- Fulfilling this duty requires the eschewing of illiberal measures, given the risk of weakening the fight against global authoritarianism even further.

- The indirectness of this duty means that it should be viewed as weighty – and sometimes weightier than other emerging duties because it concerns the prerequisites required for the fulfilment of other duties.

- Just as states possess duties to tackle the ongoing and emerging threats posed by climate change, the misuse of AI, and pandemics, they also have a duty to confront global authoritarianism.

Here are the key points:
- This duty stems from states' domestic duties of self-defence, threats to democracy and human rights in other states, and more broadly the need for a conducive international environment in order to fulfil global responsibilities.

ajps.org/2025/04/14/t...

To do this, I consider three potential approaches. The first (the ‘complicity-based approach’) holds that states and other liberal democratic actors should avoid being causally involved in backsliders’ violations of democratic freedoms.

further towards aligning with authoritarian global powers and weaken the prospects of collective action to tackle key global challenges.In “The ethics of responding to democratic backsliding abroad”, I consider how states should respond to democratic backsliding in other states.

It might seem that it is vital for liberal actors to adopt a strong line. They should, the thought goes, react firmly to protect the civil and political rights of those affected to avoid being complicit, as well as to maintain their own integrity. Yet reacting robustly might push backsliding states

The past decade has seen many previously liberal democratic states weaken or abandon key aspects of their liberal democracies and take authoritarian turns. This poses a major dilemma for remaining liberal democratic actors. What should they do?