Is this the End of the Rules Based Order?
- Nazish Mehmood
- Jun 9
- 5 min read
The term "rules-based international order" has long been the favorite incantation of the politicians of the West. Call it, and you express "virtue," "multilateralism" and "civilizational responsibility. But in January 2026, the very headquarters of Liberal globalism, the Cathedral of Liberal globalism in Davos, in front of the best aMidddnd the brightest of the world, the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced that the current rules-based order had already been killed. Not by rogue States. Not by force by rivals who were authoritarian. But by their great powers themselves. He was not wrong. He was just late.
A System Built for Some, Sold to All
Post-1945 international order is built on high hopes: sovereignty equals, instead of conflict – peaceful self-resolution and collective security, law stronger than force. These noble ideals were to be. Ideals and architecture, however, are not the same thing and the architects were those of the winners of World War II, whose war aims were not directly represented.
A small group of western powers sets the key rules and institutional agendas claiming them to be universal, to the detriment of emerging powers and the majority of the Global South in decision-making from the Bretton Woods Institutions to security alliances. From the get-go, the UN Security Council veto assured that the powerful would never be made accountable. Trade agreements were designed to maintain the developing world as a source of commodities instead of industries. No one was compelled to disarm established arms; the rules of nuclear non-proliferation only applied to the weak ones.
This was an experience for Pakistan and many countries in the Global South. Selective and uneven defense of sovereignty and international rules. The message of Islamabad has been the same: one code of conduct for all states and not varying codes of conduct for different powers.
The Mask Comes Off
On behalf of institutions and under the guise of diplomatic rhetoric for decades, this selectivity was hidden. Then were a number of things that took away the mask.
The rules-based order was undermined again as institutions in developing countries compared the actions of the West in Ukraine and Gaza.Observers around the world in the Global South compared the West actions in Ukraine and in Gaza, further undermining the rules-based order. In this evaluation they showed themselves to be just as guilty of violating international laws, direct targeting of civilians and crimes against humanity as the West accused Russia of in Gaza, and the West would give them a "free pass," critics say.
The fact that there was an economic divide between the two was too significant to overlook. It wasn't only in Gaza, either. The world is watching as Trump has made it quite clear that he has no intention of honouring international law but only his own moral judgment, a blatant disregard of the UN Charter, protectionism and unapologetic American hegemony in disregard of previous liberal rules-based global order.
By itself, it's a sign about how seldom the term "rules-based international order" graces America's own 2025 National Security Strategy, which has the qualification "so-called" sprinkled across it, to attack the foreign policies of past US administrations. Its strongest backer had turned the most forthright critic. Then what fell was the credibility of those who were charged with keeping order.
The Fault Lines Were Always There
There is a danger of going back to fond memories. No there was never a golden age when there was an authentic system of multilateralism. The existence of power politics has not changed, what has changed is only its visibility. Enforcement was never even, and now it is not so much that an increasingly educated, assertive and connected Global South cannot be deceived by this unevenness and complacency, as that it cannot be hoodwinked over it.
What globalization was supposed to achieve is for rich countries to climb the value chain, and for poor ones to make simple things, as one analyst was as plain as a picture. Globalization was about moving up the value chain from poor to rich, with its subtle take-home message that it was designed to keep that hierarchy in place, not break it up.
However, over time, Pakistan along with many other countries in the Global South has had to play the game of unequal expectations where it is expected to abide by rigorous conditions, whereas other states are expected to implement the same on a different level. What has grown is the confidence of the Global South in thus voicing the grievance; the grievance itself is not new.
Disorder Is Not the Answer
Yet here lies a critical distinction that must not be lost in the momentum of critique: the failure of the existing order does not make its absence desirable. In a world without rules, freedom and liberty are not increased for the smaller and developing states: they are increased for the stronger ones.
Which, however frustrating Western hypocrisy is, it affords developing countries the leverage. If an agreement made by the United States and the allies is based on moral considerations then a third party can publicly rip it to shreds and ask for an account from U.S. and allied policy makers about why they are making such decisions. Countries have no such leverage over powers when they had no reason to profess themselves as being bound by universal values in the first place.
Apart from double standards, this is not a defense. It's a call for clarity of vision. But the interest of Pakistan and the rest of development world is not with rejection of international norms, but for their real universalization. In a world of naked power suits, it is only those with the greatest power that win.
The Reinvention Has Already Begun
Such a reading of this time moment is less "decline" than "transition": a messy, contested, not-so-certain, but nonetheless transition moment.
Middle powers are becoming more influential and setting norms and forming coalitions, not through superpower power but by impacting on other critical areas, be it in the design of trade frameworks or via the governance of AI, and the issue is whether a more polycentric world can achieve global stability.
But it is not a matter of anti-Western forums, such as the SCO, BRICS+ and a renewed G20, but also the initial structure of future multilateralism. Despite the collapse of the existing order, and the rise of protectionism and autarchy in Europe, East Asian leaders have never been impressed to turn toward it. There is a genuine appetite for an alternative which is now institutionalizing itself.
Eagerly participating in two forums, a SCO forum and an OIC forum, but stuck in the middle of South Asia, Central Asia and the Muslim world, Pakistan is far from being a bystander in this transition. It is a stakeholder, not only interested in the situation but also having some responsibility.
Conclusion
The order based on rules is not in decline. It is being renegotiated — and now, for the first time in the history of the United States, the nations that were originally included right off the bat on the fringe of its original draft are not only given the standing, but also the need, to write into that next draft.
For Pakistan and Global South, the correct answer during today's juncture is neither a yearning for an order which never did them justice, nor a celebration of a chaos which would do them a scarier injustice. It is principled strategic engagement: It is insisting on the universality of the norms worth keeping; demanding the reform of failing institutions; laying the bases for the coalitions that will make the next order legitimate and real.
There is no longer any doubt that the old order shall not perish. It will never, not as it is now. Who is on deck to make the next step? It is no longer an option for developing countries to leave this question unanswered.
This article written by Nazish Mehmood, a researcher who combines curiosity and insight to uncover connections between international decisions and their effects on communities, bringing a thoughtful, people-centered perspective to global challenges.
Comments