Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana.
Former Fellow of the London School of Economics and Political Science
The contemporary clash of world powers is being felt in the political, technological, economic, security, legal, human, and cultural spheres. There are crises of world order in all of them. And, at the end of the day, the situation will only be ameliorated through dialogue and negotiations between, especially, the USA and China.
Political World Order: When it comes to political world order, and the structure of international society, the major powers, USA, China, and Russia, have clashing political systems that each is adhering to. China has rule by the Communist Party and is determined to stick to its system and to resist any call for change. The USA and Russia hold periodic elections. In the USA there is alternance of parties in government. In Russia, the governing party has invariably won elections. How does one deal with this situation?
In international law, the principle of self-determination is widely recognized as an imperative norm of international public policy, and it embraces the right of each state to freely choose its political, economic, and social system. The USA advocates the existence of universal values, but China and Russia deny their existence. There is thus a tension here between the right of each country to self-determination, and the right of other countries to call for respect for universal values.
During the first cold war, between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, the former USSR championed the principle of peaceful co-existence. The two camps in the first cold war negotiated and concluded the 1977 Helsinki Final Act which contained principles of peaceful co-existence. It would be timely to consider the need for Helsinki II.
Technology and World Order: When it comes to technology, there is no technological world order: There is acute competition between China and the USA for technological dominance. New technologies hold great promise for the good of humanity, but also pose great dangers, especially in the sphere of digital technology (AI). There is urgent need for a global institution to watch over digital technologies, notably AI. This is an idea receiving much attention at this time.
Economic World Order: When it comes to economic world order, the great Prof. Georg Schwarzenberger, Professor of International Law at London University, wrote a pioneering book in 1970 on Economic World Order. Its conclusions still hold: The primacy of politics over economics applies as much to international society as to national communities in a power-ridden world. No international legal order in the economic field can be stronger than the political order, which conditions it. Customary international economic law on a global level lacks any imperative rules, or rules of jus cogens. Similarly, the multilateral treaties in existence fail to amount to consensual jus cogens. The problem of an international economic world order remains.
The former GATT was based on the principle of the Most-Favoured-Nation trading arrangement: Through treaties, States agreed to accord each other trading arrangements that corresponded to the most-favourable standard agreed with any other country. The WTO, which replaced it, sought to build on the GATT arrangements and brought in a system for the settlement of trade disputes. Both dimensions, negotiations and the settlement of disputes, have broken down. There is urgent need for new initiatives within the WTO but this can only occur with the agreement of the leading powers, especially the USA and China.
Legal World Order: As regards the legal world order, international laws exist on the books, and the foundational laws of the UN Charter were codified in the UN’s 1973 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States. But the rules of international law are being openly flouted or challenged. The International Court of Justice courageously seeks to uphold the law. But international law is operating in a world governed by power, and therein lies the foundational problem.
The UN’s 1973 Declaration codified the legal principle that States have a legal duty to co-operate with one another in accordance with the UN Charter. They have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences.
To this end States are legally required under the UN Charter to co-operate with other States in the maintenance of international peace and security. They must co-operate in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and all forms of religious intolerance. They must conduct their international relations in the economic, social, cultural, technical and trade fields in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention. They must take joint and separate action in co-operation with the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.
How can these rules flourish in the absence of cooperation among the major powers?
Global Security Order: When it comes to the global security order, there is a major crisis. Global security was meant to reside in Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter, which provide for the peaceful settlement of disputes backed up by the authority of the Security Council. But there is currently a breakdown of the Charter’s global security order, with conflicts raging in several parts of the world, and with the Security Council unable to do much more that to hold meetings – when it can. At the end of the day, the security system of the UN Charter will only be resuscitated through understandings among the Permanent, veto-wielding Members of the Security Council, especially China and the USA. There is urgent need for dialogue and negotiation here among the leading powers.
Global Human Order: When it comes to the global human order, there is a deep, deep crisis. Human dignity is under assault world-wide. There are numerous conflicts underway, taking massive tolls on human lives and inflicting unconscionable human suffering. There is widespread poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Gross violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law abound in numerous parts of the world. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights valiantly seeks to uphold fundamental human rights world-wide. But the fissures among leading powers, and their attendant consequences, are making this extremely difficult. There is urgent need to re-establish a global consensus that gross violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law are never acceptable.
Global Cultural Order: Regarding the global cultural order, there is also a crisis. While UNESCO is mandated to play a facilitating role in the preservation of cultures, there is a global clash of cultures with the potential to affect international peace and security. Many local cultures are being challenged by ‘western culture’ and some countries, including China and Russia Iran, and Saudi Arabia are resisting this. The charge is often being heard of cultural imperialism. It is not clear how to deal with this. Culture is self-generating, and people choose their own life-styles. But when life-styles become part of the political argument in the clash of world powers, then the problem becomes one that affects global security.
The way forward: Political groupings of countries such as the G-20 and the BRICS have been endeavouring to contribute to the shaping of the future global order. Brazil has sought to provide leadership in this quest. But, at the end of the day, improvements in the global situation will not come about unless and until the three powers with overwhelmingly destructive arsenals, USA, China, and Russia, especially the first two, are able to reach some understandings through dialogue and negotiations. How to promote such dialogue and negotiations is the pressing challenge of our time.
