MULTIPOLARITY: THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

In wake of the decline in the United States’ influence throughout the world, it has allowed other world powers to begin to exert their influence. The shifts in power from a unipolar to a multipolar international system will impact international outcomes. This policy brief maintains that liberalism is the best solution for tackling the challenges that emerge from multipolarity.

Liberalism is a set of theories centered on the idea of individual freedom (Doyle, 1983, p.206). For liberals, the international system consists of non-state actors including institutions, and NGOs, among others (Hurrell, 2006, p.3). The core assumption that liberals make about the international system is that it is anarchic, meaning that there is no central authority (Keohane, 1998, p.88). Nonetheless, liberals believe there are opportunities for cooperation because, although states have different goals, they also have common interests (Keohane, 1998, p.88). Cooperation is achievable because of international institutions, economic exchange and interdependence, and democratic regimes (Keohane, 1998, p.82; Doyle, 1983, p.213; Drezner, 2021, p.39).

International institutions are defined as “the rules that govern elements of world politics and the organizations that help implement those rules ” (Keohane, 1998, p.82). Emphasizing the maximization of total gains from cooperation–known as absolute gains–rather than individual gains of a state–referred to as relative gains–liberals claim that interdependency is beneficial for peace and cooperation (Keohane, 1998, p.86, p.88). International institutions, which play a major part in reducing costs and uncertainties through mechanisms such as information sharing when it comes to the signing of agreements, could encourage collective gains among states (Keohane, 1998, p.86).

It is suggested that greater interdependence mitigates the likelihood of state conflict (Doyle, 1983, p.231). Scholars posit that economic exchange and interdependence are interrelated as greater trade and economic ties make states more reliant on each other (Doyle, 1983, p.231). Stronger economic ties result in greater stability as absolute gains, such as economic wealth, emerge from the establishment of stronger bilateral ties between various countries (Hurrell, 2006, p.6). As a result, states are less likely to go to war as they would lose out on the many gains that come with the fostering of their economic ties (Doyle, 1983, p.231). In addition, liberalism assumes that, if citizens of a state are granted fundamental rights, states are free from intervention by others (Doyle, 1983, p.213). As such, leaders ’ interests will significantly vary in democracies versus authoritarian regimes due to differences in the characteristics of the regime type, such as whether the leader ’ s authority is dependent on the consent of citizens or not (Doyle, 1983, p.229). The likelihood that democracies engage in conflict with other democracies is low, while war is possible with other regime types (Doyle, 1983, p.213).

From the perspective of liberalism, the current international order will not be challenged; however, there will be shifts in the political landscape in line with the objective of fostering peace and cooperation in a multipolar world (Hurrell, 2006, p.6). One implication is that there will be an increased need for international institutions because, although these emerging world powers have their own

interests, they will need to simultaneously achieve collective action in an effective manner (Hurrell, 2006, p.6). With the assistance of institutions, the redistribution of power should be relatively peaceful as institutions can help minimize the likelihood of conflicts that may emerge due to varying interests (Hurrell, 2006, p.6). To create stronger ties and facilitate communication between these world powers, institutions play a meaningful role in laying out how states should behave and interact with one another (Hurrell, 2006, p.6; Drezner, 2021, p.11). To facilitate effective collective action among a larger group of actors, institutions need to play a greater role to tackle the degree of complexity and instability that exists with multilateral decision making (Hurrell, 2006, p.7).

Another implication of a multipolar system is that economic integration will experience a boost, multiple powers will seek to further increase their wealth and will thus establish strong relations with other similar states which are vital for state stability (Stephen, 2014, p.924). Cooperation on a global scale is mutually beneficial since transnational production provides economic growth to both states; in other words, absolute gains can be achieved through collective action (Stephen, 2014, p.924). Joint actions lead to an enhancement of long-term trade ties between countries, while bringing down any chances of conflicts (Stephen, 2014, p.924). Economic ties boost bilateral affairs which may prove to be in the interest of keeping the environment safe and conflictfree (Bonciu and Bâlgar, 2016, p.36).

At the same time, the danger of conflicts looms large when democratic and authoritarian regimes are operating at a global level (Doyle, 1983, p.229). Within this context, authoritarian and hybrid regimes, which have their own economic and political interests in mind when it comes to exerting their influence across the world, may turn to conflict as they are not democratic regimes (Doyle, 1983, p.213; Sarty, 2020, p.622). However, this is less likely to lead to war than in a non-liberal international order considering that as authoritarian regimes are gaining mutual benefits from their interdependence and economic ties, engaging in conflict will not be of their best interest (Doyle, 1983, p.231).

Recommendation 1: Strengthening economic ties with emerging powers

In the view of what has already been said, it is essential that Canada take measures that will boost its economic ties with other countries. Under circumstances wherein the United States was the hegemonic power, Canada ’ s foreign ties were mostly confined to the cooperation it engaged in with its southern neighbour (Sarty, 2020, p.625). As liberalism stresses the importance of economic exchange and interdependence, partaking in economic integration is in the best interest of Canada (Doyle, 1983, p.231). In line with its interests, it is important that Canada strengthens its economic ties with other countries as it will translate into “ sustainable economic growth” (Bonciu and Bâlgar, 2016, pp.42, 44; Sarty, 2020, p.625). It is an effective way of working together for absolute gains that reinforces stability since when states are collectively involved in economic activities, it reduces the environmental implications of excessive production and consumption (Bonciu and Bâlgar, 2016, pp.42, 44).

Recommendation 2: Increased reliance on international institutions for accomplishing goals

Canada needs to make the best use of international institutions to achieve its interests through agreements and negotiations with other states (Stephen, 2014, p.915). Given the added complexities that emerge with engaging in multilateral acts of cooperation, with the assistance of international institutions, such as the United Nations, Canada can cooperate with other powers in areas of common importance such as carbon emissions (Hurrell, 2006, p.11). This will allow for the interests of all actors to be heard and it will ensure that they are not undermined by other actors (Hurrell, 2006, p.11). Working with international bodies may also reduce the chances of getting into any conflict with authoritarian regimes that may be involved in any given series of negotiations (Doyle, 1983, p.213; Hurrell, 2006, p.11).

One of the advantages of applying liberalism as a framework is that, ultimately, liberals are not pessimistic of the international system as they focus on facilitating cooperation and reducing conflict (Drezner, 2021, p.36). Liberals believe there is an opportunity for actors to move in the direction of their mutual interests rather than allow their own interests to dominate (Drezner, 2021, p.36). Institutions are advantageous because they ensure that weaker states are not exploited in collective agreements with relatively powerful states through various mechanisms that reduce ambiguity (Hurrell, 2006, p.11). Further, the emphasis on economic interdependence brings forward that, if greater economic integration exists, conflict can be reduced as it decreases the instability of the international system (Stephen, 2014, p.924).

The disadvantage of using liberalism as a framework is its failure to provide an explanation for certain states ’ lack of interest in cooperating with other states (Alcaro, 2018, p.154). As states are concerned with whether these

“ governance arrangements protect their security and economic potential” , their selfinterest can outweigh their contribution to collective action (Alcaro, 2018, p.154); in fact, certain states may view cooperation not as something beneficial, but rather, as something dangerous to them (Drezner, 2021, p.36). By focusing on absolute gains, liberals do not fully recognize the role of relative gains in undermining adequate action and cooperation by actors on global challenges such as climate change (Alcaro, 2018, p.153). As such, they do not acknowledge that conflicting interests of some states will mean prioritizing their survival over all other collective benefits (Drezner, 2021, p.24). In short, liberals, unlike realists, do not view the world as “today ’ s friend may be tomorrow ’ s enemy in war ” which results in underestimating the likelihood of conflict (Drezner, 2021, p.36).

Despite the many challenges that may be associated with multilateral acts of cooperation, a framework rooted in liberalism allows thinking beyond such obstacles in the direction of maximizing cooperation and minimizing conflicts. With this in mind, Canadian foreign policy can be improved through the aforementioned recommendations grounded in liberalism.

Alcaro, Riccardo. (2018). “Contestation and Transformation. Final Thoughts on the Liberal International Order. ” The

International Spectator 53, no.1: 152–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1429533.

Bonciu, Florin and Ana-Cristina Bâlgar. (2016). “Sharing Economy as a Contributor to Sustainable Growth. An EU

Perspective. ” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 16, no.2: 36–45.

Doyle, Michael. (1983). “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, ” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, no.3: 205-235.

Drezner, Daniel. (2021). “Power and International Relations: a Temporal View.

” European Journal of International Relations 27, no.1: 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120969800.

Hurrell, Andrew. (2006). Hegemony, liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers? International Affairs (London) 82, no.1: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2346.2006.00512.x

Keohane, Robert. (1998). “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110, no.110: 82-96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149278.

Sarty, Leigh. (2020). “The Fragile Authoritarians: China, Russia, and Canadian Foreign Policy.

” International Journal (Toronto) 75, no.4: 614–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702020968941.

Stephen, Matthew. (2014).

“Rising Powers, Global Capitalism and Liberal Global Governance: A Historical Materialist Account of the BRICs Challenge. ” European Journal of International Relations 20, no.4: 912–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114523655.