The term order generally means “stable arrangement of items, functions or relations”. But in international relations, there is no world government which is acting as an overarching authority over all other states. As the interactions and diplomatic relations which are forged among states are subjected to change, hence all of this takes place under a situation of “anarchy”.
A critical view on world order
If we take a look at the world, the states are divided according to their position of power- superpower, great powers, major powers and regional powers. The sub-distinction among each category of power can go further ahead. However when it comes to world order, it is usually defined as an international order which is typically established by a great power. The rules of the world order are based in accordance with the normative preferences of the great power. For any world order to function it also needs consensus based recognition from most of the states. It is followed by durability of the world order which is shaped by depth of interests of states in terms of both long and short term ones; which caters to the areas of military, economic and political. The convincing factor behind maintaining world order is that the hegemon or great power has power and patronage therefore the world needs order for peace and stability. Hence, the rationale of world order is driven by peace, durability, stability and absence of war.
For instance, the Liberal International Order (L.I.O.) which was created by the U.S. and its allies which rested on globalisation, multilateral cooperation, democratic and economic liberation. It is also driven by ideational forces which are more or less shaped by the ideals of the great power. To put in simple words, the world order is basically designed to benefit a hegemon or a great power as long as it can maintain the rationale of the world order and garner support from most of the states toward the same.
On the other hand, there are different shades of world order which impacts the regional dynamics which may be characterised by conflict and cooperation. In short, in any world order all the regions do not work in absolute accordance to the dictates of the order. The order in any region is shaped by the interaction among the states of the region along with the interaction with and influence of the external powers. The world order should not be viewed as a whole, it has different manifestations in several regions across.
Nevertheless as status-quo in any world order acts like a mirage, changes within a world order is inevitable. If the changes which lead to reshaping of the world order are led by a great power, it has its own costs which has to be shared by the great power and others. The cost sharing should be consensual. The impact of the change in world order is experienced not only by the great power and its allies but also across several regions.
In this current world order, in economic aspects we are living in a multipolar world order. The U.S. continues to be the top military power in the world. Whereas politically, states have and will continue to pursue their opportunistic behaviour across borders and political power is now more evenly distributed than it was during the bipolar world order.
The above-mentioned gamut brings us to the nature of the international system which is anarchic and therefore changes in the world order are expected. Because it is during the transition of one world order to another that we see the rise of new powers.
The current world order in flux?
The world is closing observing the changing world order. However, whether the world order has really changed or is in a flux, is debatable. It is obvious that in the current world order, which is economically and politically multipolar and military still unipolar, is witnessing vital changes. The major changes are induced by the Trump administration 2.0 in the form of tariff wars, reciprocal tariffs and protectionist policies. Some of the pressing concerns about these changes are that it is unpredictable and the end game is not clear.
Apart from the tariff war, there is a growing sense of discontent among states regarding how the U.S. has been pursuing its position in the Ukraine-Russia war and the Israel-Hamas war. Although illusion was always a part of the world order since one is created for the utmost-benefit for all states, the ongoing changes has explicitly shown the brazen contravention of the rules by the very rule-creators. For instance, the U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions over the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its “illegitimate baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”. Though both the states are not a party to ICC but imposing sanction over the latter has clearly shown its contravening respect for human rights. It also indicates the ongoing replacement of rules with power.
Second, there has also been an erosion of multilateralism. The mantra of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) acted as a deterrent for multilateralism and international law in the coming times. Already, the U.S. has withdrawn from the World Health Organisation, the United National Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) and the Paris Climate Agreement. The recent is Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) which would eventually allow the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations. It would halt all the financial contributions. Such series of events also cast a looming doubt over the engagement of the U.S. with the mini-lateral issue based institutions such as the G-20, G7, AUKUS, QUAD etc.
Third, the present is characterised by retreat of globalisation and a concomitant surge of protectionism. The exorbitant imposition of tariffs to address a range of issues such as the fentanyl crisis, influx of immigrants and trade deficits have pushed antithetical trends in international economic cooperation and economic complex interdependence. Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye have long stated that politics and economics cannot be treated as separate entities. Today, we continue to see one of the strongest manifestations of the same.
Lastly, one of the most concerning factor about this ongoing tariff war is that there are high possibilities that in the coming months the tensions between the U.S.-China will flare up. Already China will be imposing 34% tariff on all the imports from the U.S. from April 10. This was in response to move of the U.S. who on April 2 had unveiled an additional 34% tariff on Chinese good imported into the U.S. Moreover, another manifestation of this ongoing tariff war will invariably have an impact over the Taiwan issue. As the U.S. has already signaled its NATO allies to boost up its domestic defence spending for its security and reduce its security dependence over the former; the question is will the U.S. also backtrack from Taiwan in regard to its defence and security. Already there are speculations that the Trump administration 2.0 might impose 100% tariff over Taiwan’s semiconductor companies. If this speculations materializes, it will jeopardies the fragile security equation in East Asian region.
So far the Indo-Pacific region has been characterised by the ongoing rivalry between the U.S. and China and the cooperation among several states. The states like India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam have reaped benefits out of the tech-war between the U.S. and China. Over time, many semiconductor manufacturing industries have mushroomed in these states. The close allies of the U.S. such as Japan and South Korea have also come under the radar of the ongoing tariff war. As the world will be closely watching how the ongoing tariff war is going to take route in the coming months, but currently trust among the U.S. allies is compromised. In addition, the current situation has posed challenges to these states in terms of the threat of instability of the global supply chain. It will be interesting to watch how these states are going to pursue their opportunistic nature in these tough times.
Additionally it is often noted that when world order is in flux, it gives way to the rise of the new powers. However, it will take more months to grasp a clear picture of the same. This brings us to yet another issue is whether China being an economic giant will lead an alternative world order? Beijing has been one of the main beneficiaries of the Liberal International Order and reaped benefits out of the process of globalization. Being an economic power and also a military power (second to the U.S.) does not mean that it is going to lead an alternative world order. As mentioned above, any world order needs to be supported by consensus of most of the states because it adds to its legitimacy, China is still lacking consensus from other states in this matter.
Hence, it lacks normative basis to articulate a better alternative to the U.S. led world order. Nevertheless, the actions initiated by the U.S. have undoubtedly brought the current world order in flux and are definitely making states look inward and find better ways for survival. As stated above, as the international system is anarchic in nature, states will continue to follow their self-interests and this time their choices are hard.
