The new world disorder, from rules to might

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2 – International Relation

Introduction

The new world disorder, from rules to might reflects a global shift from restraint to raw power. The post-war system promised that law would guide states and institutions would prevent domination. Today that confidence is weakening. Sovereignty is questioned, cooperation is shrinking, and global stability depends less on rules and more on strength. The world now stands in a fragile transitional phase between an eroding order and an uncertain future.

Foundations of the Rule-Based International Order

1. Post-war vision of restraint: The system created in 1945 assumed that law could restrain power and institutions could discipline states.
2. Sovereign equality principle: Sovereignty was treated as a right inherent in all nations, not a privilege granted by the strong.
3. Role of the United Nations: It was meant to help countries settle differences peacefully and prevent spheres of influence and predatory might.
4. Expectation of self-restraint: Powerful nations were expected to deny themselves the freedom to act only for narrow advantage if peace was to survive.
5. Moral commitment to cooperation: Global stability depended on shared responsibility and willingness to accept limits on national power for collective security.

The Return of Power Politics and Erosion of Norms

1. Decline of binding rules: International law increasingly appears optional, used when convenient and ignored when costly.
2. Shift from hypocrisy to indifference: Earlier violations still recognised norms, but now power openly disregards them without concern.
3. Sovereignty becomes negotiable: When major powers question territorial rights, others see that force can override legal status.
4. Cascade effect of precedent: Disregard for one country’s sovereignty encourages others to reinterpret disputes as historical corrections or strategic necessities.
5. Cost-based aggression logic: The key question is no longer legality but whether the target is strong enough to raise costs.
6. Risk of dispersed conflicts: Weakening guardrails may produce many smaller wars that individually stay limited but collectively erode peace.
7. Retreat from multilateral cooperation: Withdrawal from organisations and agreements shows deep scepticism about shared governance.
8. Global problems without borders: Pandemics, climate change, cyber threats, and financial contagion cannot be solved by unilateral action.
9. Power vacuum and influence shift: When collective leadership weakens, other actors step in to shape institutions, norms, and standards.
10. Fragmentation of governance structures: Competing visions and reduced cooperation break unified global management into separate spheres.
11. Fluid geopolitical environment: Alliances blur, certainties fade, and countries struggle to define stable positions.
12. Historical grievances persist: Past conflicts and unresolved injustices continue to shape distrust and complicate peace efforts.
13. Fear of global war as past stabiliser: The threat of total conflict once restrained escalation and discouraged major confrontation.
14. Small wars as cumulative danger: Many limited conflicts together can slowly weaken the foundations of peace.

Structural Weakness and Legitimacy Crisis of Global Institutions

1. Inequality in institutional design: Post-war bodies reflected existing power hierarchies, concentrating authority in a few states.
2. Guardians and rule-breakers paradox: Those tasked with maintaining order also possess the greatest capacity to disrupt it.
3. Authority without balanced responsibility: Power is concentrated, but obligations are widely shared, creating structural imbalance.
4. Selective application of rules: When powerful states obey or ignore law as convenient, legitimacy declines.
5. Dependence on political will: Legal mandates exist, yet without good faith they remain largely aspirational.
6. Erosion of credibility: Institutions lose authority when enforcement appears inconsistent or partial.
7. Peace requires trust: Rules alone cannot sustain order without genuine commitment from major powers.
8. Resource and legitimacy starvation: Multilateral bodies lose strength when support and trust decline.
9. Good faith deficit in enforcement: Peace cannot be maintained when states lack sincere commitment.

Systemic Decline of the Liberal International Order and the Emerging Interregnum

1. Patchwork nature of the order: It combined norms, institutions, and habits of cooperation rather than a single unified system.
2. Core principles under strain: Sovereign equality, non-aggression, collective security, open trade, human rights, and cooperation face repeated violations.
3. Paralysis of collective security: Decision-making is blocked by vetoes and competing interests.
4. Weaponisation of economic and political tools: Trade and rights narratives become instruments of strategic pressure.
5. Shrinking belief in shared order: The system survived because states feared worse alternatives, but that belief is weakening.
6. Persistence despite erosion: Courts still function, peacekeepers deploy, and trade depends on predictable rules.
7. Middle powers sustain engagement: Europe, India, South Africa, Canada, and Brazil support multilateralism to avoid domination by stronger states.
8. Future uncertainty of replacement: Possibilities include new power-centred systems, competing blocs, issue-based coalitions, or unmediated anarchy.
9. Interregnum condition of transition: The old order fades while the new one remains undefined.
10. Order survives by minimum function: It prevents collapse even when expectations fall sharply.

Conclusion

The rule-based order has weakened but still prevents complete collapse. Power increasingly shapes rules, and institutions struggle without trust. The world stands in a prolonged transition where decay is gradual yet dangerous. The central challenge is preventing a future where power dominates law completely and global politics moves toward disorder without effective restraints.

Question for practice:

Examine how the weakening of the rule-based international order has led to the resurgence of power politics and created a transitional phase of global uncertainty.

Source: The Hindu