The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism: From International to Global Governing Institutions

  • Antonio Franceschet


As Stanley Hoffmann has claimed, liberal internationalism appears to confront a host of political, intellectual and moral crises at exactly the time when its victory seemed at hand—the post-Cold War era.2 The aim in this chapter is to give an alternative account of the significance of such a crisis. I argue that liberal internationalism’s “failings and limitations,” to use Hoffmann’s phrase, are rooted in the inability of sovereign states and statist intergovernmental institutions to meet the growing demands for global justice. In an era of rapid globalization and change, the excessively formal and state-centric conception of world order that orients today’s international institutions is problematic. This conception of order is premised mainly on a classical Uberai internationalist understanding of justice among states; however, it is one that is unable to address effectively the demands for autonomy and rights made by individuals and groups globally. Consequently, the central goals of liberalism are unmet in today’s world order in part because of the constraints that classical liberal internationalist ideals impose on peaceful change in an era of globalization.


Global Governance World Order Sovereign State International Governance Global Justice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pierre Hassner, “Beyond Nationalism and Internationalism: Ethnicity and World Order,” Survival 35, 2 (1993): 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stanley Hoffmann, “The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism,” Foreign Policy 98 (1995): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    For an example, see the remarks of Canada’s former minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy: “Kosovo and the Human Security Agenda,” Notes for an Address by the Honorable Lloyd Axworthy to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Relations, Princeton University, April 7, 1999, 2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tim Judah, Kosovo: War and Revenge (New York: Yale University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See also Robert O’Brien, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte, and Marc Williams, eds., Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Cf. Unklarer, The Transformation of Community: the Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998), 8.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Jef Huysmans, “Post-Cold War Implosion and Globalisation: Liberalism Running Past Itself?” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 24, 3 (1995): 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 12.
    Antonio Franceschet and David Long, “Taking Liberalism Seriously: Liberal International Theory in an Age of Globalization,” paper presented to the 41st Annual International Studies Association Meetings, Los Angeles, March 14–18, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    Cecelia Lynch, “The Promise and Problems of Internationalism,” Global Governance: a Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 5, 1 (1999): 84.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (Edinburgh: R&R Clark, 1942), 81–112.Google Scholar
  11. 24.
    David A. Welch, Justice and the Genesis of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 29.
    Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. See also Hedley Bull, “The State’s Positive Role in World Affairs” Daedelus 108, 4 (1979): 111–123.Google Scholar
  14. 30.
    Terry Nardin, Law, Morality and the Relations of States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 19.Google Scholar
  15. 32.
    On this theme, see James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds., Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  16. 33.
    Chris Brown, “Review Article: Theories of International Justice,” British Journal of Political Science 27, 2 (1997): 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 46.
    Richard Devetak and Richard Higgott, “Justice Unbound? Globalization, States, and the Transformation of the Social Bond,” International Affairs 75, 3 (1999): 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 47.
    Mark MacKinnon, “Activists study how to stop free trade pact,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), January 27, 2001, A19.Google Scholar
  19. 48.
    See Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization 51, 4 (1997): 513–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 52.
    Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  21. As Robert W. Cox notes, “Internationalization refers to changes affecting states and should be differentiated from globalization, which is a broader concept that refers to the whole range of activities and practices involving state and nonstate actors that tend toward a more integrated global system,” in “An Alternative Approach to Multilateralism in the Twenty First Century,” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 3, 1 (1997): 106.Google Scholar
  22. 53.
    Craig N. Murphy, International Organization and Industrial Change: Global Governance since 1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  23. 54.
    This bias also exists in John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  24. 55.
    See James N. Rosenau, “Towards an Ontology for Global Governance,” in Approaches to Global Governance Theory, ed. Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 281–301Google Scholar
  25. James N. Rosenau, “Governance for the Twenty First Century,” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 1, 1 (1995): 13–43.Google Scholar
  26. 64.
    Craig N. Murphy, “Global Governance: Poorly Done and Poorly Understood,” International Affairs 76, 4 (2000): 780–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 68.
    See for example Michael Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 9, 3 (1980): 209–229Google Scholar
  28. Robert H. Jackson, The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  29. 69.
    See Tom Keating, “The United Nations and NATO’s War: The Fallout from Kosovo,” in Adapting the United Nations to a Postmodern Era: Lessons Learned, ed. W Andy Knight (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001), 178–190.Google Scholar
  30. 70.
    Richard Falk, “The Pursuit of International Justice: Present Dilemmas and an Imagined Future,” Journal of International Affairs 52, 2 (1999): 421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Antonio Franceschet 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franceschet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations