Scenarios for the future of international order based on the structure and strategy of the actors

پژوهش نامه ایرانی سیاست بین الملل

Article 23, Volume 12, Issue 1 - Serial Number 23, November 2023, Pages 585-625   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/irlip.2023.76623.1280

Authors

Ayob nikunahad¹; Zahed Ghaffari Hashjin^{* 2}; Abdoreza Beiginia³

¹phd of political science, assistant professor of Khatam al-Anbia Air Defense University, Tehran, Iran

²Professor, Department of Political Science, Shahed University of Tehran (Corresponding Author)

³Associate Professor and Faculty Member of Shahed University of Tehran

Abstract

World politics has entered a new phase of its life after the collapse of the bipolar system. Due to the complexity and increasing uncertainties of the international environment, the failure of unilateralism and the relative decline of hegemony, diversity in formal and informal actors, theoretical, conceptual and semantic differences in international relations and the emergence of emerging powers have added to the chaos of this environment. Contemplation of what the future of international order will look like after the transition period and what place countries and emerging powers will have in it is one of the most important theoretical issues and debates among scholars and politicians. All countries want to achieve a more desirable position and a greater share to play a role in the future of the international system. The present study seeks to answer the question that based on the perspectives and narratives about the future of world order and based on the convergence and divergence between the emerging and traditional powers of the international system, which disciplines will be more desirable in the future of the international system, and what are the preferred scenarios for the future of the international order?
The research has a futures research approach using the analysis of the structure and strategy of the actors and the data analysis has been done through the Maker software. The statistical population of the study includes 25 university experts who have been selected by purposive non-random sampling.
The research findings indicate that although the future of international order is ambiguous due to the complexity and fluidity of the environment and numerous uncertainties, based on the activism of emerging powers in interacting and competing with traditional powers, the tendency of the actors indicates the emergence of a multipolar, multicenter system and world regions more than other perspectives.

Keywords

transition period; international order; emerging powers; interests and strategies of actors; screenwriting

References

Asadi, A. (2014). Applied Theories in Predicting the Future. Futurology from Theory to
Application: Exploration of Methods. Compiled by Ebrahim Hajiani, Tehran: Institute of
Humanities and Social Studies, University Jihad. [In Persian].
Bendahan, S. & Giovanni, C. (2003), Multi-Issue Actor Analysis: Tools and Models for
Assessing Technology Environments. Journal of Decision Systems, 12(4).
Burchill, S. (2005). The National Interest in International Relations Theory. New York:
Plagrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. & Lawson, G. ( 2013 ). The Global Transformation : The Nineteenth Century
and the Making of Modern International Relations. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press .
Ghasemi, F. (2020). Theory of Complexity-Chaos and War in International Relations.
Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian].
Ghavam, S.A.A., Bahrami, S. (2020). Global Governance from Theory to Practice: The
New Global Governance of New Governments and Governing Institutions in the Central
Building. Tehran: Center for Political Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [In Persian].
Glenn, J. C., Gordon, T. (2015), Futurology Reference. Translated by Abuzar Seifi
Kalestan, Tehran: Farhikhtegan Publications, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences.
Godet, M., & Durance, P. (2011). Strategic Foresight for Corporate and Regional
Development. DUNOD–UNESCO–Fondation Prospective et Innovation, Paris. Udwadia,
F. E. and Trifunac, M. D., (1973), .Ambient Vibration Test of Full Scale Structures,” Proc.
of the 5th World Conf. On Earthquake Engineering, Rome, pp 69-74.
Godet, M. (2006). Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool.
Translated by Adam Gerber and Kathryn Radford, London: Economica Ltd
Hassanvand, M, Esfandiari, M. (2018), New World Order and Transformation in the New
Regionalism. Foreign Relations Quarterly, 10(40). [In Persian].
Hurrell, A. (2006). Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be
Great Powers?. International Affairs, 82, 1.
Hurrell, A. (2007). One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of
International Society. International Affairs, 83, 1.
Hutchings, K. (2010). Global Ethics: An Introduction. London: Polity Press.
Ilgen, T. L., (2003). Reconfigured Sovereignty: Multi-Layered Governance in the Global Age. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Jarvis, R., Badie, B., Waltz, K. and others (2020). The Next Western World? Unilateralism,
Multilateralism and the Future of the World Order. Translated by Ali Ismaili Ardakani
et.al., Abrar Contemporary Institute, Tehran. [In Persian].
Judt, T. (2005). Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. New York: Penguin Books.
Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one's World: The West, the Rising West and the Coming Global
Turn. Oxford University Press, p.184.
Luttwak, E. (1990). From Geopolitics to Geoeconomics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of
Commerce'. The National Interest, 20, 17-23.
Hall, M., & Thaddeus Jackson, P. (2007). Civilizational Identity: The Production and
Reproduction of "Civilizations" in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nolte, D. (2010). How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research
Topics. Review of International Studies, 36.
Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth.
International Organization, Vol. 55: 2.
Rosenberg, J. (2005). Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem. International Politics,
Volume 42, 2-74.
Shaw, M. T., Cooper, A.F. & Antkiewicz, A. (2007). Globaland/or Regional Development
at the Start of the 21st Century? China, India and (South) Africa. Third World Quarterly,
28, 7.
Sheihan, Michael (2009). International Security. Translated by Seyed Jalal Dehghani
Firoozabadi. Published by the Research Institute for Strategic Studies. In Persian.
Smith, S. (2000) The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social
Science?. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3) 374-402.
Soleimanpour, H. & Molaei, E. (2013). Emerging Powers in the Past of the International
System. Quarterly Journal of Foreign Relations, 4(1). [In Persian].
Tabatabai, M. & Bahrami, Z. (1397), Continuation of the Era in the International System.
Foreign Policy Quarterly, 22(2). [In Persian].
Tickner, A.B. and Wever, O. (2009). International Relations Scholarship around the
World, London: Routledgc.
Wallerstein, I. (2007). Precipitate Decline: The Advent of Multipolarity. Harvard
International Review, 29(1), 50-56.
Walt, S. M. (2011). The End of the American Era. The National Interest, (116), 6-16.
Weber, S., et.al. (2007). A World Without the West. The National Interest, July/August
2007, pp. 23-30.
Weiss, Th. G. (2009). What Happened to the Idea of World Government?. International
Studies Quarterly, 53.2, 253-271.
Wolf, M. (2001). Will the Nation State Survive Globalization?. Foreign Affairs, 80/1, 187-
190.
Zakaria, F. (2014). The Post-American World. Translated by Ahmad Azizi. Tehran: Hermes
Publishing. [In Persian].
Zarif, M. J., Sajjadpour, S.K. & Molaei, E. (2017). The Transition of International Ielations
in the Post-Western World, Tehran: Center for Political and International Studies. [In
Persian].