The relationship between international order and justice has long been central to the study and practice of international relations. For most of the twentieth century, states and international society gave priority to a view of order that focused on the minimum conditions for coexistence in a pluralist, conflictual world. Justice was seen either as secondary or sometimes even as a challenge to order. Recent developments have forced a reassessment of this position. This book sets current concerns within a broad historical (...) and theoretical context; explores the depth and scope of this presumed solidarism amidst the difficulties of acting on the basis of a more strongly articulated liberal position; and underscores the complexity and abiding tensions inherent in the relationship between order and justice. Chapters examine a wide range of state and transnational perspectives on order and justice, including those from China, India, Russia, the United States, and the Islamic world. Other chapters investigate how the order-justice relationship is mediated within major international institutions, including the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the global financial institutions. (shrink)

Gaddis primarily focuses on US dilemmas over the relationship between order and justice throughout the twentieth century. He argues that from the time of Theodore Roosevelt to that of Richard M. Nixon, a concern for order had superseded a concern for justice. After that time, and especially in the post‐Cold War era, these two concepts were finally to be brought together in ways that could be said to have been destabilizing world order. Nevertheless, once entwined, it has been difficult for (...) the US to disentangle the promotion of order from justice even during its post‐September 11th struggle against terrorism. In order for the US to be successful in the promotion of its order and justice agenda, the author concludes that US hegemony needs to be coupled with legitimacy, consent, and a modesty of aims. (shrink)

"National History Standards" and the Smithsonian's abortive effort to mount a fiftieth anniversary exhibit on the decision to drop the atomic bomb suggest the need for historians to rethink some of their academic approaches to this subject.