The era of the “rules-based world order” has come to an end

World leaders warn of the collapse of structures that have supported global cooperation for decades. But is it possible to save the rules-based international order? And what would the future be like without her?

Marco Rubio considers the term “overused”, while Friedrich Merz believes it “no longer exists”. But although the US Secretary of State and the German Federal Chancellor may not believing in the relevance of international order rules-based concept – and its potential collapse – has remained at the forefront of global geopolitics.

This expression gained global attention in January following a , Mark Carney, in which a world leader tackled the concept, which is often not talked about, head-on.

“We knew that the story of the rules-based international order was partly false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when it suited them, that trade rules were applied asymmetrically, and that the international law was applied with varying rigordepending on the identity of the accused or the victim,” Carney said. “Stop invoking the rules-based international order as if it still works as advertised.”

What is the rules-based international order?

In general, the expression refers to a system of laws, agreements, principles and multilateral institutions designed to manage relations between States according to liberal principles.

“The term replaces what was previously called liberal international order“, Professor Stefan Wolff, senior researcher at the Foreign Policy Center think tank, told DW. “Both described the system developed under American leadership after the end of the Second World War, with the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions as its fundamental pillars.”

The Bretton Woods system is a set of financial rules agreed between countries, which guarantee the convertibility of currencies of each nation in US dollars and ensure that the dollar is convertible into gold for international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

But, with recent tariff wars fought around the world and the relevance of the UN being questioned, the foundations of the concept of agreed international rules have suffered unprecedented shakes in their history.

Although Rubio, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference, said that the UN has “tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world,” he immediately added that “on the most pressing issues we face, it have no answers and played virtually no role.” The US has also sought to establish alternative global structures, such as the Peace Council, led by US President Donald Trump.

Did this concept work for the whole world?

Because it was directed by the US, the rules-based international order was never fully accepted by countries like Iran or Russia, which follow a very different set of conventions. “Governing America – that is the essence of the notorious rules-based order,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last year.

But otherwise, Wolff said, “essential parts of it are widely accepted as useful parameters within which states should conduct their foreign affairs.”

The political scientist added that although the Western world is seen as its architect, the system has not only benefited Western nations. “The principle of self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, was fundamental to decolonization“, he explained. “The principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity guaranteed the equality of status – although not equality of capabilities – of new states created after 1945, including many in the Global South.”

Has the era of rules-based order come to an end?

If her natural defenders, like Merz and Carney, are willing to write her obituary publicly, it appears she is, at best, on her last breath. Trump’s second term saw Washington withdraw from a large number of international organizations, both inside and outside the UN. This includes agreements on climate, health, trade and energy.

With US foreign policy increasingly rejecting the old order and current tension in US-European relations, Wolff said it is difficult to consider the rules-based international order to be healthy. “Without a doubt, she was deeply harmedalthough this was a choice, notably by Russia under [o presidente Vladimir] Putin and the US under Trump”, said the expert.

But what will replace the rules-based international order? This issue is being debated on the world stage, with Putin and Trump as the main actors. Wolff said it will take time for a new structure to take hold and that the current rules, while different, will continue to be necessary.

“If current trends continue, we will have a much less liberal orderless attentive to the needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups, and more prone to conflict, including violent conflicts within and between states. We have been observing this for several years now, which is also a characteristic of the transition between the old order and the new order that is yet to come,” he said.

What would a new system mean for the world?

Wolff believes that we are currently in a period of transition in terms of geopolitical structure, but it is difficult to imagine that the end point will be an improvement over the current moment.

“Ultimately, the end of the existing order, and especially the way in which it occurred, will be regretted, even by those who now see it. defend more vehemently. It will take a long time and be very costly to establish something that is ultimately inferior to what existed before.

“What existed before should have been gradually reformed, rather than destroyed. The biggest loser in this will probably be the one who triggered the accelerated collapse of the old order: Russia. Everything the Kremlin will have achieved, at enormous cost to Russia and Ukraine, It will be a more assertive Europe and capable to the west and a more dominant and predatory China to the east.”