PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2019] “The long-sustained image of India as a leader of the oppressed and marginalised Nations has disappeared on account of its new found role in the emerging global order”. Elaborate.
Linkage: The question directly examines India’s transition within the evolving global order, mirroring the article’s theme of shifting from a rules-based to a power-centric system. It tests understanding of multilateralism, geopolitical realignment, and legitimacy in global governance. |
Mentor’s Comment
The post-1945 international order, built on multilateralism, sovereignty, and rule-based conduct, faces structural erosion. Major powers increasingly privilege strategic convenience over institutional commitments. This article examines the weakening of global governance frameworks and its implications for sovereignty, multilateral legitimacy, and international stability.
Why in the News?
The article is significant amid rising global conflicts, weakening multilateral institutions, and increasing disregard for international law by major powers. The retreat from global agreements and selective respect for sovereignty mark a shift from a rules-based order to power-based geopolitics. This transition has direct implications for global stability and India’s foreign policy.
Introduction
The rules-based global order, institutionalized after 1945 under the leadership of the United States and embodied in the United Nations system, aimed to restrain power through law, multilateral institutions, and collective security. The foundational belief was that sovereignty carried responsibility, and no state could claim special privilege outside international law.
Current geopolitical developments reflect a shift from rules to power politics. The retreat from multilateral agreements, selective enforcement of norms, and normalization of coercive statecraft signal structural stress within global governance institutions.
Has the Rules-Based International Order Lost Institutional Credibility?
- Multilateral Retreat: Withdrawal from international agreements weakens collective governance; e.g., U.S. exit from climate and arms-control frameworks reduced institutional predictability.
- Norm Erosion: Non-aggression and territorial integrity principles face selective application; example: major power interventions without UN authorization.
- Legitimacy Deficit: Institutions retain formal mandates but lack enforcement capacity; UN Security Council paralysis illustrates structural limits.
- Fragmentation: Emergence of regional power blocs reduces universality of norms; example: competing economic corridors and trade alliances.
Does Selective Sovereignty Undermine Constitutional Principles of International Law?
- Sovereign Equality Principle: UN Charter guarantees equal sovereignty; selective recognition violates foundational norms.
- Non-Aggression Norm: Prohibits territorial acquisition by force; current conflicts challenge enforcement credibility.
- Rule Consistency: Law loses authority when applied variably; example: differential responses to territorial disputes.
- Precedent Risk: Tolerated violations create normative cascades affecting smaller states disproportionately.
How Has Unilateralism Impacted Global Regulatory Frameworks?
- Arms Control Weakening: Withdrawal from arms-control treaties reduces transparency and raises escalation risks.
- Trade Institutional Stress: WTO dispute resolution paralysis reduces enforceability of trade norms.
- Climate Governance Gap: Reduced cooperation delays coordinated mitigation targets.
- Pandemic Coordination Failure: Vaccine nationalism exposed limits of global health governance.
Are Multilateral Institutions Structurally Equipped to Regulate Great Power Behaviour?
- Power Concentration: UN Security Council veto structure centralizes authority.
- Enforcement Limitations: Peacekeeping mandates depend on political consensus.
- Resource Constraints: Financial dependency on major contributors affects autonomy.
- Moral Authority vs Legal Authority: Institutions rely on compliance culture rather than coercive enforcement.
Does the Shift from Law to Power Represent a Structural Reset of Global Governance?
- Transition Phase: Emerging multipolarity redistributes influence among regional actors.
- Institutional Adaptation Gap: Post-1945 architecture reflects bipolar Cold War realities.
- Competing Norm Systems: Divergent governance models challenge universal liberal norms.
- Long-Term Risk: Gradual institutional decay may normalize “might is right” doctrine.
Conclusion
The post-1945 rules-based order is experiencing structural erosion due to unilateralism, selective application of norms, and weakened multilateral institutions. The risk lies not in sudden collapse but in gradual institutional hollowing. Sustaining global stability requires renewed commitment to sovereignty, rule of law, and credible multilateral reform to prevent normalization of power-centric geopolitics.