The recent conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, alongside ongoing Russian actions in Ukraine, has pushed the post-World War II global order to a critical juncture. This erosion of established international norms indicates a "low point in a rules-based order," according to Stacie Goddard, a political science professor at Wellesley College. The shift forces nations to confront what might emerge next.
The rules-based order, a framework forged after the devastation of two world wars in the 20th century, aimed to foster a more stable, free, and prosperous global environment. It relies on a distinct set of norms and institutions. These include the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, established to constrain states' behaviors and regulate international relations, Goddard explained.
Member states agreed to abstain from acts of aggression against others, upholding the right to self-defense in response to any attack. This system sought to prevent a return to widespread conflict. However, this framework has not served all nations equally.
Many countries within the Global South have long perceived the guardrails constructed by Western powers as primarily benefiting the United States and its allies. "It was a very selective club," stated Amitav Acharya, a professor at the American University in Washington and author of "The Once and Future World Order." He told DW that a persistent perception exists among Global South nations: "the rules are rigged against them." While some benefits accrued, these nations never truly gained significant agency or a prominent global position. Concrete examples underscore this sentiment. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for instance, often faces accusations from African leaders and human rights lawyers of disproportionately targeting individuals from their continent.
A 2024 Amnesty International report noted that of the 54 individuals indicted by the ICC to date, 47 are African. This statistic highlights a perceived imbalance. Such disparities have fueled a broader decline in confidence in the rules-based order over the past decade.
Russia's actions further demonstrate this erosion. Its annexation of Crimea in 2014 directly challenged the principle of sovereignty. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 amplified these concerns, demonstrating a willingness to disregard fundamental international law.
These events have prompted geopolitical scholars to consider what might replace the current system if its age is truly ending. One frequently discussed scenario involves the revival of hemispheric dominance. This concept echoes the 19th-century "Monroe Doctrine," which sought to reduce European influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Today, some refer to aspects of former U.S. President Donald Trump's foreign policy as the "Donroe Doctrine." This appears to signify U.S. dominance within its regional sphere. Examples include the ousting of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and U.S. threats directed toward Greenland.
Such a world could see China exert tighter control over South Asia, with implications for Taiwan, and Russia gain free rein across Eastern Europe. These outcomes represent the most severe interpretations of a hemispheric dominance model. This scenario, however, faces significant obstacles. "That one is in for a hell of a lot of blowbacks from the sovereign states who don't quite understand why they've been placed into the sphere of influence," Goddard noted.
She questions, "at what point did somebody decide that Japan was part of China's sphere of influence, for example, or South Korea for that matter?" Furthermore, Goddard argues that leaders like Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump do not consistently act in the interest of their respective nations. Their focus, she explained, often lies in elevating themselves and their loyalists within the international system, leading to perplexing behaviors in global politics. This observation led Goddard and her colleagues at Georgetown University to coin the term "neo-royalism." This describes a departure from the rules-based order toward elite power clusters.
These clusters resemble historical monarchical systems, where small cliques manipulate international politics for their own and their loyalists' gain. This model suggests a return to more personal, less institutionalized forms of global power. In stark contrast stands the vision of a multiplex world order, as proposed by Acharya. "In a multiplex order, you don't have one or two or a handful of a few great powers," he explained.
Instead, this system features a diverse array of actors. Middle powers, regional powers, non-state actors, and civil society groups all play significant roles. Cooperation would occur at both global levels, like the UN, and regional levels.
This model emphasizes not just the distribution of power, but also the sharing of ideas, know-how, and the adoption of shared norms. It is a more distributed and decentralized vision. Acharya points to the crucial role of these middle powers. "There will be Indonesia in Southeast Asia, there will be South Africa in Africa," he stated.
He includes the European Union among these influential actors, along with nations like Japan, South Korea, and India. This world, while still facing conflict and instability, would see these issues less tied to hegemonic powers. A multiplex order would not eliminate challenges, but it would shift their nature.
Some analysts fear that chaos and anarchy might replace the existing order, pushing the world toward another global war. Acharya believes such a scenario is unlikely at the moment, despite widespread apprehension. Goddard also argues that people understand the cost of an era defined by multiple intercontinental wars too well to accept paying it again.
She anticipates middle powers will play a decisive role in shaping the path forward. Why It Matters: The future of global governance directly impacts economic stability, human rights, and the potential for international conflict. A shift away from established norms could disrupt trade agreements, imperil collective security efforts, and redefine national sovereignty.
For citizens, this might mean greater economic uncertainty, increased geopolitical tensions, or new opportunities for global cooperation, depending on which vision of order prevails. The choices made by key nations today will ripple across societies for decades. Key Takeaways: - The post-World War II rules-based order is eroding due to conflicts and perceived inequities. - Countries in the Global South feel the system has historically disadvantaged them, citing examples like ICC indictments. - Geopolitical scholars debate alternative futures: hemispheric dominance, neo-royalism, or a multiplex world. - Middle powers like the EU, Japan, South Korea, and India are expected to play a critical role in shaping the next global framework.
What happens next largely depends on the actions of those who still value the rules-based order and possess the influence to act. Will the European Union and countries such as Japan, South Korea, and India pursue independent trade agreements and greater military autonomy from the United States? And will they simultaneously uphold principles of rules-based governance?
Their willingness to push back against other elements, even if costly, will be the decisive factor in whether a new world order emerges, one potentially not exclusively designed by Western powers. The global community watches for their next moves.
Key Takeaways
— - The post-World War II rules-based order is eroding due to conflicts and perceived inequities.
— - Countries in the Global South feel the system has historically disadvantaged them, citing examples like ICC indictments.
— - Geopolitical scholars debate alternative futures: hemispheric dominance, neo-royalism, or a multiplex world.
— - Middle powers like the EU, Japan, South Korea, and India are expected to play a critical role in shaping the next global framework.
Source: DW