The new world disorder, from rules to might

A world that once imagined it had buried the demons of the 1930s now finds them prowling again — less dramatic, perhaps, but no less corrosive. The post-war order, born in San Francisco in 1945, was built on the conviction that law could restrain power, that institutions could discipline states, and that sovereignty was not a privilege granted by the strong but a right inherent in all nations. The speech by United States President Harry S. Truman at the founding of the United Nations (UN) radiated that belief. He spoke as a man who had seen the abyss and was determined that humanity would not return to it. The UN, he insisted, would be the instrument through which nations “settle their differences peacefully”, a bulwark against the old world of spheres of influence and predatory might.

His words, on June 26, 1945, might sound startling to many of his successors. “We all have to recognize — no matter how great our strength,” he declaimed, “that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation … can or should expect any special privilege which harms any other nation … Unless we are all willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can accomplish its purpose. And what a reasonable price that is!”

The prevailing atmosphere

Contrast that with the contemporary mood, where the language of international law increasingly sounds like a polite fiction. Analysts often perceive U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy posture as one that treats international rules much as Italian drivers treat red traffic lights, less as binding commitments and more as optional tools — useful when they serve your interests, dispensable when they do not. It is not that the U.S. invented unilateralism; great powers have always been prone to exceptionalism, double-standards and bending rules just short of breaking them. But the open embrace of a “might is right” sensibility marks a shift from hypocrisy (which at least paid tribute to norms even while betraying them) to indifference (which does not give a damn about norms). When a major power signals that sovereignty is negotiable, others take note.

If Washington can disregard Venezuela’s sovereignty with minimal consequence, what stops Beijing from concluding that Taiwan’s status is similarly malleable? Or Moscow from treating Ukraine as a historical correction rather than a sovereign state? Or even New Delhi from deciding that a smaller neighbour’s objections are an inconvenience rather than a constraint? The question ceases to be whether international law prohibits aggression but whether the target is powerful enough to raise the costs of it. For decades, the fear of a third world war acted as a grim stabiliser; the horror of total conflict kept lesser conflicts in check. But if the guardrails weaken, the world risks not one great conflagration but a proliferation of smaller, grinding wars — each too limited to trigger global alarm, yet collectively capable of eroding the foundations of peace.

An unravelling of multilateralism

This erosion is compounded by the retreat from multilateralism. The Trump administration’s declared withdrawal from dozens of international organisations and agreements — ranging from UNESCO to WHO to environmental and arms-control frameworks — signals a deeper scepticism about the very idea of shared governance. The problem is that the 21st century’s most urgent challenges are precisely those that no nation can solve alone. Pandemics, climate change, cyber threats, financial contagion — these are “problems without passports” (in Kofi Annan’s phrase), indifferent to borders and immune to unilateral solutions. When the world’s most powerful state steps back from collective action, the vacuum does not remain empty. Others — most notably China — step in, shaping institutions, norms and standards in ways that reflect their own preferences. The result is not simply a shift in influence but a fragmentation of global governance itself.

We inhabit a world that has become profoundly fluid. It is increasingly difficult for any nation, not only India, to say with certainty where it stands in a shifting geopolitical order. Old certainties have frayed, alliances blur and ambiguity has become the defining condition of our time. History, that indefatigable saboteur of good intentions, continues to complicate the present. Grievances are inherited more reliably than wisdom. Old wars cast long shadows and unresolved injustices continue to poison relations between states. Leaders are asked to negotiate peace while being reminded never to forget past wounds.

Perhaps the most profound obstacle lies in the paradox of power itself. Those entrusted with maintaining global order also possess the greatest capacity to disrupt it. World order rested on their willingness not to do so; this willingness has faded in many cases. The institutions established after the Second World War were noble in conception but unequal in design. They reflected the hierarchies of power prevailing at the time of their creation. Authority was concentrated in the hands of a few, while responsibility was shared by all. This imbalance has consequences. When powerful states act as both guardians and exceptions to the rules, the legitimacy of the system suffers.

What makes this moment especially fraught is that the rule-based liberal international order was never a monolith; it was a patchwork of norms, institutions and habits of cooperation. Its ingredients included sovereign equality, non-aggression, collective security, open trade, human rights and multilateral problem-solving. Each of these has been violated repeatedly — by great powers and smaller states alike. Yet, the order endured because enough states believed that the alternative was worse. Today, that belief is wavering. Sovereignty is breached with increasing brazenness. Non-aggression is honoured in the breach. Collective security is paralysed by vetoes. Trade is weaponised. Human rights are dismissed as ideological. Multilateral institutions are starved of legitimacy and resources.

Institutions may possess statutes and mandates, yet, without political will, their authority remains largely aspirational. When powerful states ignore international law or apply it selectively, institutions lose credibility. Peace cannot be enforced by rules alone. It requires good faith, and good faith is increasingly in short supply.

The danger today

And yet, the order is not dead. It limps, it strains, it disappoints — but it persists. International courts still adjudicate disputes. Peacekeepers still deploy. Trade flows still depend on predictable rules. Middle powers, from Europe to India to South Africa to Canada to Brazil, still invest in multilateralism because they know that without it, they are at the mercy of ruthlessly self-interested hegemons. They accept Dag Hammarskjöld’s famous dictum that “the United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. Sometimes the best the world order can do is to prevent things from getting worse.

And yet the question is not whether the old order survives intact; it has already been hollowed out, its norms and institutions subverted. The question is what replaces it: a Sino-centric architecture, a world of competing blocs, a patchwork of issue-based coalitions, or a return to unmediated anarchy?

We are living in an interregnum — the old world fading, the new one unformed. The danger is not that the system collapses overnight, but that it decays slowly, leaving a vacuum filled by opportunism and coercion. The promise of 1945 was that law could tame power. The peril of today is that power may once again tame law. The task for this generation is not to resurrect the past but to prevent the future from sliding into a world where the only real rule is that there are no rules at all.

Shashi Tharoor is the fourth-term Member of Parliament (Congress) for Thiruvananthapuram (Lok Sabha), a former Minister of State for External Affairs and the award-winning author of 28 books, including ‘Pax Indica’. He currently chairs the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs

Published – February 18, 2026 12:16 am IST