Inclusion Vs. Exclusion: The Ethics of Responding to Rising Global Authoritarianism

The (relatively small but emerging) literature on liberal responses to autocracy has focused on domestic considerations and emphasizes avoiding complicity and maintaining liberal integrity, as well as adopting defensive framings linked to democratic defence. Our project will offer a different perspective that is focused on not only responding to democratic deficits, or defending oneself, but also the other effects of rising global authoritarianism. These include undermining other democracies and the weakening of the fulfilment of global responsibilities in other domains, such as those related to, for instance, climate change, humanitarian assistance, mass atrocity prevention, global health, and the governance of artificial intelligence. These effects, we argue, should be the primary (but not sole) consideration when assessing how liberal actors should respond, given the massive scale of the harms involved with these effects (e.g. the devastating impacts of climate change). International organisations face polarisation between liberal and illiberal states and are being increasingly stymied in their responses to major injustices, but appear to be key to ensuring effective responses to global challenges. In light of this, this paper investigates how international organisations should be protected and strengthened. Should liberal states use inclusion and exclusion as leverage to improve fulfilment of global responsibilities? Should liberal states form their own organisations, or at least increase ad hoc collaborations? Is the case for unilateral responses stronger given the crisis of multilateralism? Should liberal states continue to operate in international organisations if they become rubber stamps for global authoritarians? In answering these questions, we will address whether liberal actors should adopt more controversial, seemingly ‘illiberal’ means, including taking untraditional approaches to inclusion and exclusion, given the difficulties that rising global authoritarianism poses for the traditional diplomatic toolbox.