How can things so old be so new? The revival of debates on the fate of the liberal international order has reproduced discussions about what arguably are philosophical and theoretical tensions that have existed for a very long time. Taking a point of departure in Reinhart Koselleck’s Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, this thesis aims to contribute with an understanding of how the contemporary crisis can be understood in the context of deep historical tensions, and the implications for the current debate. To fulfil this aim, I ask the question of how Koselleck’s analysis of the structures emerging from modernity can cast light on the tension between modernity and the current crisis of the liberal international order. These structures are used, with an emphasis on the need for historical context and a critical stance towards the attempt to establish universal truths, to analyse selected material from oft cited and prominent scholars of the debate. By analysing their ideas in the light of these structures, I have found that some suggested solutions to these tensions reinforce what creates the tension from the start. Another finding is that the debate, in some ways, is constrained by dichotomies and underlying universal metaphysical principles, which potentially can limit the possibility for potential change. My conclusion is that a continued renewed interest in these historical tensions hopefully can be a pathway to move beyond some of the constraints the current debate revolves around.

With the aim of contributing to the recent debate on the fate of the liberal international order, this thesis has examined how prominent advocates of the liberal international order explain its contemporary state of crisis. Taking a point of departure in John Mearsheimer’s critical argument of three essential flaws in the liberal order, I have expanded these flaws into three theoretical areas. These theoretical areas highlight fundamental components in the liberal international order that, according to Mearsheimer, endogenously undermine the liberal international order which will eventually lead to its demise. These theoretical areas are the expansion of the liberal order, resistance in liberal democracies and the threat of China. Analyzing the ideas of liberal advocates within these theoretical areas, I have found that they have offered strong arguments on why the liberal international order will not perish. Although the liberal advocates see a crisis of governance and legitimacy in the liberal order, they believe that the order’s beneficial and robustious architecture constrain states from abandoning the international institutions of the liberal international order. However, drawing on previous research, I have discussed the plausible possibility and consequences of an increasingly powerful China rising within the order. I have concluded that the liberal advocates have not satisfactorily explained this threat of China to the contemporary U.S-led liberal order.

Despite its presentation as a pragmatic and universally applicable path to peace, the author argues that liberal peacebuilding offers no clear break from past colonial and imperial relations. Liberal peacebuilding is, in fact, colonial in its attempt to penetrate the markets and political systems of post-conflict countries and restructure economies and political life through the hegemonic imposition of liberal norms, facilitating their integration into global capitalism and a liberal community of states. The “liberal peace” created by this political and economic order often involves violent conditions of assimilation and exclusion. Moreover, the confluence of security and development concerns in the 1990s has set the strategic foundation for the incorporation of locally-driven “civil society” approaches to peacebuilding within statebuilding operations. In this thesis, the author identifies existing criticisms of peacebuilding, and, drawing on theorists such as Michel Foucault, Partha Chatterjee, David Scott, and Jenny Edkins, initiates a deeper critique that considers the historical context of colonialism, legitimations of violence, the construction of the non-west in categories of development, and the relations of power and knowledge associated with liberal approaches to making peace. The author provides a historical and political overview of wars in Angola, proposing that discourses and practices of international peacebuilding have concealed the continuation of war by other means.

[pt] O conceito de excepcionalismo americano permeou a história dos EUA e criou uma imagem de um país com um sistema e uma sociedade democráticos superior, capaz de promover a democracia, os direitos humanos e o Estado de Direito em nível nacional e internacional. Essa ideia legitimou a liderança dos EUA na construção de uma ordem liberal internacional. A ascensão ao poder do Presidente Donald Trump e a atual crise da ordem global contribuíram para questionar essa ideia e seus pressupostos. Esta dissertação tem dois objetivos principais: em primeiro lugar, discutir o conceito de excepcionalismo americano e, em segundo lugar, analisar como o conceito de excepcionalismo americano afeta a relação entre os Estados Unidos e o Direito Internacional. Será argumentado que o excepcionalismo pode ser definido como um conceito e analisado com as lentes teóricas e metodológicas da História Conceitual. Sem um significado definitivo, o excepcionalismo americano é composto de diferentes interpretações que variam de acordo com o contexto em que o autor se situa. Ainda assim, sua importância na história e na identidade americanas é inquestionável, tornando necessário levar em conta o excepcionalismo ao tentar entender as ações dos Estados Unidos. Para analisar a relação entre o excepcionalismo americano e o Direito Internacional, a dissertação se envolverá com a literatura sobre a Ordem Liberal Internacional, a hegemonia dos EUA e o multilateralismo. Além disso, será perguntado se a ascensão de Donald Trump pode ser considerada uma ruptura em duas tradições americanas: a relação dos Estados Unidos com o Direito Internacional e o uso político do excepcionalismo. Argumenta-se que, apesar de se distanciar claramente da tradição excepcionalista, Trump não se desviou da tradição do Direito Internacional como é comumente percebido. Essa percepção é derivada de seus discursos radicais, de sua personalidade estrondosa e de seus vínculos com a extrema direita, mas não se traduz na maioria de suas políticas. / [en] The concept of American exceptionalism has permeated U.S. history and created an image of a country with better democratic system and society, able to promote domestically and internationally the democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This idea has legitimatized U.S. leadership in the construction of a liberal international order. The rise to power of President Donald Trump and the current crisis of the global order have contributed to question this idea and assumptions. This dissertation has two main aims, firstly, to discuss the concept of American exceptionalism, and secondly to analyse how the concept of American exceptionalism affects the relationship between the United States and International Law. It will be argued that exceptionalism can be defined as a concept and analysed with the theoretical and methodological lenses of Conceptual History. With no definitive meaning, American exceptionalism is made of different interpretations that vary across the context the author was situated in. Still, its importance in American history and identity is unquestionable, making it necessary to take exceptionalism into account when trying to understand the United States actions. In order to analyse the relation of American exceptionalism and International Law, the dissertation will engage with the literature of International Liberal Order, U.S. hegemony and multilateralism. Furthermore, it will inquire if the rise of Donald Trump can be considered a rupture in two American traditions: the United States relationship with International Law and the political use of exceptionalism. It is argued that, although clearly distancing himself from the exceptionalist tradition, Trump did not deviate from International Law tradition as it is commonly perceived. This perception is derived from his radical speeches, loud personna and ties to the Far-Right, but do not translate into most of his policies.