Interview – Amitav Acharya

E-International Relations

American University professor Dr. Amitav Acharya challenges Western-centric frameworks of global governance in his book The Once and Future World Order, demonstrating that international systems are historically shared creations across multiple civilizations. Ancient Sumerian city-states, the 1259 BCE Treaty of Kadesh, and pre-colonial Indian Ocean port networks established core principles of sovereignty, diplomacy, and maritime freedom long before European ascendancy.

Modern IR scholarship systematically ignores these non-Western foundations. Acharya argues that the ongoing decline of American liberal hegemony will transition global governance into a decentralized "global multiplex" rather than widespread international instability. This emerging post-Western order reflects historical non-hegemonic models where diverse societies successfully maintained commercial cooperation, legal reciprocity, and non-combatant protections without relying on a dominant imperial power. Furthermore, postcolonial developing nations have actively reshaped contemporary international law by embedding principles of self-determination, anti-racism, and sovereign equality directly into the United Nations system.

Comment

The Treaty of Kadesh in 1259 BCE established formal provisions for mutual non-aggression, defensive alliance, and extraditions between Ramses II of Egypt and Hattusili III of the Hittite Empire. This Bronze Age diplomatic architecture demonstrates that treaty-based conflict management functions independently of unipolar power structures. Pre-colonial port city networks across the Indian Ocean littoral similarly sustained maritime commercial access through localized customary law rather than centralised naval dominance. These precedents indicate that regional security agreements can maintain compliance without relying on single-power enforcement.

Specifically, the mid-second millennium BCE Amarna system sustained inter-state stability through reciprocal diplomatic protocols and formalized crisis-communication channels between major regional powers. Those diplomatic exchanges institutionalised operational norms of ambassadorial immunity and treaty durability among sovereign equals across the Near East. Consequently, the customary rules governing transit passage through the Strait of Malacca draw upon this long-standing decentralized maritime tradition rather than the later European framework of Grotian free seas.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If decentralized treaty frameworks like the 1259 BCE Treaty of Kadesh successfully maintained inter-state stability without a dominant power, which factor determines whether modern maritime passage through chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca relies more on multilateral consensus or competitive naval presence?

The historical trajectory indicates that regional commercial chokepoints maintain stability primarily through shared economic incentives and localized customary arrangements rather than unilateral power projection. When external power projection increases, coastal states historically reinforce sovereign jurisdiction and normative consensus to prevent external hegemony, as seen in the governance of the Strait of Malacca. Consequently, multilateral regulatory compliance consistently proves more resilient over extended timeframes than coercive naval enforcement.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here