To those asking what will emerge in place of the rules-based international order — which has now been exposed as rigged, dysfunctional, and supportive of US hegemony — here are some thoughts.
What's clear is that US hegemony is in decline (though Trump is still creating havoc) and China's power on the world stage is growing.
In many ways, we're witnessing a great rebalancing, where the power of the West is now matched by the East. This is a positive development.
Another reason for optimism is that China takes a less hegemonic approach to building international partnerships compared to the US. This has been on display for years now, especially in China's partnerships with other Global South countries. European countries are now also starting to build fruitful partnerships with China.
While China, of course, flexes its muscles in foreign affairs, it respects the sovereignty of other nations. It does not carry out regime-change operations, assassinations, or coups. It does not impose structural adjustment programs. It has not committed genocide.
Over time, I believe international institutions and global governance will reflect a stronger Global South, with China playing a central role. And with US hegemony in decline, we're moving toward a more democratic and equitable international order.
I always wondered if liberals and experts in rules-based institutions exercised enough critical thinking to realise that the whole system is a facade. Not the high level establishment, but people who sought careers in the field. Did they truly believe it works as stated, or they knew it doesn't and simply sided with power? I suspect it is the former, because otherwise they would be aware of power and the imperialism in the system, which most actively deny.
Law only works when the majority are obedient. Many in empowered positions have played a rule in facilitating the hypocrisy. We are still pretending that we are not engineering our own extinction with growth economics. There is simple legal case against growth economics that can be compiled from the scientific insights I=PAT and ecological overshoot. https://poemsforparliament.uk/legal
A succinct analysis of the break down of the rules-based-international order or the illusion of it that we lived under. The next pressing concern is what will be the future? Are we going to see the rule of jungle as coercion of economic integration or out-right open warfare? What will happen to the Global South and Small nation states with this breakdown? Even though a partial illusion, the rule-based international order provided some sort of sovereignty protection for these weak nations. Will these states survive the on-coming storm?
A thoughtful analysis that I fully endorse. The result of the death of the rules-based international order is that we apparently find ourselves in no man's land today. This isn't a major problem for those who follow the US, but what does this mean for Europe? The US apparently no longer sees Europe as a first rank partner, but Brussels isn't drawing its own conclusions. A sensible European analysis would be to first strengthen itself, align internally, break away from the US and NATO, meaning the withdrawal of the American military, including its (nuclear) weapons, and seek affiliation with Eurasia and the economically lucrative Belt & Road Project. This would create a new world order: the US with its Western Hemisphere, Eurasia under Chinese leadership, and Europe as the western "peninsula" of that vast continental shelf, with Africa potentially as a third player.
To those asking what will emerge in place of the rules-based international order — which has now been exposed as rigged, dysfunctional, and supportive of US hegemony — here are some thoughts.
What's clear is that US hegemony is in decline (though Trump is still creating havoc) and China's power on the world stage is growing.
In many ways, we're witnessing a great rebalancing, where the power of the West is now matched by the East. This is a positive development.
Another reason for optimism is that China takes a less hegemonic approach to building international partnerships compared to the US. This has been on display for years now, especially in China's partnerships with other Global South countries. European countries are now also starting to build fruitful partnerships with China.
While China, of course, flexes its muscles in foreign affairs, it respects the sovereignty of other nations. It does not carry out regime-change operations, assassinations, or coups. It does not impose structural adjustment programs. It has not committed genocide.
Over time, I believe international institutions and global governance will reflect a stronger Global South, with China playing a central role. And with US hegemony in decline, we're moving toward a more democratic and equitable international order.
I always wondered if liberals and experts in rules-based institutions exercised enough critical thinking to realise that the whole system is a facade. Not the high level establishment, but people who sought careers in the field. Did they truly believe it works as stated, or they knew it doesn't and simply sided with power? I suspect it is the former, because otherwise they would be aware of power and the imperialism in the system, which most actively deny.
The key shift isn’t that the rules-based order was hypocritical. Everyone knew that.
It’s that power no longer routes through legitimacy at all.
Institutions still exist. Treaties still exist.
They just arrive after outcomes are already set by trade chokepoints, financial rails, tech defaults.
This isn’t collapse. It’s displacement.
Law only works when the majority are obedient. Many in empowered positions have played a rule in facilitating the hypocrisy. We are still pretending that we are not engineering our own extinction with growth economics. There is simple legal case against growth economics that can be compiled from the scientific insights I=PAT and ecological overshoot. https://poemsforparliament.uk/legal
What's the alternative to the liberal rules based order? State capitalism, social democracy, fascism, communism, cronyism?
I like social democracy
A succinct analysis of the break down of the rules-based-international order or the illusion of it that we lived under. The next pressing concern is what will be the future? Are we going to see the rule of jungle as coercion of economic integration or out-right open warfare? What will happen to the Global South and Small nation states with this breakdown? Even though a partial illusion, the rule-based international order provided some sort of sovereignty protection for these weak nations. Will these states survive the on-coming storm?
A thoughtful analysis that I fully endorse. The result of the death of the rules-based international order is that we apparently find ourselves in no man's land today. This isn't a major problem for those who follow the US, but what does this mean for Europe? The US apparently no longer sees Europe as a first rank partner, but Brussels isn't drawing its own conclusions. A sensible European analysis would be to first strengthen itself, align internally, break away from the US and NATO, meaning the withdrawal of the American military, including its (nuclear) weapons, and seek affiliation with Eurasia and the economically lucrative Belt & Road Project. This would create a new world order: the US with its Western Hemisphere, Eurasia under Chinese leadership, and Europe as the western "peninsula" of that vast continental shelf, with Africa potentially as a third player.