The expert conference “New configurations of international order: values, principles, alliances and alignments” was held from 22 to 25 November 2015. The conference was organized in a partnership between “Wilton Park”, the foundation of the British Foreign Ministry, the “Instituto Pandiá Calogeras”, a research institute of the Brazilian Defense Ministry and the Brazil Office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS). The experts invited came from different regions of the world, including Germany, United Kingdom, France, the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, South Africa, Russia and India and work for or are close to governments, universities and the military.

The opening panel was dedicated to the question of how we should describe the current international order. The world order in the international context describes, according to the classic definition of the “Anarchical Society” by Hedley Bull, a formal and informal institutional structure that rules the coexistence of states in an international system. Each of the players, which are usually states, has a role that is determined by its position. All players coexist on a single stage that is characterized by rights and obligations. According to Bull, the following institutions are traditionally responsible for the international order: sovereignty, non-intervention, territorial integrity, balance of power, international law and diplomacy. Furthermore, Bull detects a preeminent role of the great powers, considers war a resource that states can use in the international arena in exceptional situations, and is another characteristic property of the traditional nature of the international order. Since the Cold War, war has become increasingly associated with critical political risk. In the worst-case scenario, any state that decides in favor of war risks becoming a victim of sanctions or incurring intervention by the international community of states. Moreover, war became discredited during the East-West confrontation and even more so, in its aftermath due to the ongoing advance of human rights, which are considered the central key value, that gives structure to any order. Nevertheless, perpetual peace, as foreseen by Kant, is not yet within tangible reach, since this condition depends upon the willingness of the great powers to jointly defend the status quo of any given stable assembling order. In other words, it can be affirmed that global instability and conflicts are the price to pay for a lack of agreement among the great powers about procedures and priorities with regard to global topics such as trade and economy, counter-terrorism, climate change and many other possible examples. At present, conflicts, like those taking their toll in the Middle East, can be understood as the expression of the lack of union among the states, which are important for the system. Peace and stability will only be re-established when the great powers get together and are willing to pull in the same direction.

The debate about the opening speech produced a fragile portrait of the current state of affairs of the order. The participants mentioned groups of states on the stage of world politics following their own selfish objectives irrespective of the wellbeing of others. They stressed that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between governmental and non-governmental players and that there are an increasing number of quasi-governmental players, while traditional states degenerate and become dysfunctional. It was also argued that states have lost their monopoly of power; other actors such as global corporations, super-rich individuals and other stakeholders are now more influential than many recognized states. Interdependence is on the raise at a time when the great powers are losing their customary singular role. After decades of bipolarity, followed by a short period of unipolarity, we are now moving towards an apolar world. On the one hand, the world is becoming more complex, on the other, we notice an erosion of the importance and efficiency of traditional power structures. It is up to us to navigate in this new chaotic order.

The result is a world characterized by conflicts and instability. The ideal of a harmonious world community evoked in the 1990s had to give way to a Neo-Hobbesian order defined by insecurity. Many parts of the world fell prey to war and criminality. A coordinated approach by the international community is not in sight. During the two-day long discussions, the participants debated the consequences and possible responses to this situation. They emphasized that apart from formal institutions, like the UN system, described as the central legal regime for world policies, informal processes have growing significance. These processes are essential for a permanent and flexible adaptation to upcoming challenges. At the same time, the instrument of multilateralism was repeatedly mentioned. States, organizations such as the European Union and groups such as the G20 or BRICS would thus dispose of a tool for ad hoc negotiations about possible new harmonious order configurations. They also mentioned the Ebola crisis in Western Africa as a positive example of international cooperation.

The contributions from the perspective of the BRIC countries – each of which was represented by at least one panelist, made clear that they are not an anti-Western alliance. They seek a restructuring of the status quo towards an order with a more accurate representation of the present balance of power. The involvement of emerging powers, such as the BRIC countries and other states, must improve. Nevertheless, this reform must begin from within. Reflecting on the catastrophe of 1914, when the international community mismanaged the rise of political power in Germany, one speaker from China said that the international community should work on creative solutions that prepare the feasibility conditions for long-lasting peace. At this point, the concept of “harmonious coexistence” which was developed in China was presented.

From a perspective that made a critical ontological and epistemological analysis, the participants concluded that the dialog established in international relations would have limiting effects on the feasibility conditions for a new order. As long as states and corresponding categories maintain an ontological priority in the worldview of diplomacy, and thus one that does not reflect the changed reality, it will be difficult to conceive of an alternative order. Those who speak of a new concept of order must have a suitable terminology, because, as Wittgenstein used to say, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

As expected, the discussion about terminology is anything but easy. Participants from different geographic and/or professional backgrounds have quite diverging definitions of supposedly established words. One of the much-discussed examples was the notion of “Western”. The question whether Brazil should or should not be considered as part of the Western world. One participant even argued that it does not make sense to speak of Western, since the countries one usually thinks of, have very different priorities in world politics. In the ongoing climate negotiations, for example, we cannot speak of a Western view, because the priorities of the US and the EU are simply too far apart. Even more difficult was the debate on classic values such as freedom, equality and security. To what extent do these concepts condition one another? Which one of those values has ontological priority? What does freedom mean without security, or equality without freedom? What must be done in the name of security and from what point do we generate more insecurity in the name of security?

There was agreement among the participants about the need for reforms. The integration of established powers as well as emerging countries in common structures should improve, existing processes should be refined and extended in order to address the new challenges. The UN continues to play a central role as the sole global institution with global legitimacy. Nevertheless, Western participants emphasized that reductions in the area of human rights in exchange for any configurations of order that supposedly promise more stability are unacceptable. One participant closed with the following remarks: historically, any significant new assembling order came into existence due to a system shock, for example if we think of the Thirty-Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, both World Wars and the Cold War. Considering the destructive potential of modern weapon systems, the world today would not withstand such a shock – a new world war between great powers could bring about the end of humankind. Therefore, we hope that the international community is able to agree on a new, sustainable and inclusive order, which can accommodate all states on Earth through negotiations and conferences such as this one.

(Original written in German, translation not by author)