Introduction to Part III

  • Takashi Inoguchi
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
Part of the Trust book series (TRUST, volume 3)


In this Part III, we attempt to locate the previous two Parts, i.e., Part I: Global Social Contract and Part II: Global Quasi-Legislative Behavior, in the broader context of global politics, focusing on the post-Cold period of Thirty Years Crisis (1989–2019). Chapter 10 presents three paradigms of post-Westphalian politics, Westphalian, Philadelphian and Anti-Utopian, whose core concept is sovereignty, whether it is state sovereignty, popular sovereignty or the loss of sovereignty. This chapter gives the basis for our comparison of three post-Cold War global politics in Chap. 11 (Theory of Power Transition), Chap. 12 (Theory of Civilizational Clash), and Chap. 13 (Theory of Global Legislative Politics). Contrasting the three theories shows that whereas the theory of power transition underestimates vulnerability when hegemons’ mishaps and mistakes of exercising power over those oppressed and marginalized by merely increasing the potentials of imploding and exploding (McNeill and Carrol) and whereas the theory of civilizational clash underestimates the subtlety and complexity of culture which needs apt taxonomical minds (Foucault) and subtle and even cynical handling (Bagehot), the theory of global legislative politics presents the theory that astutely captures the essentials of the ongoing global politics by conceptualizing it as a bundle of global quasi-social contracts under digitalized globalization.


  1. Bremmer, I. (2013). Every nation for itself: Winners and losers in a G-zero world. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
  2. Collet, C., & Inoguchi, T. (2010). Is globalization undermining civilizational identities? A test of Huntington’s core state hypothesis among the public of greater Asian and Pacific. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 13(4), 553–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fettweis, C. (2018). Psychology of a superpower: Security and dominance in U.S. foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of human sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  5. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Funabashi, Y. (2019). Think Tank towa nanika-Seisakukigyouryoku no jidai [what is think tank – The era of policy entrepreneurship]. Tokyo: Chuokoronshinsha.Google Scholar
  7. Gilpin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goldsmith, J., & Posner, E. (2007). The limits of international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hale, T., & Held, D. (2017). Beyond gridlock. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Howard, P. (2015). Pax Technica: How the internet of things may set US free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Huntington, S. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Inoguchi, T. (2010). World order debates in the twentieth century: Through the eyes of the two-level game and second image (reversed). Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(2), 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Court of Justice. (2018). Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. Available from Accessed 1 June 2018.
  14. Kissinger, H. (1985). Observations: Selected speeches and essays, 1982–1984. London: Michael Joseph and Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  15. Kupchan, C. (2013). No one’s world: The west, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. McNeill, W., & Kindleberger, C. (1989). Control and catastrophe in human affairs. Daedalus, 118(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Pinker, S. (2012). The better angles of our nature: Why violence has declined (reprinted ed.). New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  19. Roberts, A. (2010). An ‘incredibly swift transition’: Reflections on the end of the cold war. In M. P. Leffler & O. A. Westad (Eds.), The Cambridge history of the cold war (Vol. III, pp. 513–534). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. The Economist Corporate Network Asia. (2018). Digital Asia: Asia’s digitally transforming economies. London: The Economist.Google Scholar
  21. Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Inoguchi
    • 1
  • Lien Thi Quynh Le
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Asian CulturesJ.F. Oberlin UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.College of EconomicsHue UniversityHueVietnam

Personalised recommendations