Explained: Why the rules-based international order is being questioned

The rules-based international order, built after World War II to restrain power through law and institutions, is under scrutiny as Western leaders acknowledge gaps in how it has been applied

Canadian prime minister Mark Carney recently described the rules-based international order, a concept that took shape after World War II, as “partially false” and, in many ways, a “fiction”, arguing that the world’s strongest states have routinely exempted themselves from obligations “when convenient” and that international law was “applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim”.

 

And it’s not just him who has said it out of the blue. The term ‘rules-based order under collapse’ has been headlining policy papers, political speeches, and diplomatic conversations for some time now. The shift first came to light during Donald Trump’s first term as US president, when Washington openly questioned multilateral institutions and agreements, and more so since last year when he took over the White House for a second term and has been on an aggressive push on trade, security, and alliances since.

 

 

What is the rules-based international order and why is it under strain?

 

Before 1945, international relations were dominated by empires, shifting alliances and spheres of influence, with few effective constraints on the use of force. The League of Nations attempted to impose collective rules after World War I but failed due to limited authority and the absence of major powers.

 

The phrase “rules-based international order” came into being in the aftermath of the Second World War and consisted, by and large, of agreement to a set of international laws, agreements, norms and institutions that would come to shape how countries deal with each other. It did not create binding legal obligations because it lacked the power to enforce compliance. Instead, it referred to a broadly agreed framework built around shared expectations that borders would be respected, disputes would be resolved through institutions rather than force, trade would follow agreed rules, and power would be exercised within limits set by international law.

 

The agreement between nations relied on global institutions, most notably the United Nations and its Charter, which sought to constrain the use of force, recognise the sovereignty of states and provide mechanisms for collective security. Over time, this framework expanded to include economic and legal institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and, later, the World Trade Organization, alongside treaties governing warfare, human rights, maritime law and arms control.

 

Together, although these arrangements or institutions did not eliminate conflict or inequality between nations, they managed to create a degree of predictability in international relations.

 

How the post-war rules-based international order took shape

 

The formal foundations of the rules-based order were laid in 1945, when representatives of more than 50 countries met in San Francisco to draft the United Nations Charter. The trauma of two world wars and the collapse of the League of Nations called for desperate measures so as not to plunge into the darkness of global wars again. The aim was not to end power politics, but to contain it through law, diplomacy and collective institutions.

 

For example, global economic stability was addressed through the Bretton Woods system, which created rules for global finance and trade and established institutions meant to prevent the kind of monetary collapse and protectionism that had deepened the Great Depression. Security arrangements followed, including military alliances and confidence-building mechanisms designed to deter large-scale war, particularly during the Cold War.

 

However, it is important to note that this framework evolved unevenly. New treaties were added, institutions expanded their mandates and membership grew as former colonies became independent states. What emerged was often described as a liberal international order, not because all states were liberal democracies, but because the system emphasised open markets, legal norms and institutionalised cooperation, with the United States playing a central role as the dominant power.

 

Why the rules-based order is now being questioned globally

 

In recent years, the idea that the rules-based order is weakening has moved from academic debate into mainstream political discourse. Geopolitical rivalry has intensified and, added to that, is the re-emergence of competition between major powers, which has strained assumptions that disputes would be managed within existing rules. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s expanding claims in contested maritime regions and increasing militarisation across several theatres have raised questions about the durability of norms around sovereignty and non-aggression.

 

Meanwhile, domestic political changes in important Western countries have also reduced enthusiasm for multilateralism. Trade agreements, security commitments and international institutions have increasingly been framed as constraints rather than stabilising mechanisms, leading to more unilateral and transactional approaches, particularly from the United States in recent years. Consequently, the WTO is increasingly being rendered ineffective, with powerful nations, such as the US, shaping global trade policies that suit only their interests.

 

Critics have long argued that the rules of the globalised, liberal world were never applied evenly. Powerful states have, time and again, bypassed international law or institutions while insisting that others comply. This selective application, now more openly acknowledged by some Western leaders, has weakened the credibility of claims that the system is neutral or universally enforced.

 

The system has also been laid bare in its inefficiencies as it has struggled to adapt to evolving challenges such as cyber warfare, economic coercion and climate change.

 

What a shift towards a multipolar world could mean

 

International relations experts have, for some time now, described an increasing move towards multipolarity, where several centres of power shape rules within their regions or through alternative groupings. Although new institutions and alignments are emerging, such as BRICS and free trade agreements, none yet offer a comprehensive alternative.

 

Therefore, if the rules-based order erodes without effective replacements, the likely result will not be the absence of rules, but competing sets of rules applied unevenly across regions, meaning greater uncertainty in trade, security and diplomacy, especially for smaller states.