The world order is one of the most controversial concepts in international politics. Historically, in the world of multiple sovereignties before the commencement of the Cold War, it was the balance-of-power system that brought stability into international politics: i.e., a pattern of relations among states which through shifting alliances and the use of various diplomatic techniques tends to limit the ambitions of the main actors, to preserve a relative equilibrium among them, and to reduce the extent of violence between them.
Yet, now in a globalized world consisting of much more sovereign states than ever before, law scholars tend to ask whether order was possible at all. If so, whether the system was capable of ensuring it; and if not, what kind of measures were necessary to obtain order. Stanley Hoffmann once argued that there are three types of reactions to this scenario: the deniers who question either the possibility or the desirability of a stable legal order; the utopians who also question the effectiveness of the existing system but propose to substitute a radically different one; the adjusters who try to show how and why order can be preserved within the existing system.
Given this, order is achieved only if the following three requirements are met. First, security – it refers to the issue of conflict by assuring the survival and safety of the members of the system. Second, satisfaction – it touches on the issue of how to obtain it through constraint or consent. Third, flexibility – it deals with the problem of change that is crucial by establishing procedures capable of absorbing shocks and of channeling grievances.
US President Trump has cast serious doubts on the future of international order. In recent speeches and UN votes, his administration has sided with Russia which is seen to launch a war of conquest against its peaceful neighbor. His tariff threats even raised questions about longstanding alliances and the future of the global trading system, and his withdrawal from the Paris climate protocol and the WHO has undercut cooperation on transnational threats.
Now the point is that how diplomacy might contribute to international order? First, of all, diplomacy refers to the conduct of each sovereign state with others standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means. This is the widest sense of the term and is what is meant by it here. Second, in terms of the classic diplomacy, it is the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which the relations are adjusted by ambassadors and envoys.
According to Hedley Bull, diplomacy presupposes the existence of an inter-national system, e.g. of two or more states interacting as a set of parts. Thus, the first function of diplomacy is the dialogue between the political leaders of states and other entities in world politics. Without communication there could be no accepted international society, nor any international system at all. Thus, the essential function of diplomatists act fully accredited messengers to perform his role effectively.
A second function of diplomacy is the negotiation of agreements. Without the negotiation of agreements, international relations would be possible but they would consist only of fleeting, hostile encounters between one political community and another. Agreements are possible only if diplomacy can play any role or serve any function in the international system. Yet, diplomacy can play no role where foreign policy is conceived as the enforcement of a claim to universal authority, or as the pursuit of self-regarding interests that take no account of the interests of others.
A third function of diplomacy is the gathering of intelligence or information about foreign countries. Each country’s external policies have to be based on information about developments in the world outside. While each country seeks to deny other countries’ some information about itself, it also wishes to impart some information. Thus, just as old practice, Byzantine practice was at one time to blind fold foreign envoys on their journey to the capital city, and there to incarcerate them in fortresses where they could not learn anything, but also to impress them with displays of military might.
A forth function of diplomacy is minimization of the effects of friction in international relations. Friction is the chafing or rubbing together of things in proximity. Given the juxtaposition of different political communities, each with its own values, preoccupations, prejudices and sensibilities, friction in international relations is always present, even between states and nations that perceive a wide area of common interests and whose relations are close and amicable. Such friction is a constant source of international tension and discord that may be unrelated to the true interests of the parties concerned. Accordingly, to minimize the friction, and to contain its effects where it takes place, is one of the main functions of diplomacy. Given this, diplomacy is defined to have the application of intelligence and tact.
The diplomatist, or at all events the ‘ideal diplomatist’, helps to minimize friction through the conventions he observes in dealing with foreign officials, and also through his influence upon his own state’s policy. In dealing with the representatives of other states, each country observes conventions of language in advancing or defending its own state’s interests. In so doing, diplomacy fulfils the function of symbolizing the existence of the society of states.
In realpolitik, Kissinger once said that any world order bases itself on two interlinked components: a set of commonly accepted rules that define the limits of permissible action and a balance of power that enforces restraint where rules break down since it aims to prevent one political unit from subjugating all others. Similarly, a consensus on the legitimacy of existing arrangements that might not—now or in the past—foreclose competitions or confrontations, but it helps ensure that they will occur as adjustments within the existing order rather than as fundamental challenges to it.
It is self-evident that an international order rests on a stable distribution of power among states; norms that influence and legitimize conduct; and shared institutions. A recent case however has annoyed the world since Trump and Putin try to make a deal to end the war in Ukraine and perhaps further set the global rules without China. Or Trump also makes a deal with Xi as well over the issue in the South China Sea, let alone over Taiwan, to form a new trio-concert in the world.
It unlikely occurs since a given international order is supposed to evolve rather than rushing to a sudden paradigm shift. But if the preeminent power’s domestic politics change too radically, all bets are off.