In a realm where the illusion of order over the real was fading, where international law, institutions and norms still reigned, we now are destined to live in a lacking system, without coherent alliances, without a convenient excuse for an obvious hostile government. Whether domestically or abroad, in Gaza or Ukraine, these rules have been bent, rewritten, forgotten, and en masse ignored or selectively enforced. What is happening today is not just another little tragedy, confined to one place. They are signs of a broader systemic breakdown: the state not only of the global order’s collapse, but also of a world disorder composed of fragmentation, moral relativism and unrestrained power.
Statements are issued by global institutions; the condemnations by states follow; still bombs fall anyway
There is unremitting destruction in Gaza. Its homes, hospitals, and hope have been destroyed almost cyclically. Decades of failed diplomacy and imbalance in politics have devalued the lives of Rwandans and Palestinians. Enshrining international humanitarian law after the horrors of the 20th century, seems to be impotent in the face of collective punishment, and civilians casualties. Statements are issued by global institutions; the condemnations by states follow; still bombs fall anyway. What follows is not just a military conflict, but also a crumbling of legal and ethical red lines that heretofore never lost their global legitimacy.
The United Nations Security Council, whose sole purpose is to ensure international peace, remains hopelessly deadlocked by the veto power that belongs to the aggressor
Ukraine is its own ugly picture, different but equally disturbing. Russia’s invasion in 2022 demolished the European security architecture built after the end of Cold War, showing that conventional wars of conquest are not something from the past. And yet, with all the weight of Western military backing for Kyiv, the war continues, becomes increasingly catastrophic in human cost, and prompts a paralysis of any diplomacy aimed at bringing peace. Addictive violence continues to dominate the stage of events, and most imaginative tribute is paid to Churchill’s view that ‘a democracy without fighting power is a contradiction of terms.’ The United Nations Security Council, whose sole purpose is to ensure international peace, remains hopelessly deadlocked by the veto power that belongs to the aggressor. The principle of territorial integrity is in tatters as one sovereign state seeks to wipe another off the map.
What links these theatres of war is the erosion of the previously enforceable global norms. Much of the Global South sees the idea of a “rules based international order” as championed by liberal democracies as a faith based system that has lost its credibility. Selective outrage, double standards, and geopolitical interests have made justice look transactional. When occupation in one region is condemned and in another excused, when some victims are grieved while others are ignored, the universality of human rights becomes a hollow promise.
No single actor has the authority to set global norms; instead, what we see is competitive norm-setting
This is not a descent into anarchy, but into multipolar disorder. The emerging world is shaped not by the absence of power but by the proliferation of it, across states, corporations, militias, and algorithms. No single actor has the authority to set global norms; instead, what we see is competitive norm-setting. China promotes state sovereignty and non-intervention, even as it tightens its own sphere of influence. The United States claims to defend democracy, even as it arms authoritarian allies. Russia invokes anti-colonial rhetoric while waging imperial war. The result is not ideological clarity, but confusion, moral, legal, and strategic.
Technology has accelerated this disorder. Social media platforms weaponize narrative and distort truth. Autonomous weapons blur the line between war and crime. Cyberattacks operate in legal grey zones. Artificial intelligence is reshaping decision-making without accountability. In such a world, the old distinctions, between state and non-state, peace and war, foreign and domestic, collapse. We inhabit a battlefield without front lines, where perception becomes reality and truth is just another form of power.
In this vacuum, regional hegemons assert themselves, middle powers hedge, and weaker states are left to navigate a chaotic landscape
Meanwhile, the institutions meant to uphold order appear increasingly obsolete. The UN system, created in 1945, is paralyzed by outdated power structures. The World Trade Organization is unable to manage economic coercion or digital trade wars. Climate summits produce declarations while emissions rise. There is no global framework that can compel compliance, only coalitions of convenience and fractured alliances. In this vacuum, regional hegemons assert themselves, middle powers hedge, and weaker states are left to navigate a chaotic landscape.
Global governance must be reimagined to reflect the pluralism of the 21st century, not the post-World War II balance of power
But this disorder is not inevitable, it is constructed, and therefore, can be reconstructed. The starting point is honesty. Global leaders must acknowledge the failure of existing mechanisms and resist the temptation to cloak self-interest in moral rhetoric. There must be renewed investment in inclusive diplomacy, one that listens to voices outside traditional power centers. Global governance must be reimagined to reflect the pluralism of the 21st century, not the post-World War II balance of power.
At its core, this fragmented world demands a rethinking of solidarity. Not as a geopolitical tactic, but as a moral imperative. The suffering in Gaza and Ukraine is not distant; it is a mirror reflecting the fragility of the systems we claim to defend. If we continue to treat justice as selective and peace as transactional, we will not only fail the present, we will forfeit the future. The question is no longer which side we are on, but what kind of world we are willing to live in. And whether the global order we speak of is something we still believe in, or just words we’ve grown used to saying.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
