The debate over the rules-based international order under threat has intensified as global leaders warn that the post-World War Two system may be unravelling.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently declared that the rules-based order “no longer exists,” arguing that the world has returned to big-power politics. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney echoed similar concerns, describing the current moment as a rupture rather than a transition.
Although neither leader named US President Donald Trump directly, their remarks followed widening tensions between Washington and its Western allies.
Trump’s rhetoric on annexing Greenland, his use of tariffs, and criticism of NATO have unsettled partners. His recent warning to Iran over a nuclear deal has also raised questions about whether the US might act outside the UN Security Council consensus.
Rules-Based International Order Under Threat or Resilient?
The rules-based international order is a system in which countries follow agreed norms and institutions rather than relying on force. It was established after World War Two and has been led largely by the United States.
Tom Chodor, a politics lecturer at Monash University, said US leadership historically underpinned the system. According to him, a dominant power must be willing to compromise and offer concessions for the system to function.
Chodor argues that recent US actions have disrupted that balance. He pointed to withdrawals from international agreements and pressure on global institutions as signs of strain.
He also cited a delayed vote by the International Maritime Organisation on a carbon emissions levy. Although many countries supported the plan, US pressure reportedly led to its postponement.
Read: Trump Iran War Midterm Elections: Escalation Risks Before November Vote
Australia, he said, may be particularly exposed through security arrangements such as AUKUS, which deepens reliance on US cooperation. However, not all experts believe the system is collapsing.
Dr John Blaxland of the Australian National University said the order remains more durable than critics suggest. He noted that China’s economic rise occurred within this framework, making it a beneficiary rather than a destroyer of the system.
Blaxland also referenced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s more conciliatory speech at the Munich Security Conference. Rubio reaffirmed transatlantic ties and called for reform rather than dismantling global institutions.
The debate ultimately centres on whether current tensions signal a breakdown or a period of adjustment. While rivalry among major powers has intensified, many institutions of cooperation remain intact.
