هستی‌شناسی تغییر و تحولِ نظم جهانی: رویکردی نظری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد روابط بین الملل، گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار علوم سیاسی، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مجادلات و مناظرات نظری پردامنه ای در باره تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی در دانش روابط بین الملل شکل‌گرفته است. به‌گونه-ای که، تعریف‌ها و تلقی‌های متفاوت و حتی متعارضی از تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی ارائه می‌شود. این اختلاف‌نظر معلول چیست؟ در پاسخ این پرسش، ادعا و استدلال اصلی این مقاله آن است که این اختلاف‌نظرها، از مفهوم‌پردازی و صورت-بندی متفاوت از نظم جهانی و پیرو آن چیستی و چگونگی تغییر و تحول آن نشأت می‌گیرد. در واقع این مناقشه نظری بر‌سر هستی‌شناسی نظم جهانی و تغییر و تحول آن است. هریک از نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل، تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی را برپایه یکی از ارکان و ابعاد آن مفهوم‌بندی و تعریف می‌کند؛ در‌حالی‌که، تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی، ماهیتی چند‌رکنی و چند-بعدی دارد. تفهم و تبیین تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی، مستلزم شناخت ماهیت و سرشت مرکب آن است. از‌این‌رو، هدف اصلی مقاله، هستی‌شناسی تغییر و تحول نظم جهانی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Ontology of of World Order Change and Transformation : A Theoretical Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Jalal Dehghani Firoozabadi 1
  • Firoozeh Radfar 2
1 Professor of International Relations, Department of International Relations, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Sciene, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extensive theoretical debates and controversies have taken place in the science of international relations regarding the change and evolution of the world order. In such a way that different and even contending definitions and perceptions of the change and evolution of the global order are presented. What is the main cause of this disagreement? In response to this question, the main claim and argument of this article is that these disagreements arise from different conceptualizations and articulations of the world order and, consequently, what and how it changes and evolves. In fact, this theoretical debate is about the ontology of the world order and its change and evolution. Each theory of international relations conceptualizes and defines the change and evolution of the world order based on one of its elements and dimensions; while the change and evolution of the world order has a multi-faces and multi-dimensional nature. Understanding and explaining the change and evolution of the world order requires recognizing its nature and complex nature.

Introduction

The transformation of the world order represents a long-lasting debate in international relations. Since the end of the Cold War, particularly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Bipolar World Order in 1991, questions concerning the nature and trajectory of the world order transformation have gained further significance. The post–Cold War era has been marked by profound uncertainties regarding the structure, processes, and dynamics of the world order. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the issue of transformation to a central theme in both theoretical and political debates.
Despite its prominence, however, the study of the transformation of the world order remains greatly contested. Scholars disagree not only over the meaning and ontology of “change” itself but also over the conceptualization of the world order and the mechanisms whereby it evolves. These divergences have given rise to multiple, and at times mutually contradictory, interpretations of what constitutes the world order transformation. Therefore, the debate reflects deeper ontological divides among major theoretical traditions in international relations, ranging from neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism to the English School and constructivism.
 

Theoretical Framework

Due to its inherently multidimensional characteristics, the ontology of the world order transformation is examined in this study through an analytical eclecticism that integrates four major theoretical perspectives: neorealism, neoliberalism, the English School, and constructivism.
From the standpoint of neorealism, the world order transformation is primarily defined in terms of structural shifts within the international system, particularly alterations in its polarity. Accordingly, the transformation of the world order is essentially synonymous with power transitions among the major powers. However, other theoretical approaches within international relations critique this conceptualization as excessively reductionist and one-dimensional, insofar as it may confine systemic transformation solely to structural and material alterations in the distribution of capabilities.
In contrast, neoliberal institutionalism emphasizes that, beyond material power shifts, the world order transformation also entails alterations in institutional arrangements and patterns of interaction within the international system. Moreover, the English School advances this argument further by highlighting not only secondary, super-structural institutions—central to neoliberal analysis—but also the fundamental, primary institutions that underpin the very constitution of international society.
Finally, constructivism approaches the world order transformation from a normative and ideational perspective. For constructivists, systemic change occurs when intersubjective ideas, shared knowledge, and the prevailing cultural underpinnings of the international system are redefined and transformed. As a result, the evolution of norms and collective understandings among international actors can constitute the primary mechanism driving the world order transformation.
 

Methodology

This study aims to elucidate and critically interrogate the ontology of change and transformation in the world order from the perspective of four principal theories of international relations. For this purpose, a descriptive-interpretive methodology is employed to delineate the conceptualizations and ontological premises of the world order transformation as articulated within each theoretical approach. Furthermore, a rigorous logical reasoning and inferential analysis is then conducted to systematically derive and interpret the underlying drivers and causal dynamics of such transformations. The qualitative evidence underpinning this inquiry is drawn from an extensive and critical review of the research literature and bibliographical references..

Results and Discussion

Given the inherently multifaceted and multidimensional nature of the world order, its transformation can be defined as the process of change encompassing the normative, institutional, structural, and agential foundations of the existing order across the security, political, and economic domains—or in some cases, affecting only certain pillars or dimensions. Therefore, two principal types of world order transformation can be distinguished: comprehensive and partial. In addition, a comprehensive transformation of the world order occurs when all four pillars—i.e., structural, institutional, normative, and agential—alongside the three domains of security, politics, and economics, are changed fundamentally and simultaneously. By contrast, a partial transformation emerges when only some pillars within specific dimensions of the world order are altered. The intensity and pace of the order change may also vary considerably. In other words, transformation may be sudden, radical, and revolutionary, leading to the collapse of the existing order, as exemplified by the termination of the bipolar system following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the world order typically evolves through gradual and evolutionary transformation, whereby change occurs incrementally over time rather than through an abrupt systemic rupture.
.

Conclusion

Since the world order ensues from the distribution of power, interests, principles, rules, institutions, treaties, ideas, norms, intersubjective values, and shared knowledge, it inevitably undergoes transformation when each of these foundations changes. Undoubtedly, alteration in any of the four main pillars—i.e., units, norms, structures, and institutions—can, to varying degrees, cause shifts in the world order. Thus, when the nature of units, norms, structures, institutions, and rules changes, the global order itself is reconfigured.
As a result, several developments stand out as the key drivers of the world order transformation: the rise of extreme nationalism and ethnic movements; the growing influence of non-state players; the economic growth of developing countries; the emergence of new and powerful state players; technological advancements; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; the spread of radical ideologies and new discourses; and the expansion of regional cooperation and integration. Collectively, these factors demonstrate that alterations in one or more of these domains can inevitably lead to the reconstitution of the world order.
Overall, the world order transformation occurs whenever there are fundamental shifts in: (1) the major units of the world order that contribute to the governance and international agency; (2) the foreign policy goals pursued by states and global players in their interactions; (3) the nature, elements, and instruments of power, as well as the dominant discourses of power; (4) the intersubjective ideas and shared knowledge among international actors; (5) the behavioral rules that construct their interactions; and (6) the prevailing patterns of interaction among these players. Together, these elements constitute the essential foundations, the alteration of which leads to the transformation of the world order.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • order
  • polarity
  • norms
  • structure

مراجع

Abrahamson, Hans. (2003). Understanding World Order and Structural Change: Poverty, Conflict and the Global Arena, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Acharya, Amitav, Stevadeordal, Antoni and Goodman, Louis (2023) Multipolar or multiplex? Interaction capacity, global cooperation and world order, International Affairs, 99(6), 2339–2365; doi: 10.1093/ia/iiad242.
Alagappa, Muthiah. (2003). “The Study of International Order: An Analytical Framework,” in Muthiah Alagappa, ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 33–69.
Alker, Hayward R., Amin, Tahir, Biersteker, Thomas J., and Inoguchi, Takashi. (2001). Twelve World Order Debates Which Have Made Our Days, available at: http// isanet. Cit. Arizona. Edu/archive/world order. html.
Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M., and Sell, S. K. eds. (2010). Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bajpai, Kanti  and Laksmana, Evan A. (2023).  Asian conceptions of international order: what Asia wants, International Affairs, 99(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad165.
Bigdeli, Mohammad Reza, Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal, Barzegar, Kayha, and Chegenizadeh, Gholamali. (2023). Decline of the liberal international order from the perspective of the theoretical approaches of the School of liberalism, Journal of Political Knowledge, 19(2), 349-374. [In Persian]
Brands, Hal and Gavin, Francis J. (2020). Covid-19 and World Order: The future of conflict, competition, and cooperation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Bueger, Christian, Hofius, Maren and Edwards, Scott (2024) Global Ordering and the Interaction of Communities of Practice: A Framework for Analysis, Global Studies Quarterly, 4(1), March, ksad079, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad079
Bull, Hedley. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan.
Bunde, Tobias, Eisentraut, Sophie and Schütte, Leonard, eds. (2025). Multipolarization: Munich Security Report 2025, Munich: Munich Security Conference.
Burles R. (2023). Globalizing the international: Bull’s metaphysics of order. International Theory, 15(2). doi:10.1017/S1752971922000148.
Buzan, Barry. (2014). An Introduction to The English School International Relations, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buzan, Barry. (2023). ‘Deep Pluralism as the Emerging Structure of Global Society’, in Feng, Zhang. (ed.), Pluralism and World Order: Theoretical Perspectives and Policy Challenges, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chegenizade, Gholamali and Teymouri, Hamed. (2024). Change in the international order from the perspective of realism: another attitude, International Political Economy Studies, 7(1), 1-25. [In Persian].
Cladi, Lorenzo. (2023). Polarity in International Relations: past, present, future, International Affairs, 99(2): 837–838, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad012.
Davies, Thomas. (2024). World Order Transformation from the Grassroots: Global South Social Movements and the Transcendence of Established Approaches to International Change, International Political Sociology, Volume 18, Issue 1, March , olad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olad023.
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal and Reza Zabihi. (2024). Iran and the New World Order; Challenges and opportunities, Foreign Relations Quarterly, 16(1), 1-26. [In Persian].
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal. (2014). Theories of Regional Integration and International Regimes, Tehran, Mokhatab Publication. [In Persian].
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal. (2022). Principles and Fundamental of International Relations, Tehran, Samt Publication. [In Persian].
Doyle, Michael. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3), Summer.
Doyle, Michael. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics, The American Political Science Review, 80(4): 1151-1169.
Dutkiewicz, Piotr, Casier, Tom and Scholte, Jan Aart. (eds.). (2021). Hegemony and world order: reimagining power in global politics, London and New York: Routledge.
Ehrhardt, Andrew. (2023). The philosophical aspect of world order, International Affairs, 99(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad117.
Esmaeili Ardakani, Ali and Mirmohammadi, Mehdi. (2023).  Iran and the New International Order in the Light of the Triple Strategies of Shaping, Opposing, and Complying, Research Letter of Political Science, 18(2): 7-40.
Fabbrini, Sergio and Marchetti, Raffaele. (eds.). (2017) Still a Western World?: Continuity and change in global order, London and New York: Routledge.
Falk, Richard. (2024). World Order, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination, https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/696.
Feng, Huiyun and He, Kai. eds., (2020). China’s Challenges and International Order .: Beyond “Thucydides’s Trap.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Feng, Zhang. (ed.) (2023). Pluralism and World Order: Theoretical Perspectives and Policy Challenges, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flockhart, T. (2016). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security Policy, 37 (1), 3–30.
Frieden, Jeffry and Lake, David, eds. (2003). International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, London and New York: Routledge.
Frieden, Jeffry and Martin, Lisa. (2003). International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions, in Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen, eds., Political Science: The State of  Discipline, New York: W.W.Norton.
Gilpin, Robert G. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gilpin, Robert. (1981), War and Change in World Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goh, Evelyn. (2013). The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Transition in Post-Cold War East Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Græger, Nina, Heurlin, Bertel, Wæver, Ole and Wivel, Anders (eds.). (2022). Polarity in International Relations: Past, Present, Future, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grieco, J. M. (2007). Structural realism and the problem of polarity and war. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics, London and New York: Routledge: 64–82 .
Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002001.
Haass, R. N. (2008) The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance, Foreign Affairs, 87(3): 44–56.
Hale, T. and Held, D. eds. (2011). Handbook of Transnational Governance: New Institutions and Innovations, Cambridge: Polity.
Hall, John A., 1996, International Orders, Cambridge: Polity.
He, Kai & Feng, Huiyun. (2020). Introduction: Rethinking China and international order: A conceptual analysis. In H. Feng, & K. He, eds., China’s Challenges and International Order Transition: Beyond “Thucydides’s Trap.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1–24.
He, Kai and Feng, Huiyun. (2023). After Hedging: Hard Choices for the Indo-Pacific States Between the United States and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, Stanley. (1987). Is There an International Order? Janus and Minerva: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics, Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Hurrell A. (2018). Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order. Ethics & International Affairs.;32(1):89-101. doi:10.1017/S0892679418000126.
Hurrell, A. (2007). On Global Order: Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurrell, A. (2021). Hedley Bull and the idea of order in international society. In Cornelia Navari (ed.), International society: The English school (pp. 31–44). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ikenberry, G. John, (2018). ‘The end of liberal international order?’, International Affairs,( 94) 1, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241. See also
Ikenberry, G. John. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ikenberry, G. John. (2014). Power, Order, and Change in World Politics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keene, Edward. (2004). Beyond the Anarchical Society Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph (1987), Power and Interdependence Revisited, International Organization, 41.
Keohane, Robert. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches, International Studies Quarterly, (32)4. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589.
Keohane, Robert. and Nye, Joseph. (1977). Power and Interdependence, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Khanna, P. (2011). How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance, New York: Random House.
Khodakhah Azar Somayeh,  Mousavi Shafaee, Seyed Masoud,  Tajik, Mohammad Reza, and  Eslami, Mohsen. (2022). Genealogy of the Liberal World Order: Analyzing the trajectory of power, World Politics, 11(4): 221-258.
Khong, Yuen Foong. (2001). Negotiating “order” during power transitions. In Kupchan, Charles A. (ed.). (2001). Power in transition: The peaceful change of  international order, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Kissinger, Henry. (2014). World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, London: Allen Lane.
Knudsen, Tonny Brems and Navari, Cornelia, eds. (2019). International Organization in the Anarchical Society: The Institutional Structure of World Order, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knudsen, Tonny Brems and Navari, Cornelia, eds. (2022). Power Transition in the Anarchical Society: Rising Powers, Institutional Change and the New World Order, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kupchan, Charles A. (ed.). (2001). Power in transition: The peaceful change of international order, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Lascurettes,  Kyle M.  and Poznansky, Michael. (2021). International Order in Theory and Practice, Oxford Research Encyclopedias,International Studies,https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.673,Published online: 31 August 2021)
Lawson, George. (2020). The rise of modern international order. In John Baylis (editor), Steve Smith (editor), Patricia Owens (editor), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legro, J. W. (2005). Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Luard, Evan. (1988). Conflict and Peace in the Modern International System: A Study of the Principles of International Order, London: Macmillan.
Marchetti, Raffaele and Fabbrini, Sergio. (2017). “Introduction: The debate on global order in a changing world”, in Sergio Fabbrini and Marchetti Raffaele (eds.), Still a Western World?: Continuity and change in global order, London and New York: Routledge.
Marchetti, Raffaele. (2017). “The role of ideas in global order”, in Sergio Fabbrini and Marchetti Raffaele (eds.), Still a Western World?: Continuity and change in global order, London and New York: Routledge.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W. W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539078.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2009). Reckless States and Realism, International Relations, 23(2), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117809104637.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order, International Security, 43(4), 7–50.
Mukherjee, Rohan. (2022). Ascending Order: Rising Powers and the Politics of Status in International Institutions, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs.
Organski, A. F. K. (1958). World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Organski, A.F.K. and Kugler, J. (1980). The War Ledger, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peters, Michael A.(2023). The emerging multipolar world order: A preliminary analysis, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(14):1653-1663, DOI:10.1080/00131857.2022.2151896.
Phillips, Andrew and Reus-Smit, Christian. (2020). Culture and Order in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2004). American Power and World Order. Cambridge: Polity.
Shakleina, Tatiana. (2023). “The Global Order in the Twenty-First Century: Consolidating Polycentricity” in Baykov, Andrey and Shakleina, Tatiana, Polycentric World Order in the Making, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Soleimani Pourlak, Fatemeh. (2024). The Changes and Continuities in The International Order and Implications for Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Political and International Approaches, 16 (4), 96-120. [In Persian].
Wæver, Ole. (2022). Polarity Is What Power Does When It
Becomes Structure. In Græger, Nina, Heurlin, Bertel, Wæver, Ole and Wivel, Anders (eds.), Polarity in International Relations: Past, Present, Future, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (2000). Structural Realism After the Cold War, International Security, 25(1), Summer.
Waltz, Kenneth, (1979) Theory of International Politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001.
Wendt, Alexander. (1992). Anarchy is What State make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, International Organization, 46 (2).
Wendt, Alexander. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State, American Political Science Review, 88(2).
Wendt, Alexander. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار