In an age defined by US President Donald Trump's rage, Russian President Vladimir Putin's revisionism, and Chinese President Xi Jinping's unbridled ambition, the international order is becoming increasingly disorderly, dysfunctional, and even dangerous. How did we arrive at this state of affairs? And how can we leave it behind?

Last week was a most unusual one for President Donald Trump's administration. There was no high-level firing: the only dismissal of any note was that of the White House aide in charge of homeland security, who was forced out at the behest of John Bolton, who had just taken over as Trump's third national security adviser in 15 months. Nonetheless, it may well have been the most turbulent week yet of Trump's presidency.

The US-South Korea alliance has been one of the most dramatic geopolitical success stories of the post-war years.

The world will soon witness a historic test of wills between China and the United States, two superpowers whose leaders see themselves as supreme.

India has no coltan or rare earths, little oil, and not enough water. What it does have is people—1.3 billion and counting. That makes

Probably the question most frequently asked of international economists these days is: “Are we seeing the start of a trade war?” This is not a question that admits of a simple yes-or-no answer. In contrast to a shooting war, there's no government declaration to mark the official outbreak of hostilities. Tariffs have been raised and lowered throughout history, for reasons both good and bad.

The most dangerous moment for a bad government,” the nineteenth-century French statesman and historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “is usually when it begins to reform itself.” Reform, after all, implies that traditional norms and institutions may have already been discredited, but that alternative structures have yet to be firmly established.

The trade skirmish between the United States and China on steel, aluminium, and other goods is a product of US President Donald Trump's scorn for multilateral trade arrangements and the World Trade Organization, an institution that was created to adjudicate trade disputes.

Later this century, when economic historians compare the “Great Recession” that started in 2007 with the Great Depression that started in 1929, they will arrive at two basic conclusions.

March 29 marked exactly one year since British Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, thus launching the formal two-year legal process by which the United Kingdom will withdraw from the European Union. In the first year, it is fair to say that the Brexit negotiations have had their ups and downs. But, on a positive note, substantial progress has been made in recent weeks.

Over the last five decades or so, Asia's economies have relied largely on an export-oriented development model to support rapid economic transformation and growth. But with US President Donald Trump fulfilling his promise to adopt a more protectionist approach to trade—an effort that could spur retaliatory measures by other countries—that model is coming under increasing strain.

Last year, a 30-year-old teacher suffering from a severe bloodstream infection arrived in my emergency room for treatment. The woman had been in and out of local clinics with a stubborn chest infection and fever, and by the time I examined her, she was receiving chemotherapy for blood cancer.

UNTIL the terrorist attack at a market in southern France on March 23, French President Emmanuel Macron had been planning to launch a new European-level political campaign. Though the official rollout has now been postponed, Macron's latest project remains central to his presidency and to his conception of power.

Some moments in history are steeped in irony. To glimpse a current example, look no further than the United Kingdom.

A controversial law recently enacted by Poland's ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has attracted a tremendous amount of attention around the world for its criminalisation of expressions like “Polish death camps.” But the law is intended to be much more than a means to get people to mind their language.

Last year, North Korea's Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump were hurling kindergarten insults at each other—“Rocket Man is on a suicide mission,” said Trump of Kim; “mentally deranged US dotard,” Kim retorted—while threatening to reduce East Asia to a post-atomic wasteland.

In 1967, riots erupted in cities throughout the United States, from Newark, New Jersey, to Detroit and Minneapolis in the Midwest—all two years after the Watts neighbourhood of Los Angeles exploded in violence. In response, President Lyndon B Johnson appointed a commission, headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, to investigate the causes and propose measures to address them.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution stands out from its predecessors in a critical way: rather than making it easier for humans to use their surroundings more effectively for their own benefit, technology is displacing humans in the workplace. The question is who will benefit now.

On February 13, after an investigation that began in 2016, the Israeli police recommended charges against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Now, the spotlight is on Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who must decide whether to issue a formal indictment against a man who has become virtually synonymous with modern Israeli politics.

To many observers, US Republicans' recent passage of a sweeping tax bill was out of step with the country's needs. With inequality