The international order is on the verge of transformations that will affect the distribution of power, the rules of interaction, and the role played by various actors. Under these circumstances, states fall into three categories: Order Shapers, Order Challengers, and Order Accepters. A fundamental transformation of the order depends not only on deconstructing its existing foundations but also on the ability to establish a sustainable alternative. This is a strategic issue in determining Iran’s position in the new global order.
Iran View 24 – Editor’s Note
The international order and the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran within it constitute fundamental and strategic issues in foreign policy. Historical developments, world wars, changes in the distribution of power, and technological and social transformations have reshaped the structure of international relations. Today, too, numerous signs point to changes in the global order. The central issue, beyond understanding these developments, is how countries can play a role in shaping the new order.
State actors are divided into three categories based on their relationship with the international order and their interests: Order Shapers, Order Challengers, and Order Accepters. Order Shapers seek to establish and maintain the existing order; Order Challengers challenge its rules and values; and Order Accepters operate within the framework of the existing order. Critics, meanwhile, accept the fundamental principles of the order but seek to reform some of its rules and practices.
A fundamental transformation of the order becomes possible when Order Challengers, in addition to deconstructing the existing order, possess sufficient capacity to resist the powers that uphold it and to establish alternative values, rules, and institutions. Therefore, the strategic issue for the Islamic Republic of Iran is to understand the conditions of transition and determine the most effective way to play a role in the new global order.
1. The Nature of the International Order
The international order is a set of mechanisms, institutions, laws, and rules that regulate interactions among states, prevent tensions and conflicts or manage them, and provide procedures for addressing crises, peacebuilding, and reconstructing international relations. These mechanisms take shape at the regional or global level and depend on the will, capabilities, and role of major and regional powers.
The international order has two principal functions:
- Managing relations among states: Regulating interactions, controlling tensions, and managing conflicts between states.
- Managing the conduct of smaller states by major powers: Guiding the behavior of other actors through rules, institutions, and mechanisms agreed upon by the principal powers.
The international order is not merely a collection of rules independent of power; rather, it rests on the values, norms, and interests of the powers that shape it. The greater the agreement among major powers on these principles, the broader the acceptance of the order, and the more states will be persuaded or compelled to comply with it.
In international relations studies, the complexity and fluidity of global developments make the use of a single theory insufficient to explain all phenomena. Consequently, the application of different theories, based on their ability to describe, explain, and predict realities, has expanded. This approach reinforces a form of theoretical pragmatism that enhances the application of international relations knowledge in policymaking and statecraft, although it may reduce scientific neutrality and value-free theorizing.
2. Types of Actors in the International Order
A) Order Shapers
Order Shapers are major powers and superpowers that establish international rules, norms, and institutions and bear the primary responsibility for supporting, maintaining, managing, and restoring the order. By employing their power and capabilities, these actors shape the framework of international interactions and seek to ensure the continuity of the rules they favor.
The role of Order Shapers is not limited to establishing the order; it also encompasses preserving it in the face of crises and new developments. Their ability to manage international relations, maintain agreement among major powers, and adapt rules to new circumstances has a direct impact on the continuity of the order.
B) Order Challengers
Order Challengers are major or regional powers that challenge the values, rules, and mechanisms of the existing order and seek to revise it. The activities of these actors include revisionism, deconstruction, practical opposition, and the creation of parallel and competing rules and institutions.
Challenging the existing order generally triggers structural pressures from the powers that shape it and may deprive the challenging actor of the benefits of the order and limit its ability to act. The powers that uphold the order may also resort to coercion to impose existing rules and practices.
The outcome of challenging the order depends on the strength of the challenging actor. If this actor possesses the capacity to deconstruct the existing order and resist pressure from the powers that shape it, three possible situations may emerge: a compromise by major powers with the Order Challenger, accompanied by an increase in its influence; an alliance among the powers that uphold the order to weaken the Order Challenger; or the creation of parallel rules and institutions to establish an alternative order.
Therefore, challenging the order alone is insufficient to change it. The ability to resist and the capacity to create an alternative are essential conditions for Order Challengers to influence the international structure.
C) Order Accepters
Order Accepters are states that recognize the rules and mechanisms of the existing order and operate within its framework. This group may include major powers, regional powers, and smaller states.
Acceptance of the order makes it possible to benefit from its advantages, cooperate with the powers that shape it, and participate in international institutions and mechanisms. By complying with existing rules, Order Accepters gain the opportunity to act within the order and may benefit from the support of the powers that shape it.
D) Critics and Reformers of the Order
Critics are a group of Order Accepters who recognize the fundamental principles of the order but seek to reform some of its secondary rules and practices. Their objective is not to change the entire order, but rather to reform existing mechanisms through interaction with the powers that shape it and to adapt the rules to new circumstances.
Acceptance of criticism by the Order Shapers may lead to the reform and evolution of the order. Conversely, ignoring criticism may turn critics into Order Challengers or dissatisfied and neutral actors.
Consequently, the nature of actors’ relationship with the order depends on their interests, level of power, degree of acceptance of its rules, and the way the Order Shapers respond to challenges and criticism.
3. Change in the International Order
Change in the order emerges from interactions among its Order Shapers, critics, and Order Challengers and can lead to two different paths.
The evolution of the existing order occurs when the Order Shapers reach a compromise with Order Challengers and reform rules and norms in accordance with new circumstances. In this situation, the fundamental values of the order are preserved, while some practices and arrangements change.
A fundamental transformation of the order becomes possible when Order Challengers possess sufficient power to deconstruct the existing order and establish alternative values, rules, and institutions. In this situation, change is not limited to the reform of existing rules but may transform the fundamental structure and mechanisms of the order.
Therefore, the main difference between the evolution of an order and its fundamental transformation lies in the extent to which existing principles and rules continue, and in the ability of Order Challengers to establish an alternative order.
4. Three Components and Three Types of Change in the Order
Every international order consists of three fundamental components:
First, the actors or order-forming units: This component concerns the types of actors that create and administer the order. Change in this area may lead to a transition from a state-centered order to a company-centered or individual-centered order. In the international order, states are the principal actors, whereas in a market-based order, companies play the central role.
Second, the distribution of power among actors: This component refers to how capabilities are distributed among the principal powers. Changes in the distribution of power may lead to a transition from a unipolar system to a bipolar or multipolar one, the weakening of one pole, or the emergence of a new power.
Third, the fundamental rules governing interaction among units: This component concerns the principles governing relations among actors. These rules may be anarchic, hierarchical, heteronomic, or network-based. The international system is an example of an anarchic order, domestic politics is an example of a hierarchical order, and cyberspace is an example of a network-based order.
Based on these three components, three types of transition in the order take shape: a transition based on changes in actors, a transition based on changes in the distribution of power, and a transition based on changes in the rules of interaction. These changes may occur independently or simultaneously and may vary in intensity and scope.
5. Characteristics of International Transition
Transitions in the international order are examined according to two criteria: time and the manner in which they occur. In terms of time, a transition may be gradual or sudden, while in terms of its manner of occurrence, it may be violent or peaceful.
The First and Second World Wars are examples of sudden and violent transitions, whereas the collapse of the Soviet Union is an example of a sudden transition involving less violence.
Nevertheless, fundamental changes generally take shape over the long term and may become apparent following major events, particularly wars between powers that uphold the status quo and revisionist powers. Therefore, many developments initially emerge as gradual changes in power, technology, and the ways in which actors interact, and may subsequently lead to broader transformations.
6. Contemporary Developments and Changes in the Global Order
Over the past two decades, the world has witnessed significant developments in all three components of the order: actors, the distribution of power, and the rules of interaction. However, the consequences of these developments differ between the physical world and cyberspace.
In the physical world, the potential emergence of China as a major power is an example of a gradual change in the distribution of power. This development may lead to two outcomes:
- A compromise between the Order Shapers and emerging powers, resulting in the evolution of the existing order while its fundamental values and rules remain intact.
- Confrontation between the Order Shapers and Order Challengers, the weakening of former powers, and the gradual replacement of existing powers by new ones in determining international values and norms.
Accordingly, a change in the distribution of power does not necessarily mean a fundamental transformation of the order. The dominant powers may change while the fundamental rules and values of the order remain intact. Consequently, in the physical world, at least within the two-decade horizon discussed in this article, the evolution of the existing order or the gradual replacement of dominant powers is considered more likely than the realization of a definitive and fundamental transformation of the entire order.
By contrast, cyberspace has provided the conditions for more fundamental changes. This domain has created opportunities for individuals, companies, and virtual actors to exercise agency and project power, thereby reducing the role of states as the exclusive actors in shaping the order.
Furthermore, the rules of interaction in cyberspace have a network-based structure and differ from the anarchic rules of the international system. Therefore, all three components of the order in this domain—the types of actors, the distribution of power, and the rules of interaction—have undergone transformation.
The growing influence of cyberspace on politics and governance in the physical world may also provide the conditions for transferring some of these changes to the international order.
7. Indicators of Transition in the International Order
The experience of the past three centuries identifies five categories of developments as common indicators of transition in the international order:
- The occurrence of war: The Napoleonic Wars and the Second World War are examples of wars that changed the structure of power and the international order.
- Geopolitical changes: Changes in the position of important regions of the world, including Europe and the Middle East following the world wars, may indicate transformations in the order.
- Domestic political changes in major powers: Regime change in Tsarist Russia and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire are examples of developments with international consequences.
- Technological developments: The Industrial Revolution and the Cyber Revolution have changed the methods of production, communication, interaction, and power projection by actors.
- Extensive social developments: Changes in lifestyles and the expansion of global social movements, including feminism, may influence international values and norms.
The presence of these indicators in the contemporary world demonstrates the need for a closer examination of developments and their consequences. However, their existence alone is insufficient to establish that a fundamental transformation of the order has taken place. Analyzing the connections between events and examining their actual effects are necessary to identify the nature of the transition.
Conclusion: Iran’s Position in the New Global Order
Drawing inspiration from Nicholas Onuf and his critics, one may argue that playing a role in the order and constructing or deconstructing its material and ideational mechanisms is an art. We are now in the early stages of another process of order-making in modern history, and, as the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution has stated, “A new order is in the process of gestation.”
The two strategic questions before us are: “How should the Iranian individual play an artistic role in the material and ideational creation of the new global order?” This question, in fact, stems from the strategic question raised by the martyred Leader of the Revolution concerning “the position of the Islamic Republic in the new order,” “Iran’s role in the new order,” and “the responsibilities of Iranians” under conditions of transition.
In light of the theoretical discussions presented in this article, one can reflect on possible answers to these questions. However, before considering the answers, it is necessary to examine a theoretical assumption in the perspective of the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader’s speech acts indicate that he has observed the signs of change and considers it inevitable. Existing theoretical frameworks in the field of international relations confirm the “reality of international transition.” However, as can also be understood from the questions raised by the martyred Leader of the Revolution, recognizing this reality is not important in and of itself. What holds strategic importance for Iranians is understanding the nature of, and how to play a role under, the “conditions of transition.”
First, Iranians in the fifteenth century of the Solar Hijri calendar must understand that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a nation-state, has played an effective and meaningful role as an Order Challenger in shaping this transition, whether it is an actor-centered transition or one based on the distribution of power. Over the past four decades, Iran has been one of the driving forces behind the practical and discursive deconstruction of the existing order at the regional level and, at times, at the global level.
The second point for the Iranian individual, which in a way provides the general framework for answering the questions above, is understanding the fact that deconstruction aimed at changing or reforming the existing order and bringing about a transition cannot create the possibility of effective agency during the “transition itself” and the “post-transition” period unless it is transformed into meaningful participation in the transition process.
Iran, like any other country opposed to the existing order, has two choices if it wishes to benefit from the advantages of the order that emerges or evolves after the transition and to be recognized as a legitimate actor: playing a constructive role in the post-transition order or becoming an actor that accepts the post-transition order. Continuing to play the role of an Order Challenger to the institutionalized order will result in structural pressures from the Order Shapers and Order Accepters of the post-transition order.
The third observed point is monitoring and correctly understanding the material and ideational trends in the world. As the martyred Leader of the Revolution also emphasized, “A new situation is taking shape, although it has not yet fully taken shape.” What should we do here? In our view, two points are important. The first is that the realities we observe today must not be analyzed in reverse, analyzed incorrectly, or misunderstood; they must be understood as they actually are.
