We have been hearing a lot about the “Rule-Based World Order” in the last few years especially from Western capitals and we are told how much it needs to be maintained. What is this system and who has benefited from it? When was it founded, by who, and how has it evolved over time? According to the general understanding about rule-based world order, it refers to an international system where states and global actors follow agreed-upon rules, norms, and institutions to ensure stability, fairness, and cooperation. It is grounded on international law, treaties, and organizations like the UN and WTO, promoting principles such as sovereign equality, peaceful dispute resolution, and non-intervention. This system encourages predictability, reduces conflicts, and facilitates global cooperation on issues like trade and climate change. 
Of late, the majority of the World’s population (mostly in the global south) has questioned its fairness and equity amongst nations. Challenges have emerged due to actions such as unilateralism, power imbalances, and selective adherence by big power nations (mostly in the global north) that undermine its effectiveness. Recent important issues such as inequality, climate change, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Isreal-Gaza war has made the concept of a rule-based order even more contested. Countries from the Global South are revolting against the current system because they feel it is a system that has favored rich countries in the Global North. Global South countries want a new system that is more equitable to them be it a reform of the UN, WTO, IMF or World Bank. 

For example, India is the most populous country in the world, with the fifth-largest economy (by nominal GDP), and the largest democracy in the world but it does not have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Countries like the UK and France, which have smaller populations and economies, enjoy not only a permanent seat but also wield veto powers. Moreover, Africa has the largest voting bloc of the UN but does not have a permanent seat on the security council despite its growing importance on the world stage. This points to a system in their eyes that is not just or representative of the current realities of today’s world. 

Reactions and talking points of western nations towards arrest warrants that have been issued by ICC for President Putin, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and those issued for leaders from third world countries have also further undermined the perception of fairness and search for justice. The majority of the world’s people from the Global South believe that the powerful countries will only support the rule-based system when it does not involve their friends and allies but will turn around and discredit these same institutions (i.e., ICC) when their allies are in the cross hairs. 

All these factors have worked to undermine the rule-based world order that has benefited the west more than other regions of the world.  It’s in their interest to defend this system if they are to maintain their way of life that the rest of the world so desperately wanted to emulate.  But as this can only be accomplished if a sense of fairness, equity, and impartiality is applied to all peoples regardless of where in the world they come from. Failure to uphold these principles will only enhance the chaos around the globe and might lead to a new world order that might not favor the West.

Oumar Fofana is a freelance writer for IA-Forum.