The importance of a "law-bound international order" in a multipolar world (no longer "big dog" in a

[pampango]

chaotic world)

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/america-should-be-aware-of-its-own-decline/72549/

The benefits of an international society -- a law-bound international order marked by authoritative institutions and universally recognized traditions -- may not be readily apparent to Americans. After all, systems of laws has little attraction for those with the resources to protect themselves in an anarchical world. But in the multipolar order to come, international society will be far more important to the U.S.

...it is especially important now for Americans to recognize the societal dimension of international life is that America is in decline.

... no matter how strongly the U.S. bounces back, it is a mature economy and unlikely ever to match China's growth rates. China also has a much larger population, so it can overtake the American economy even while its citizens remain much poorer; by some measures, China is already the world's largest economy.

If you're thinking America has previously faced down a peer competitor (the Soviet Union) and won handsomely, keep in mind that China is already a much larger economic force that Soviet Russia ever was, and that China is not done yet. Nor is India, or Indonesia. In fact, the "great convergence" between developed and developing economies is the economic and strategic story of our age.

...international political life has its own laws, institutions, traditions and norms, which can be knitted together into a loose "constitutional" order.

In an environment where one great power is rising and another is in decline (a situation that, historically, almost always creates conflict), such an order will be far more convivial than one marked by a naked contest of power. And given that traditions and institutions, by definition, take generations to establish, the U.S. cannot begin building them soon enough.

It make sense. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and others now benefit from an international society that is not of their own making. FDR and Truman pushed the emergence of "authoritative institutions", like the UN, to develop an "international society"after WWII.

Times have changed. Most of us have grown in an era in which the US was either a "big dog" in a bipolar world or the "big dog" in a unipolar world. We could engage with (or dominate) the rest of the world or we could withdraw (or isolate) ourselves from it. We had the "the resources to protect (ourselves) in an anarchical world", so we could engage or withdraw as we wished. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and others knew they had to engage with the world and have done so successfully.

In light of the coming multipolar world we should promote the development of a "a law-bound international order marked by authoritative institutions and universally recognized traditions". The American penchant for "cowboy" diplomacy (or "cowboy" economics or "cowboy" environmentalism or "cowboy" anything else) will have to yield as it has in other western, prosperous social democracies.

[Hannah Bell]

1. "such an order will be far more convivial" = joke.

[xchrom]

2. I think this century will be high lighted as

The century of uneven application of Law.

A not inconsiderable flaw in the writer's thoughts.