The concept of international order, like multipolarity, is becoming less relevant.
The notion of a structured “international order” may soon become outdated, similar to the concept of “multipolarity,” which has deviated from its original meaning of balanced power among major nations. The same fate may await the idea of international order.
It’s widely acknowledged that the global power dynamic is changing, with established leaders losing their dominance. No single group of countries can impose their vision of order, and traditional international bodies are weakening. Western Europe’s influence in global diplomacy is waning, with its focus shifting towards procedure over power.
Before analyzing the end of one era and the beginning of another, it’s crucial to define “international order.” It’s often treated as a given, but it has historically been a tool used by powerful states to enforce their rules.
Historically, “international order” was enforced by dominant powers. However, emerging nations like China and India may not be interested in assuming this role, as it primarily benefited others.
The prevention of revolutionary upheaval has also been a purpose of international order. Currently, this is achieved through nuclear deterrence among major nuclear powers like Russia, the United States, and China. Their capabilities maintain global stability.
It’s unrealistic to expect new great powers to eagerly build a new international order in the traditional sense. Past orders, including the UN-centered one, arose from Western conflicts. Russia, while not entirely Western, played a significant role in these conflicts, especially World War II, shaping the subsequent global structure.
The current international order can be seen as a result of Russia’s involvement in a Western conflict. At the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Tsar Alexander I acted as an “arbiter of Europe.” Russia has always viewed itself as too large and independent to be just another part of someone else’s system.
For Russia, engaging in international order has been a means to protect its unique global position, a goal pursued for over two centuries.
It’s uncertain whether today’s great powers, like China and India, see “international order” as a tool for survival or control. To many, it remains a Western construct used to legitimize power imbalances.
However, many medium-sized states, especially in the Global Majority, still find the concept appealing. International law and the UN system, despite their flaws, offer some protection from the arbitrary power of stronger nations, providing smaller countries with a voice and a platform.
Even this minimal order is under pressure. Its legitimacy relied on mutual recognition by powerful states. Now, former leaders are losing influence, and no new actors are stepping up. Without legitimacy or backing, maintaining a shared order becomes challenging.
This leads to a paradox: the West’s vision of international order is losing acceptance, but no one is eager to replace it. Instead, a new equilibrium may emerge, labeled a “new international order” by scholars, but differing significantly from past frameworks.
In conclusion, the term “international order” may become obsolete, similar to “multipolarity.” It will be discussed but will no longer accurately reflect the world’s workings.
We are entering an era of distributed power, less formalized control, and real-time negotiation of legitimacy. Stability will depend on the calculations of capable states, particularly those with the resources to shape events.
This article was first published by , translated and edited by the RT team.