A New World (Dis)order: A Macro-Level Analysis

The end of the liberal world order and the start of an uncertain global era

“Next, order up!”

No, this is not the line at McDonald’s— this is our global affairs.

In order to imagine where we are going, we need to understand where we came from. The title announces a new world order. So, to understand the new world order, we must first understand the one that came before it. 

After the disastrous consequences of World War II, a world order was created—a system of norms and institutions that loosely organized international interactions and dictated how states interacted—to prevent something like that from happening again and to strive for a new period of prosperity. This was the liberal world order.

In this world order, it was thought that peace could best be achieved through a triad of factors. There have been efforts to promote democracy worldwide in past decades, often in tandem with regime change. Behind these efforts is the understanding that democracies do not wage wars against one another. In fact, there has not been a war between two democracies, a phenomenon some have dubbed “democratic peace”. While the methods by which democracy should be spread—and its efficacy—are not always agreed on, the general logic remains that if we can make democracy more present around the world, we would be more peaceful.

The liberal world order also featured the prominent rise in economic interdependence between states. Economic relations promote peace, as increasing trade expands the networks tying states together, and those bonds become very costly to break. Free trade, in particular, was heavily promoted via a number of international organizations and frameworks. Societies become unstable when these interdependencies break – think, for example, of the hurt experienced by farmers and auto workers here in Canada when Trump launched his tariffs – explaining why economic connections usually act as an incentive for states to resolve conflicts peacefully.

There was also a rise in membership in international organizations, which reduced, but did not make impossible, the likelihood of conflicts. Notably, in the hundreds of thousands of treaties signed worldwide, states voluntarily agree to abide by certain sets of rules. These organizations also facilitate cooperation on a multilateral basis—meaning involving more than two nations, organizations, or groups working together on common goals.

By the end of the 1990s, the world was largely seen as more peaceful and more prosperous, in broad terms. Although numerous issues, such as widening economic inequalities and climate change, arose, this system was still regarded as functioning and worth honouring by the West. And the US was, though imperfect, still the biggest champion of this system it had originally created and pioneered.

Yet, if anyone took a peek into all sorts of media sources over the past years, they would see important unravelings of this liberal world order. Democracies have been in decline. Free trade that was once championed for its absolute gain for all parties is now treated by the US as a tool of “subordination”. And the world’s most powerful country now plays above the rules, with little regard for multilateralism.

The world presently sure does not look much like the one it did decades ago. Instead of cooperation, we see fear. Instead of seeing reason over desire, we are observing actions taken out of self-interest, particularly by the strong.

“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Athenian General Thucydides’ maxim seems, unfortunately, to be more true now than ever.

This sad reality was not always the case. Some argue we are not doomed to this new type of world and that it can, and we should strive to be, different. Others say this was always how the world would work, and its timeless nature is inescapable. But there is a common recognition of a need to adapt to this rapidly changing global landscape worldwide– to this “rupture”. In global affairs, the choice for what comes next is rarely binary.

Whatever new (dis)order we are now entering or residing in, little is clear. As we head into the next months, years, and decades, a bitter cloud of uncertainty lingers.

Want to Write for the Journal?

Up Next: How will Canada navigate this new reality?

Is this a world we are comfortable living in? What can Canada do moving forward?

Playing Above the Rules: America’s Role in the World

President Trump’s assault on international norms and laws

US President Donald Trump pumps his fist after disembarking Air Force One. (Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)

It is difficult to ignore the United States’ show of force over the past few days, months, and year.

The US certainly dominates all other states in the western hemisphere, and, as we have seen, has made efforts to do the same 6,500 miles away on another continent again just last night.

No country can meaningfully challenge the US’s power advantage in traditional military terms. And none fully does in practice, because it realizes it lacks the capacity to realize those desires. That is why so much of international politics is centred around the actions of this one particular country.

In the current state of our world, might makes right. 

A wide view of a Security Council meeting. (UN Photo/Manuel Elías)

Gone are the days when the US gave considerable thought to using its military force, prioritizing international cooperation through multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations. Now, it seems there is barely any thinking; President Trump does not yield back on the military force at his disposal as Commander-in-Chief. The US has repeatedly acted unilaterally – meaning taking decisions without the support or participation of other nations – since the installation of the current administration, against other nations, for all sorts of reasons. 

For centuries, the norm was that states had the right of conquest. It was a legal way for states to resolve disputes. Yet, gradually, with the development of international law, wars of aggression became prohibited.

That is not to say past assaults on this norm have not happened. International law is known to be lacking in enforcement. This is shown practically by actions worldwide challenging the rules-based order, which occurred long before President Trump took office – including the US’ 2003 invasion of Iraq, China’s aggressive military expansion in contested areas of the South China Sea in the past decade or so, and Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Rather, these norms have historically set a standard for states to respect, as they would supposedly lead to a safer, more secure world. As for these aspirations, the US has been the global leader (with notable exceptions) in championing them. 

Present day, proponents of Trump’s recent actions in Iran cite the source of terror and destabilization that was its Islamic Republic, and the need to thwart its regime from further threats to international, regional, and subregional peace. Detractors say the strikes on Iran are illegal, both nationally with US law and internationally, under international law and raise the devastating cost paid as a result of these actions: human lives. The debate here seems less about the goodness of the Islamic Republic of Iran than about whether it was the right decision to forcibly override the regime by upending the current fragile standards set by international multilateral institutions.

From the film Dr. Strangelove, 1964.

Down the path Trump has decisively taken, he may be indicating he would go so far as to restore war and force as the main way for states to resolve their disagreements, or simply get their way.

Other states might look to the US as an example – one that has gotten away with everything and seemingly unenthused to play by the rules.

Likely, an increasingly discomforting and conflictual period for our world awaits – or really, has already begun.

Get Involved in Writing our Publications.

The Journal’s Vision & Philosophy

Dear readers,

Welcome to the newly launched Marianopolis Journal of Global Affairs.

We are in an interesting time to learn about world events. Military tensions and conflicts need no sharp eye to spot. Political and economic instability reaches practically every corner of the globe. Uncertainty about where the world may be heading is rampant. In daunting times like these that invite passivity, why engage?

Most of us aren’t going to be (or want to be) Prime Minister or diplomats. Most issues happening in the world do not have an immediate first-hand impact on us. But all of us are affected by their decisions, to some degree. 

The traditional issues, such as war, conflict, peace, trade, and international economics, are integral aspects of our global system that affect us (or at least our country, or our allies) indirectly, and you hear about them in the news. They merit our awareness. Other areas deserving global concern include the environment, human rights, international law, international organizations, and development. 

We will inhabit a broader world shaped by all of these complexities. 

In that spirit, the core goal of this journal is to promote global awareness and understanding. Taking both a historical and contemporary perspective, we will critically evaluate current global events and processes. In doing so, the Journal primarily strives to be informative and not intentionally provocative. Our role is not to argue vehemently for or against a particular issue or topic. That is the reader’s. 

The Journal promises to bring the world to Marianopolis and Marianopolis to the world, in order to support more engaged and educated global citizens. Global understanding must be the first step.

Eagerly,

The Marianopolis Journal of Global Affairs

A Marianopolis College Club

Get Involved in Writing our Publications.