International Order Quotes

The American preoccupation with promoting democracy abroad fits into a larger liberal view about the sources of a stable, legitimate, secure, and prosperous international order.

A world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival.

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

The centuries old Westphalian state system has never resolved the tension between the principle of the sovereign equality of states and the idea that great powers enjoy certain privileges and bear special responsibilities.

Force-backed humanitarianism, which relies on rational influence over events in other countries, may have been a more feasible project in the bipolar era of the Cold War, with its relatively defined and stable web of alliances and proxies.

If the U.N. is ineffective, the whole concept of multilateralism will collapse.

In Kosovo, the U.S. has chosen a course of action that escalates atrocities and violence. It is also a course of action that strikes a blow against the regime of international order, but which offers the weak at least some protection from predatory states.

The U.S. is the most benign great power we will see in our lifetimes, and it is important for global peace that its leaders continue to value being viewed as benign.

The committee believes that, short of war, assassination is incompatible with American principles, international order and morality. It should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy.

Only by carrying forward such a program with common determination and united national support, can we expect, in the long range of the future, to avoid becoming victims of destructive forces of international anarchy which in the absence of organized international relations will rule the world. By the procedure of cooperation with other nations likewise intent upon security, we can and will remain masters of our own fate.

The United States is and will continue to be the most important country in the world, economically, militarily, intellectually. There's nothing that four years of Trump can do to stop that. What it is no longer, during the Trump years, is the leading source for better governmental arrangements between countries.

When it comes to its role in the world, Russia is in the throes of an identity crisis. It has neither fully integrated into the liberal order nor built its own viabile alternative,

However difficult it may be to bring it about, some form of world government, with agreed international law and means of enforcing the law, is inevitable.

In a shrinking world, the absence of order among nations is becoming less and less tolerable.

I'm in favour of a multi-polar world. I believe that every country has the right to defend its own interests.

We must face the fact that the United Nations is not yet the international equivalent of our own legal system and the rule of law.

...for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order.

The world is shifting from a hegemonic era, where the United States dominated alone, to a multipolar system.

The Security Council represents the situation from 1945 - you had the Allies who won the war who occupied that. The defeated guys - the Germans and Japan - were out. The occupied countries had no voice. That was fine in '45, but today, Germany rules Europe, frankly. They are driving Europe but have no voice.

I think that we had a different view of what the 21st century could be like, with much more of a sense, from our perspective, of trying to have an interdependent world: looking at solving regional conflicts, having strength in alliances, operating within some kind of a sense that we were part of the international community and not outside of it.

In the new century, we should continue to work together to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the vast number of developing countries including China and India and promote the establishment of a just and equitable new international political and economic order.

Every success in limiting armaments is a sign that the will to achieve mutual understanding exists, and every such success thus supports the fight for international law and order.

The nebulocity known as the international community is ultimately accountable to nobody.

We want a rules-based order in Asia-Pacific like we have had in the Atlantic.

The E.U. cannot act as guardian of the post-Cold War status quo without risking a collapse of Europe's current institutional infrastructure.