Chapter 12 Review questions

The world today: Is this the best of times or the worst of times, and why?
Ambitions for world order have probably never been higher, but many people feel chaos is in the making. Can things can be both better and bad at the same time? Discuss.
Have the warnings about liberal hubris, made by realists in the 1990s, been vindicated by events in recent decades. Why or why not?
In what ways is the relatively sudden advent of machine-learning techniques and ‘big data’ threatening liberal democracies and liberal world order?
What is the difference between the ‘thin’ and the ‘thick’ conception of world order? How has the concept developed over the past century?
What does the ‘rise of China’ mean for world order? Is Mearsheimer correct to fear ‘China’s unpeaceful rise’? Are we even facing ‘Thucydides’s Trap’? Discuss.
Do you agree that the domestic scene will compel China to look inwards, towards its own problems, for a considerable period of time? Why or why not?
How strong is the ‘Nuclear Taboo’? Do we have reason to fear a nuclear war in the coming decades? Discuss.
Recent scholarship point out that the liberal world order is being attacked both from within (disgruntled voters and social movements) and from the outside (rising authoritarian powers). Which of these threats against liberal world order do you think is the more serious, and why?
Summarize the problem of fragile states. To what extent can this problem be addressed via international intervention and what are the dangers of outside meddling?
Michael Zürn speaks about the existence of a ‘global governance system’. Are international institutions delivering ‘good enough governance’ or are we facing a case of gridlock? Discuss.
To what extent has the Corona pandemic changed international relations? What, if any, are the long-term consequences of the pandemic for world order?
Does climate change present an important challenge for world order? Will it lead to more intense global cooperation or to more global conflict? Discuss.
The chapter concludes that there are no high-profile alternatives to some kind of liberal world order at the present time and that its underpinnings are stronger than pessimists acknowledge. Do you agree? Why or why not?