When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the reaction extended beyond a simple violation of sovereignty. It concerned the disintegration of an entire normative framework that had characterized post-Cold War international relations. Two years later, as Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas assault unfurled with unprecedented magnitude and destruction in Gaza, the international order experienced a concurrent collapse, not of security assurances, but of long-established humanitarian principles.
Together, Ukraine and Gaza represent the bookends of a new chapter in global politics: a post normative epoch in which the influence of established norms is waning, institutional authority is increasingly challenged, and geopolitical interests override legal and ethical considerations.
This does not imply that norms have disappeared; rather, they no longer regulate state behavior in the manner they did during the 1990s and early 2000s. Instead, the international landscape is currently marked by selective enforcement of norms, diminished institutional credibility, and the resurgence of unfiltered strategic calculations that more closely resemble pre-1945 geopolitics than the post-1991 liberal order.
Gaza and the Selective Application of Humanitarian Norms
The war in Gaza showed that humanitarian rules aren’t always followed, and the war in Ukraine showed that sovereignty rules aren’t always followed. When Hamas attacked on October 7 and killed more than 1,200 Israelis, Israel sent troops into the area. This killed many civilians, forced many people to leave their homes, and destroyed important infrastructure. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other UN groups found proof that the Geneva Conventions were broken when people were bombed, besieged, or made it hard for people to get help.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the inconsistent response from around the world made it important to move toward a post normative order. People were worried about protecting civilians, but the US kept giving military support to Israel. Different European countries had different, and sometimes even opposite, views. This was more because of political limitations than because they wanted to stick to their principles. South Africa took a genocide case to the International Court of Justice. This was a strange turn of events in geopolitics: a country in the Global South using international law against a country that is aligned with the West.
But the United Nations only made symbolic resolutions that couldn’t be enforced. Big protests showed that public opinion in Western capitals was very different from official policies. Gaza showed that humanitarian rules, which were once thought to be universal, now work based on a hierarchy set by geopolitical ties. If Ukraine showed moral outrage in some cases, Gaza showed humanitarian enforcement in others. This shows that there are no longer any rules that everyone follows when it comes to diplomacy around the world.
The decline of institutions and the rise of informal power centers
The crises in Ukraine and Gaza sped up the breakdown of established institutions, which were already losing their legitimacy. The way the UN Security Council was set up in 1945 doesn’t fit with the world we live in today, which has many poles. The US vetoes stopped action in Gaza, and the Russian vetoes stopped resolutions about Ukraine. This shows that there is symmetrical paralysis.
People said that the International Criminal Court was unfairly going after people, going after Russian officials but not cases involving Western allies as quickly. People started to trust international legal institutions again because of the ICJ’s work, but they still had to rely on the political will of countries to carry them out, which showed how weak they really were. Institutions aren’t as important as they used to be, so informal groups like BRICS, QUAD, G7, I2U2, and ASEAN-led forums are becoming more important for making diplomatic decisions.
States like these flexible and interest-based platforms because they don’t have to follow strict rules and can work together in a way that benefits everyone. The shift from formal institutions to informal alliances shows that society is changing in a way that is not normal. Norms no longer derive authority from institutions; rather, institutions derive power from powerful governments’ interests. The outcome is a global system in which legitimacy is undermined, enforcement is inconsistent, and the structure of the mid-twentieth century struggles to get people to follow the laws of the twenty-first century.
A Post Normative Era: Multipolarity Lacks Moral Consensus
The reality that emerges from the shocks in Ukraine and Gaza is not anarchy, but it is clearly post-normative. In this order, there are disputed norms, various moral languages, and a shift back to national interests over universal values. Major nations publicly prioritize strategic goals over anything else. Russia discusses historical destiny, China emphasizes the value of civilizational diversity and sovereignty, the United States only upholds humanitarian norms when it serves its interests, and India discusses multipolarity and non-alignment 2.0 while opposing bloc pressures.
The Global South is no longer neutral; it has emerged as an independent normative actor. India’s independent stance on Ukraine, Brazil’s efforts to mediate, ASEAN’s refusal to participate in great-power competition, the African Union’s call for greater representation, and South Africa’s legal activism at the International Court of Justice all demonstrate that countries are becoming more confident in making the rules rather than simply following them.
The new order is not post-legal, but post-hegemonic. No value system or group of people agrees with all others. Instead, diplomacy is becoming more targeted at specific issues. Countries work together on things like climate change, technology, and supply chains, but they also fight hard for power and security. Middle powers are relying more and more on strategic ambiguity, which means they take flexible positions that give them more freedom in a world that is divided.
The post normative era doesn’t mean the end of norms; it just means that people are no longer fooled into thinking that they apply to everyone. Ukraine and Gaza showed that rules can’t be kept up without being used all the time, and institutions can’t work without real legitimacy. What comes next is a world of negotiated multipolarity, in which more people than ever before will debate, change, and reinterpret the rules.
This is not the end of the world; rather, it marks the beginning of a new one. It represents a shift from hegemonic norms to plural norms, institutional authority to geopolitical negotiation, and moral certainty to strategic complexity. It marks the end of a common moral fiction, but it could also signal the beginning of a more honest global order.
