The Australia-China Chamber of Commerce and Industry
of New South Wales






Last updated: 11 October


Mainstream 1: Revitalise the State-Centric Approach

Mainstream 2: Strengthen Multilateralism

Mainstream 3: Form Coalitions of the Self-Interested

Mainstream 4: Increase the Influence of NGOs and CSOs

Applications of Global Governance

A Change in the World Order of Geopolitics

Earlier links are at the top of each section



State-Centric Approach


Mainstream 1: Revitalise the State-Centric Approach

A brief introduction to the State-Centric Approach is available at:

Rosemary Foot, “Chinese Strategies in a US-Hegemonic Global Order:  Accommodating and Hedging,, International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1 (January 2006), pp. 77-94.  Available for purchase at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2006.00516.x/pdf.   The author favours an interpretative approach to Chinese perspectives on global order: “an approach that suggests nothing is pre-ordained, that policy choices are being made, and that not everything is determined by systemic structure.”  She gives an indication of the range of perspectives that are appropriate to China. 

Giovanni Mantilla, “Emerging International Human Rights Norms for Transnational Corporations,” Global Governance, Vol. 15 (2009), pp. 279-298.  Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-international-rights-transnational-corporations/dp/B002QWSUO8.  “The end of the Cold War, the consolidation of the global economy, the rise of information technology and the strengthening of transnational advocacy networks have [all] contributed to effectively turning our attention to the potentially perverse impact of transnational corporations, insurgencies, paramilitaries and non-state actors on human rights.”  Although the author does not extend this view in support of a revitalised state-centric approach to global governance it is nevertheless likely that improvements in the human rights profile will occur for states that succeed in limiting the undesirable impacts that are directly traceable to the non-state sector.

Ziya-Öniş and Ali Burak Güven, “The Global Economic Crisis and the Future of Neoliberal Globalisation: Rupture Versus Continuity,” GLODEM Working Paper Series, 10/2010, Centre for Globalisation and Democratic Governance, Koç University, Istanbul.  Available at: http://glodem.ku.edu.tr/10_001.pdf.  The authors suggest that neoliberal globalisation looks set to survive the global economic crisis, but in a more heterodox and multipolar fashion.  It is likely that “tighter coordination between old and emerging power will be needed to inspire lasting solutions to pressing global problems.”

Yan Xuetong, “From a Unipolar to a Bipolar Superpower System: The Future of Global Power Dynamic,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 30 December 2011.  Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/12/30/from-unipolar-to-bipolar-superpower-system-future-of-global-power-dynamic/a6vl.  The author notes that since the end of the Cold War the US has been losing its status as the strongest superpower, while China has been expanding its role to occupy the second pole in a bipolar system.  International organisations are also losing their ability to steer world affairs and must adapt to the global power dynamic shift to a bipolar superpower system by broadening their leadership positions and promoting international cooperation.

Roger C Altman, “The Fall and Rise of the West: Why America and Europe Will Emerge Stronger from the Financial Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.92, No. 1 (January/February 2013).  Available for purchase at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138463/roger-c-altman/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-west.  Altman cites experiences from previous financial crises to indicate that in many cases a substantial economic and financial restructuring occurred after the crisis that brought new vigour, and he expects this to happen first to the US and then to Europe several years later. 



Strengthen Multilateralism


Mainstream 2: Strengthen Multilateralism

A brief introduction to the second mainstream is available at:

Gary Marks, “European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1966).  Available at: http://www.unc.edu/~gwmarks/assets/doc/marks.hooghe.blank-european%20integration%20from%20the%201980s.%20state-centric%20v.%20multi-level%20governance.pdf.  The author compares the state-centric approach to the multi-level approach using the experiences for the European Union, from the 1980s to the latter part of the 1990s.  Marks concludes that multi-level governance is unlikely to become a stable equilibrium since there is no widely legitimised constitutional framework and little consensus in the goals of European integration. 

Simon Chesterman, “Globalisation Rules: Accountability, Power and the Prospects for Global Administrative Law,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008), pp.39-52.  Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975167.  The author expresses the view that a body of rules, based upon administrative law, is emerging that may both constrain and improve the decisions of the “new global bureaucrats”. 

Nayan Chanda, “Runaway Globalisation Without Governance,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008), pp. 119-125.  Available at: http://www.fairplanet.ca/media/globalization.pdf.  Chandra takes the historical view, with globalisation being “with us since the dawn of history, but the notion of trying to govern the interconnections that it has produced is a more recent phenomenon”.  Governance has thus developed slowly, lagging far behind the trade, travel and interaction wrought by globalisation.  Greater multilaterism through a continued pooling of sovereignty is advocated.

Mark Beeson and Stephen Bell, “The G20 and International Economic Governance: Hegemony, Collectivism or Both,” Global Governance, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (January-March 2009).  Available by subscription at http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/ggov.2009.15.1.67.  The key question examined in the article is whether institutions like the G-20 are likely to provide genuine mechanisms for co-operation and inclusion or simply become instruments of “hegemonic incorporation.”  The argument here is that despite the continuing “structural” dominance of the international system by the United States and the Group of 7 (G7) nations, the G-20 provides some scope for other nations to influence outcomes.

Gelson Fonseca Jr, “Notes on the Evolution of Brazilian Multilateral Diplomacy,” Global Governance, Vol, 17, No. 3, (July-September 2011).  Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Notes-evolution-Brazilian-multilateral-diplomacy/dp/B0076VD3R8.  The author examines the continuities and changes in Brazil’s multilateral attitudes to determine the nature of the influence displayed by Brazil in multilateral forums.

Creon Butler, “The G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth: Glass Half Empty or Half Full”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2012), pp. 469-492.  Available for purchase at: http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/3/469.full.pdf+html.  The author concluded that the framework launched by the G-20 leaders in 2009 to strengthen coordination of national economic policies as the world emerged from the 2008–9 financial crisis, made significant advances in the institutional procedures for policy coordination, including information sharing, analytical tasking, and the development of structured, but more work is needed to deliver the full intentions of the framework.

Neil MacFarquhar, “UN Treaty Aims to Limit Arms Exports for Rights Abusers”, The New York Times, 2 April 2013.  Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all.  The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly “to approve a landmark treaty that tries to regulate the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human-rights records of the buyers. […] It was regarded as a victory by rights groups that called it at least a first step toward limiting commerce in illegal weapons that kill thousands of people

Andrew F Cooper and Bessma Momani, “Re-balancing the G20 from Efficiency to Legitimacy: The 3G Coalition and the Practice of Global Govenance,” Global Governance, Vol. 20, No. 2 (April June 2014), pp. 213-232.  Available for purchase at: http://journals.rienner.com/doi/pdf/10.5555/1075-2846-20.2.213.  An earlier version of the paper is available at: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/Documents/GG-3GandUNupdated.pdf.  This article contributes to the literature on global governance, legitimacy, and small states through a detailed analysis of the Global Governance Group (3G).  It examines in particular the operational impact and wider conceptual implications of the 3G's collective diplomatic efforts on the Group of 20.”

Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, “Why Parties Politicise International Institutions: On Globalised Backlash and Authority Contestation,” Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1275-1312. Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2013.839463#.VQTyzo7QoW8.  It has been generally accepted that international institutions are becoming increasingly politicised and the reason was thought to be mainly the actions of globalisation winners and losers who, in different ways, react to threats or opportunities associated with the institutions.  The author’s research indicates that “yielding sovereignty to international institutions has led political parties to increasingly contest international governance in the arena of electoral politics.”



Coalitions of the Self-Interested


Mainstream 3: Form Coalitions of the Self-Interested

A brief introduction to the third mainstream is available at:

Akira Iriye, “Beyond Imperialism: The New Internationalism,” Daedalus, Vol. 134, No. 2 (Spring 2005), pp. 108-116.  Available at:  http://www.hnn.us/articles/13625.html?page=18.  The author’s conclusion that the emergence of a new empire in the twenty-first century that is able to support the “emergent transnational institutions of global civil society” is unlikely, and that other ways of securing international order are possible, will probably not surprise most readers.  However, the way in which this result is obtained by noting what empires and imperialism have meant in the past may be of interest to many readers.

Seyla Benhabib, “The Legitimacy of Human Rights,” Daedalus, Vol. 137, No. 3 (Summer 2008), p. 94-104.  Available at: http://www.yale.edu/polisci/sbenhabib/papers/The%20Legitimacy%20of%20Human%20Rights.pdf.  The author notes that basic human rights, although they are based on the moral principle of communicative freedom of the person are also legal rights, i.e., rights that require embodiment and instantiation in a specific legal framework.”  However, this close connection between human rights and legal rights is being tested with the obligation to protect since tension between sovereign legal systems and spreading legal cosmopolitanism pushes the issue into “uncharted waters in the international arena,”

Alex J. Bellamy, “Conflict Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008), pp. 135-156.  Available for purchase at: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/glogo14&div=18&id=&page.  A central point in this evaluation of the responsibility to prevent is that it is more likely to become a reality by “cultivating the political will of those like-minded states that have already declared their commitment to the Responsibility to Protect,”

Chester A Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, “Collective Conflict Management: a New Formula for Global Peace and Security Cooperation?” International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 1 (January 2011) pp. 39-58.  Available at: http://www.g-l-f.org/site/global_leadership_foundation/assets/pdf/CROCKER_et_al_-_Collective_Conflict_Management.pdf.  The authors consider current security challenges and identify obstacles to effective global and regional responses and cooperation in an era when security has become increasingly divisible.  They argue that a new pattern of improvised, ad hoc and often case-specific security mechanisms has developed, which they refer to as collective conflict management (CCM).

Marco Antonio Vieira, and Christopher Alden, “India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA): South-South Cooperation and the Paradox of Regional Leadership,” Global Governance, Vol. 17, No. 4 (2011), pp. 507-528.  Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/India,+Brazil,+and+South+Africa+(IBSA)%3A+South+-+South+cooperation+and...-a0277602607.  In this article, the authors argued that the key to building a sustainable partnership between India, Brazil, and South Africa is for these countries to acknowledge the importance of consolidating their leadership role in South Asia, South America, and Southern Africa, respectively.  The paradox, however, is that, while Western powers – especially the United States – have welcomed the regional leadership role of IBSA's members, most of their neighbours have not yet welcomed these leadership intentions in their respective regions. 

Kevin Zeese, “Stop the Fast Track to a Future of Global Corporate Rule,” Eurasia Review, 11 March 2015.  Available at: http://www.eurasiareview.com/11032015-stop-the-fast-track-to-a-future-of-global-corporate-rule-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29.  The author states that “several major international agreements are under negotiation which would greatly empower multinational corporations and the World Economic Forum is promoting a new model of global governance that creates a hybrid government-corporate structure.”



Influence of NGOs and CSOs


Mainstream 4: Increase the Influence of NGOs and CSOs

A brief introduction to the fourth mainstream is available at:

Magadelena Bexell, Jonas Talberg and Anders Uhlin, “Democracy in Global Governance: The Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors,” Global Governance, Vol. 16 (2010), pp. 81-101.  Available at: http://www.statsvet.su.se/publikationer/tallberg/Bexell_et_al_Global_Governance_final.pdf.  The authors find considerable “support for an optimistic verdict on the democratising potential of transnational actor involvement, but also identify hurdles in democratic theory and the practice of global governance that motivate a more cautious outlook”.

Yale H Ferguson, “NGO’s Role in Constructing Global Governance,” Global Governance, Vol. 18 (2012), pp. 383-386.  Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/constructing-governance-Non-Governmental-Organizations-Politics/dp/B00AUCKRVK.  This is a review essay of a book by Peter Willetts, Non-Governmental Organisations in World Politics: The Construction of Global Governance (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011).  Ferguson states that “Willetts has been researching and writing about nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) for over thirty years, beginning long before they became "visible" to most analysts of what was then called "international relations," and his current book is a definitive study in every sense.”  The main contributions of his definitive study are then summarised and briefly analysed by Ferguson.

Catherine Shanahan Renshaw, “National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organisations: New Dynamics of Engagement at Domestic, Regional and International Levels,” Global Governance, Vol. 18 (2012), pp. 299-316.  Available at: http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-301181776/national-human-rights-institutions-and-civil-society or by subscription at http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/1075-2846-18.3.299.  This article examines the dynamics of engagement between national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Asia Pacific region.  It explores the role of CSOs in the establishment of NHRIs and argues that this history is essential to understanding the experience of NHRIs within different states.

Grahame Thompson, “Should We Worry About Global Quasi-Constitutionalisation?” Open Economy, 23 January 2013.  Available at:  http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/dialogues/blogs/should-we-be-worried-about-global-quasi-constitutionalization.  The author suggests that the “rule of law” is changing to the “rule of laws” as a result of a movement toward a comprehensive system of democratically constituted judicial review.

Stefano Pagliari and Kevin L Young, “Leveraged Interests: Financial Industry Power and the Role of Private Sector Coalitions,” Review of International Political Economy,” Vol. 21, No. 3 (2014), pp. 575-610.  Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2013.819811#.VQT4bI7QoW.  Pre-publication draft is available at: http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Leveraged-Interests-November-2011.pdf.  The authors’ research indicates that global financial regulatory politics is more pluralistic than previously believed so that private sector interests can leverage the influence of financial industry groups, “ which are often able to tie in their interests with those of other private sector groups affected indirectly by the regulation in question.

Lisa Kastner, “’Much Ado about Nothing?’ Transnational Civil Society, Consumer Protection and Financial Regulatory Reform,” Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 21, No. 6, (2014), pp. 1313-1345.  Available for purchase subscription at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290.2013.870084?journalCode=rrip20#.VQTuPY7QoW8.  “The author suggests that a trans-nationally connected civil society network successfully mobilised to place consumer protection on reform agendas in tandem with public entrepreneurs and on the back of a popular backlash against big finance.”



Applications of Global Governance


Applications of Global Governance

Olcay Ünver, “Global Governance of Water: A Practitioner’s Perspective,” Global Governance, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2008). pp. 409-417.  Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Global-governance-water-practitioners-perspective/dp/B0023SDD0G.  The author’s views are grouped below around seven topics: the concept of global water governance itself; the levels at which governance can be handled; Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) as a leading paradigm of governance; water rights; accountability and voice; transparency and corruption; and the options of financing governance at national and international scales.

Khalid Koser, “Introduction: International Migration and Global Governance,” Global Governance, Vol. 16, No. 3 (2010), pp. 301-315.  Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-international-migration-Governance-Governance/dp/B004HHH7OE.  This is the introduction to a series of articles in special issue of Global Governance (separate articles are not cited here but the entire series of articles may be purchased).  The main thrust of this attention is to show that there is a growing momentum toward both greater international cooperation between states on international migration and greater institutional coherence.

Matthew Paterson, “Legitimation and Accumulation in Climate Change Governance,” New Political Economy, Vol. 13, No. 3, PP. 345-368 (15 June 2010).  Available for purchase at:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563460903288247#.UYGkSrXviSo.  Paterson examines recent critiques of climate change governance that focus on its “marketised” v. “privatised” character.  He agues that to understand the political dynamics of legitimacy surrounding these forms of governance we need to take into account the recurrent tension within capitalism between accumulation.”

Ann Florini and Benjamin K Sovacool, “Bridging the Gaps in Global Energy Governance,” Global Governance, Vol. 17, No. 1 (January-March 2011), pp. 57-74.  Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bridging+the+gaps+in+global+energy+governance.-a0251460976.  The authors bring out key energy-related global issues and explore some of the connections among them to suggest an agenda for future research.

Pádraig Carmody, Godfrey Hampwaye and Enock Sakala, “Globalisation and the Rise of the State? Chinese Geogovernance in Zambia,” New Political Economy, Vol. 17, No. 2 (April 2011), pp. 209-229. Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2011.552107#preview.  The authors argue against the predominant narrative of globalisation (that it has led to a decline n the power of the nation-state and to an increase in the power of markets), by examining China’s engagement in Zambia and concluding that it has created benerit (enhanced power) for both countries.

Matthew Klick, “Configuring Global Order: Institutions, Processes and Effects,” Global Governance, Vol. 17, No. 4 (October-December 2011), pp. 557-565.  Available for purchase at:  http://www.amazon.com/Configuring-global-order-institutions-Governance/dp/B007Z2UXPI.  This is a review essay based on three books (1) Deborah D. Avant, Martha Finnemore, and Susan K. Sell, eds. Who Governs the Globe? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) : (2) Iver B. Neumann and Ole Jacob Sending, Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010); and Stewart Patrick, Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats and International Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Sten Rynning, “Coalitions, Institutions and Big Tents: The New Strategic Reality of Armed Interventions,” International Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 1 (January 2013), pp. 53-68.  Available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Rynning.pdf.  The author argues that “strategic leadership grows out of the effort to connect the three distinct political arenas that have come to dominate armed interventions: coalitions, institutions and big tent diplomacy” and applies this to an assessment of NATO's experiences in Afghanistan and Libya, and concludes with a more general discussion of the steps that can be taken to encourage strategic leadership.

Bernard Hours, “Sweet Sound of Global Philanthropy,” Le Monde Diplomatique, May 3013.  Available at: Coalitions, Institutions and Big Tents: The New Strategic Reality of Armed Interventions. Available at:  http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/14sup.  The article raises this question in the first paragraph: “what exactly do we mean by solidarity, aid, charity and humanitarian emergency?  Is a vast moral formatting process developing across the world, behind the unending emotional blackmail concerning our indifference to the misfortunes of others?  Since solidarity is presented as a matter of ethics, any criticism is suspect.  Yet the content of the ‘duty to care’ merits examination.”.  In such an examination, the article makes interesting connections among global governance, humanitarian ideology and human rights, and in these connections much of the outcome depends upon who is controlling them.

Eli Dourado, “Too Many Stakeholders Spoil the Soup,” Foreign Policy, 15 May 2013.  Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/15/too_many_stakeholders_spoil_the_soup?page=0,1.  The article concentrates on a major problem with a multi-stakeholder system (or forum) for Internet governance: sovereign states can express opinions and fight for specific governance outcomes, but they cannot use their stakeholdings to force solutions. 

Ngaire Woods, Alexander Betts, Jochen Pranti and Devi Sridhar, “Transforming Global Governance for the 21st Century, “United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper 2013/09.  Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdro_1309_woods.pdf.  This paper examines the transformation of global governance triggered by the rise of the global South.  The authors offer three principles that might guide thinking about transformation: pluralism, where national, regional and Global governance systems work in concert; strengthened multilateral processes and the updating of existing international organisations: and stronger accountability to wider groups of governments and stakeholders.

Comment by Michael C H Jones on global governance is available at: http://www.accci.com.au/JonesCommentonGlobalCompanies.pdf or online translation into Simplified Chinese here.

Malcolm Fraser, “Australia’s Dependence on a Major Power Lies Deep in Our National Psyche,” The Guardian, 29 April 2014.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/australias-dependence-on-a-major-power-lies-deep-in-our-national-psyche.  The former prime minister of Australia states that “in distant days, if Britain went to war, we also were at war.  We have tragically put ourselves in the same position with the United States.”

Christian Caryl, “Africa’s Singapore Dream,” Foreign Policy, 2 April 2005.  Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/02/africas-singapore-dream-rwanda-kagame-lee-kuan-yew/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AAfPak%20Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=2014_The_South_Asia_Daily%2004.03.15.  Why Rwanda’s president styles himself as the heir to Lee Kuan Yew. 

Richard Dobbs, James Manyika and Johathan Woetzel, “The Four Global Forces Breaking All the Trends,” McKenzie Insights, 30 April 2015. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/The_four_global_forces_breaking_all_the_trends?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-1504.  The world economy’s operating system is being rewritten.  In this exclusive excerpt from the new book No Ordinary Disruption, its authors explain the trends reshaping the world and why leaders must adjust to a new reality.”

Editorial, “The Guardian View on Populism in European Politics: Shaken and Stirred,” The Guardian, 17 June 2015.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/16/guardian-view-on-populism-in-european-politics-shaken-and-stirred.  “Populism is presumptuous in claiming to speak for all of the people, but it can’t be wished away.  It calls for creative engagement.”

No author cited, “Advancing, Not Retreating: Buttonwood,” The Economist, 8 August 2015.  Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21660549-forecasts-decline-capitalism-are-premature-advancing-not-retreating.  “Forecasts of the decline of capitalism are premature.”

Julian Borger and Bastien Inzaurralde, “Russian Vetoes Are Putting UN Security Council’s Legitimacy at Risk, Says US,” The Guardian, 23 September 2015.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us.  “Warning over body’s failure to act on Syria and Ukraine comes on top of wider criticism of its structure and the permanent members’ veto rights.

Thomas Carothers and Richard Youngs, “The Complexities of Global Protests,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 8 October 2015.  Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/10/08/complexities-of-global-protests/iint.  It appears that a new era of political flux is emerging as citizens demand more from their governments and mobilise in pursuit of their demands.  Comment by Michael C H Jones at: http://www.accci.com.au/JonesCommentonProtests.pdf.


Change in the World Order of Geopolitics


A Change in the World Order of Geopolitics

Peter Hartcher, “World Giants Flex Their Muscles to Exploit American Weakness,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 April 2014.  Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/world-giants-flex-their-muscles-to-exploit-american-weakness-20140428-zr0uq.html.  Hartcher believes that
the imperial urge was not dead, just dormant.  Two of the great powers are extending their territorial reach by force, and the rest of the world is scrambling to find a way to stop them. 

Jackson Diehl, “Ukraine’s Wake-Up Call for NATO,” The Washington Post, 27 April 2014.  Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-ukraines-wake-up-call-for-nato/2014/04/27/1cb65dbe-ce03-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html.  Diehl emphasises NATO’s complacency and lack of consensus rather than the weakness of US foreign policy. 

Walter Russell, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014 issue at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141211/walter-russell-mead/the-return-of-geopolitics.  Mead attributes the return of the imperial urge to the assault on the global geopolitical system not specifically by Russia and China, but to a web of large and small power plays in what he called an “axis of weevils”.

David Brooks, “Saving the System,” The New York Times, 28 April 2014.  Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/when-wolves-attack.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0.  Brooks suggests that the main reason why the “fabric of peace and order is fraying” is the deterioration of the liberal pluralistic system and this, in turn, is due to the “political fracturing” in those nations that have depended on that system.  Saving the system requires a willingness of the electorate in those nations to accept the required costs and sacrifices.

Slavoj Žižek, “Who Can Control the Post-Superpower Capitalist World Order?” The Guardian, 6 May 2014.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/superpower-capitalist-world-order-ukraine.  The author considers that a “principal contradiction” of the new world order is the impossibility of creating a global political order that would correspond to the global capitalist economy. … [T]he global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing separations in the social sphere.  Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the global market, new walls have begun emerging everywhere, separating peoples and their cultures.  Perhaps the very survival of humanity depends on resolving this tension.

David Brooks, “The Revolt of the Weak,” The New York Times, 1 September 2014.  Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html.  “There has been a norm, developed gradually over the centuries, that politics is not a totalistic spiritual enterprise.  Governments try to deliver order and economic benefits to people, but they do not organise their inner spiritual lives.”  This is precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi groups are trying to destroy.

George Monbiot, “Scots Voting No to Independence Would Be an Astonishing Act of Self-Harm,” The Guardian, 2 September 2014.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland.  Monbiot examines the Scotland-Independence issue from a different perspective – by posing a question from the other way around: “An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union.  It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation.  It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

Larry Elliott, “The Cold War, Catholicism and Modern Capitalism,” The Guardian, 2 November2014.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/02/post-cold-war-capitalism-moral-roots-ancient-places.  Larry expresses the view: “The financial crisis and its aftermath have revealed the dark side of the post-cold war model, but Catholic social teaching proposes correcting the way market forces work so that they serve the public interest.”

Mark Beeson and Fujian LI, “What Consensus?  Geopolitics and Policy Paradigms in China and the United States,” International Affairs, Vol, 91, No. 1 (January 2015), pp. 93-109.  Available for purchase at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inta.2015.91.issue-1/issuetoc.  The authors conclude that “the prospects for some form of continuing, albeit diminished, ‘American hegemony,’ even including elements of the so-called Washington Consensus, may not be as poor as some predict, at least in the immediate future.”

Wolfgang Ischinger, “The World According to Kissinger: How to Defend Global Order,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 94, Issue 2 (March 2015).  Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143062/wolfgang-ischinger/the-world-according-to-kissinger.  The article is a review essay of Henry Kissinger’s new book, World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History (Penguin Press, 2014).  The reviewer concludes that “Kissinger’s book is a gift to all of those who care abut global order and seek to stave off conflict in the twenty-first century.  No one else could have produced this masterpiece.”

Steven Erlanger, “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” The New York Times, 12 September 2015.  Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/sunday-review/are-western-values-losing-their-sway.html?ref=opinion.  The author suggests that the West is suddenly bathed in self-doubt.  “Yet democracies in whatever form seem more capable of coping with shifting pressures than authoritarian governments. History does not move laterally but in many different directions at once.”