This book asks if it is time to "reboot" the fundamental institutions of global international society. The volume revisits Hedley Bull's seminal contribution The Anarchical Society by exploring the interconnected nature of change, contestation and resilience for maintaining order in today's uncertain and complex environment. The volume adds to Bull's theorizing by recognizing that order demands change, that contestation should be welcomed, and that resilience is anchored in local and agent-led forms of ordering. The contributors to Part One of the book focus on theoretical and conceptual issues related to order in the global international society, whilst the contributors to Part Two of the book focus on the primary institutions as listed by Hedley Bull with the addition of a chapter on the market adding a distinctive commentary on new and important dynamics of change, contestation and resilience of the existing institutions.

This book explores the concept and practice of resilience that has generated much debate among both scholars and practitioners. The contributions propose a new understanding of resilience, both as a quality and a way of thinking, taking it to the level of ‘the person’ and ‘the local’, to argue that a more sustainable way to govern the world today is bottom-up and inside-out. While carrying a seemingly unifying message of self-reliance, adaptation and survival in the face of adversity, resilience curiously continues to appear as ‘all things to all people’, making it hard for the EU and international institutions to make full use of its arresting potential. Engendering resilience today, in the highly volatile and uncertain world hit by crises, pandemic and diminishing control, becomes a priority as never before. This book develops a more comprehensive view of resilience by looking at it both as a quality of the system and a way of thinking inherent to ‘the local’ that cannot be engineered from the outside. It is argued in this volume that in some cases the level of ‘the person’, especially the person’s sense of what constitutes a ‘good life’, may be the most appropriate focus for understanding change and strategic adaptation in response to it. This understanding widens the scope of discussion from what makes an entity, system or person more adaptable, to how one can best govern today to establish a stable equilibrium between the global and the local, the external and the internal, and become more responsive to the challenges and changes of today’s highly uncertain world. The chapters in this book were originally published in the journal Contemporary Security Policy.

This book explores the concept and practice of resilience that has generated much debate among both scholars and practitioners. The contributions propose a new understanding of resilience, both as a quality and a way of thinking, taking it to the level of 'the person' and 'the local', to argue that a more sustainable way to govern the world today is bottom-up and inside-out. While carrying a seemingly unifying message of self-reliance, adaptation and survival in the face of adversity, resilience curiously continues to appear as 'all things to all people', making it hard for the EU and international institutions to make full use of its arresting potential. Engendering resilience today, in the highly volatile and uncertain world hit by crises, pandemic and diminishing control, becomes a priority as never before. This book develops a more comprehensive view of resilience by looking at it both as a quality of the system and a way of thinking inherent to 'the local' that cannot be engineered from the outside. It is argued in this volume that in some cases the level of 'the person', especially the person's sense of what constitutes a 'good life', may be the most appropriate focus for understanding change and strategic adaptation in response to it. This understanding widens the scope of discussion from what makes an entity, system or person more adaptable, to how one can best govern today to establish a stable equilibrium between the global and the local, the external and the internal, and become more responsive to the challenges and changes of today's highly uncertain world. The chapters in this book were originally published in the journal Contemporary Security Policy.

From Vision to Reality takes the reader past the fixation with political decision-making by focusing on the process of implementation that follows important policy decisions. The book identifies the intentions behind a collection of key policy decisions for establishing Europe's new security order and investigates whether the implementation of thos

From Vision to Reality takes the reader past the fixation with political decision-making by focusing on the process of implementation that follows important policy decisions. The book identifies the intentions behind a collection of key policy decisions for establishing Europe's new security order and investigates whether the implementation of those and subsequent decisions has resulted in the intended policy outcome.

This book offers a reality check of U.S. global power.The essays in this volume argue that the Bush Doctrine, as outlined in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, squandered enormous military and economic resources, diminished American power, and undermined America's moral reputation as a defender of democratic values and human rights. The Bush Doctrine misguidedly assumed that the United States was a superpower, a unique unipolar power that could compel others to accede to its preferences for world order. In reality the United States is a formidable but besieged global power, one of a handful of nations that could influence but certainly not dictate world events. The flawed doctrine has led to failed policies that extend America's reach beyond its grasp, most painfully evident in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Leading scholars and policy analysts from nine countries assess the impact of the Bush Doctrine on world order, explain how the United States reached its current low standing internationally, and propose ways that the country can repair the untold damage wrought by ill-conceived and incompetently executed security and foreign policies. The contributors focus on the principal regions of the world where they have expertise: Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia.The contributors agree that future security and foreign policies must be informed by the limitations of U.S. economic, cultural, and military power to shape world order to reflect American interests and values. American power and influence will increase only when the United States binds itself to moral norms, legal strictures, and political accords in cooperation with other like-minded states and peoples.

"European Security after Iraq" examines the impact of the'second' Gulf War on European politics. It explores key questions about the impact of the conflict on national, European and transatlantic politics such as the extent to which the war has created new cleavages between the foreign and security policies of European states or merely confirmed existing ones. Its national focus is on states on both the so-called 'old' and 'new' Europe (a classification the book, in fact, calls into question). Important issues around the instiutional architecture of European security before and after the war are also discussed. The book's nine chapters deal with background issues, such as the place of the war in the broader discourse of European security, institutional analyses of NATO and the EU, and area studies of France, the Balkans, eastern Europe and Turkey. It will be of particular use in upper level undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses on contemporary Europe, transatlantic relations and international security.

Liberal World Order is seen by many as either a fading international order in response to declining American hegemony, or as a failing international order riddled with internal tensions and contradictions. Either way, liberal world order is assumed to be in crisis. The contributors to Liberal World Orders do not reject the argument that liberal order is in crisis. Instead they contend that the crisis is primarily one of authority. This has been compounded by the relative lack of historical context supplied by liberal theorists of 'the international'. By not looking further than the 20th century, the field has ignored moments when similar tensions and contradictions have been evident. The authors question the way in which the debate about liberalism has been conducted. Against the theoreticians it is proposed that liberalism has suffered from being too closely tied to the quest for scientific authenticity, resulting in a theoretical perspective with little or no commitment to political values and political vision. By reformulating the classical liberalism of Kant, Paine, and Mill into neo-liberalism, liberalism lost its critical and normative potential. Against the policy-makers it is proposed that the practices of liberal ordering are resilient enough to prove durable despite the relative decline in the power and authority of liberal states. Just as cooperative practices between states predated liberalism, aspects of world order today which evolved during the high point of liberal internationalism may succeed in outliving liberalism.