As these essays show, there is a lively debate over the future of world order.Sergey Chugrow offers a dark portrait of the breakdown of what he calls Westernhegemony, driven in part by Russia's grievances and aggression inUkraine. He points to a future where international order will have a mix ofrealist geopolitics and post-modern diversity. Keisuke Iida sees the debate overliberal international order as a return to older debates about the viability ofhegemonic order and the role of regions and non-Western values in apost-hegemonic global system. Peter Haas sees the debate over liberalinternational order as a window onto various new forms of global governance.Behind these important observations is Amitav Acharya's vision of apost-American global order marked by diverse regional sub-systems; a world thatis globalized, diversified, and localized. These developments lead Acharya toannounce the ‘end’ of the American-led liberalinternational order.

I thank the contributors to the discussion on the American-led world order for their insightful comments and criticisms. Below are my brief responses to them.