but causally linked Global South narratives of global governance. The pulls of the future include the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa leading the way, and emerging economies reinforcing the pluralization of global governance discourses and systems. New governance regimes create new global governance dynamics and North – South relations. Their increasing social, political and economic clout leads to new governance structures. The Global South’s rising human development index, economic growth, decreasing financial reliance, the rise of minilateralism and South – South cooperation is a push of the present. Weights are recurring financial constraints, their lack of technical capacity, existing international laws, stagnating bureaucracy, poverty, domestic issues and state centrism (among others). Four alternative global governance scenarios emerge: a harmonious world is everybody’s business – a state-centric and economic growth global governance future. Here, the dynamics of global governance remain the same as zero-sum thinking informs the rules of the game. In dangerous transitions and the rise of the rest, however, the status quo is disrupted as power shifts rapidly and detrimentally. Then, in mosaic of the old structure, the South embraces protectionism, and the old vanguards return. Finally, in all boats rise substantially, power is redistributed as emerging states gain larger, formal (and informal) leadership roles in global governance. The global world order is re-designed for the Global South. A world parliament is created and stronger regional confederation or unions emerge. Research limitations/implications – This paper extensively utilizes existing and emerging literature, official reports, blogs, interviews, books and other digital texts on global governance. The sources relevance is analyzed using the futures triangle tool and dissected to present four detailed scenarios using Dator’s alternative futures archetype. This study seeks to initially explore alternative futures of global governance from the perspective of the Global South. While some studies have approached the topic, only a few authors have addressed global governance using futures tools and methods. The goal of this research is to map and explore some alternative futures of global governance. The paper is less useful in predicting what lies ahead. Its intention is to highlight the “rise of the different” and to create a space for more meaningful conversations on global governance. Practical implications – This research could provide futurists, policy-makers, international relations scholars and global governance advocates some alternative narratives, frameworks and images of global governance. While it does not offer any specific structures and solutions, it offers a number of emerging issues and perspectives from the Global South that decision-makers and institutions might want to consider as they rethink global governance. Social implications – This paper highlights the emerging roles and perspectives of the Global South in global governance. It identifies some “trading zones” and “emerging issues” that may inspire actors to create new global governance spaces, innovate alternative narratives and design new frameworks of global governance. Originality/value – It maps and constructs some plausible scenarios of global governance that emphasize Global South perspectives while using futures tools and methods.