Cordoni di seta o catene di ferro? : L’impossibile ordine internazionale anglosferico

During the second half of the XX century the Anglosphere countries (Usa and UK) have created an international order made up of two faces: one face reflecting a cosmopolitan conception of international politics in which human rights and self-determination have been widely promoted and become codified in international agreements; the other devoted to the preservation of statehood and Realpolitik to impede nations’ collapse and the further fragmentation of international system. Yet during the years, the Anglosphere has not only decided to pick and choose those international agreements and laws which best served its purpose while rejecting those that do not, but has tended to sacrifice globalism in order to protect and promote its national interest. The United States in particular, as the hegemon of the post-bipolar system, has decided to safeguard its sovereignty by formally refusing to adopt widely accepted international agreements in order to better promote its national interest in the era of global terrorism and resurgent power-politics-game. The result has been the collapse of the so-called iusglobalist international order and a return to nation-state and the logic of security dilemma