Die Theoretisierung internationaler Beziehungen setzte immer schon ein Verständnis des Gegenstandsbereichs voraus, über den reflektiert wird - etwa das "Internationale" und "Globale" oder Kategorien wie "Beziehungen" und "System". Obwohl "Ordnung" eine zentrale Kategorie sowohl des politischen Diskurses als auch der Disziplin der Internationalen Beziehungen ist, wird das Konzept erstaunlich wenig theoretisiert. Dieser Band bietet divergierende zeitgenössische Perspektiven darauf, wie globale Ordnung theoretisch gefasst werden kann.

Gunther Hellmann ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Frankfurt am Main.

Theorizing Global Order: A Brief Introduction Gunther Hellmann Theorizing international relations presupposes a conception of what the subject matter and its bounds are. We have to have some idea of the entity at the center of our theorizing-the 'international' and/or the 'global'; 'relations', 'systems' 'structure(s)' and/or 'order', just to name a few. Of course, political orders have been at the center of political theory since antiquity. However, compared to efforts at theorizing 'international relations' or 'international systems', the notion of international and/ or global 'order' has remained surprisingly undertheorized, exceptions not-withstanding. This volume offers different contemporary perspectives on theorizing global order. It is the result of a lecture series organized by the Frankfurt 'Center of Excellence' 'Formation of Normative Orders'. The aim of the lecture series (and the chapters in this volume) was not to offer 'a new theory' (or, for that matter, 'alternative theories') of international or global order. Rather, by shedding novel light at different dimensions of ordering international (and global) politics-both in terms of alternative ordering perspectives and alternative ordering arrangements-the volume as a whole aims at taking the double meaning of order(ing) as "fact" and "value" seriously. From a conceptual history point of view the notion of order has always carried the dual meaning of order as (more or less arbitrary) arrangement (Greek táxis) and order as natural and nurtured whole (kósmos). In modern forms of IR theorizing this dual semantic has lived on in Realist (presumably purely analytical) notions of order 'in' (or 'under') 'anarchy' and more or less explicitly normative forms of theorizing reaching from constitutional or societal notions of international order to all-encompassing notions of a juridically stabilized imperial capitalist order or discursively shaped orders of truth and power in the form of practices and techniques of government extending well beyond the nation state. One of the underlying assumptions of this volume is that the theorization of 'order' entails an ordering semantic where the dual meanings of order(ing) as 'fact' and 'value' (or: of táxis and kósmos) are inseparably embedded even if analytical or normative dimensions may play a bigger (or lesser) role depending on epistemological preferences. This semantic of order(ing) guides our ways of theorizing order in different forms. First, 'factually' it shapes our ways of describing (or: making sense of) ordering arrangements (ie. how things belonging to the realm of the international are to be named and how they hang together). To order thought about the international in terms of 'system' versus 'state' versus 'the individual' may come naturally to the IR theorist trained (in Wittgenstein's sense ) to internalize a certain language game about the fundamental arrangements of 'world order'. Yet this type of "'levels' thinking" may be quite problematic from other perspectives. 'Normatively" the semantic of order(ing) also shapes our ways of prescribing how the structures, practices and arrangements in the international realm should be distinguished and how they should hang together when we conceive of orders in terms of their 'building'. Second, the semantic of order(ing) also entails a temporal dimension in that it may either emphasize static or ahistorical 'structural' aspects in contrast to dynamic, eventsbased or historical 'processual' aspects of becoming. Theorizing order as structure tends to emphasize stability and inevitability, theorizing order(ing) as practice focuses on patterns of intentional steering as well as (intentional and unintentional) interactional outcomes. Being aware of these dimensions of theorizing international or global order(ing) is crucial, especially in times when prevailing conceptions of order (or "systemic totality" ) are turned upside down. The contributions to this volume provide for a diverse set of systematically reflected ways of theorizing global order. Overview of the Volume The first chapter by R.B.J. Walker tackles the underlying concepts of order, global and theorization against the background of a notion of 'the modern international'. He argues that debates about connections between the concepts of 'order', 'global' and 'theorization' are shaped by shared but conflicting commitments to modern principles of subjectivity and self-determination. These commitments rest on specific claims about spatiotemporal origins and boundaries. The consequence is a structure of spatiotemporally organized contradictions expressed in aporetic claims to humanity and citizenship, and thus in the contested status of sovereignties expressed in state law and international law. Prevailing literatures usually erase the significance of the spatiotemporal, normative and contradictory character of this historical constitution of modern politics, partly by recasting internal and external moments of subjectivity as distinct spatial, temporal and hierarchical domains, partly by identifying specific practices through which contradictions are negotiated as the primary problem that must be engaged. In contrast to these positions Walker argues that the central source of order and disorder remains the status of claims about modern subjectivity expressed in political practices that must try, and fail, to reconcile claims about liberty, equality and security within a scalar hierarchy. In Chapter 2 Pinar Bilgin asks how we should think about global order in a world characterized by a multiplicity of inequalities and differences. In drawing upon the insights of critical and postcolonial IR she suggests that thinking about global order in a world of multiple differences entails inquiring 'others' conceptions of the international, ie. those who are 'perched on the bottom rung' of world politics (Enloe). While the field is called 'International Relations' what we recognize as 'IR knowledge' has mostly focused on 'our' perspectives, not 'others'. The study of global order is no exception. Bilgin suggests that the challenge of thinking about global order in a world characterized by a multiplicity of inequalities and differences challenges on us to refocus our attention on others' conceptions of the international. She offers 'hierarchy in anarchical society' as a concept that captures the hierarchical as well as anarchical and societal aspects of the international as conceived by 'others'. Christian Reus-Smit discusses the causal significance of culture in world politics in Chapter 3. In contrast to the impoverished understanding of culture in IR, he puts forward conceptual and analytical propositions that build on key insights from other disciplines, enabling us to understand the impact of cultural difference on international order. Instead of treating culture as some kind of homogenous unit and diversity as the 'space' between these units, Reus-Smit discusses culture's inherent diversity and heterogeneous cultural contexts, assuming four axes of cultural diversity, which can guide the future research on cultural diversity and international order: meaning complexity, diversity of interpretation, identity pluralism and multiple identities. The central thesis is that cultural diversity is the existential background condition of world politics insofar as the institutions of the international order evolve in part to manage this diversity, constituting what he calls a 'diversity regime'. Cultural diversity informs practices of recognition and licenses the construction of particular institutional architectures. Changes in the system follow shifts in diversity regimes. Following the assumptions and argumentation put forward in this chapter, the question regarding the key contemporary transformation-the rise of non-Western great powers and its impact on the future of the modern international order-is whether the diversity regime of th...