CURRENT-AFFAIRS

Context

The global order, whose foundation was laid in San Francisco in 1945 following the Second World War, had the primary objective of controlling power through law. However, in the present times, the relevance of international laws is diminishing, and rights like sovereignty are being viewed merely as the special privileges of powerful nations. This shift signals a grave threat to global peace and multilateralism.

The New World Disorder: From Rules to Might

• Deviation from Principle: In 1945, Harry S. Truman pledged peaceful resolutions, but today, the mentality of 'might is right' is being resurrected.
• Selective Interpretation of Rules: International rules have now remained mere tools for self-interest rather than binding commitments.
• Institutional Erosion: Institutions like the United Nations, which were created to save humanity from 'hell', are proving ineffective in the absence of political will.

Why is this discussion important today?

• Increasing Violation of Sovereignty: When superpowers ignore the sovereignty of a country, other nations follow suit, leading to increased global instability.
• Nature of Global Challenges: Major contemporary challenges such as pandemics, climate change, and cyber threats cannot be solved by any single country; they require shared governance.
• Fear of Anarchy: If the current system collapses completely, the world will move towards a dark future where there will be no rules.

Impact on the Global Landscape

• Polarization of Power: The retreat of multilateralism is creating a vacuum, which countries like China are attempting to fill according to their own priorities.
• Proliferation of Small Wars: Amidst the fear of major wars, the number of small but devastating wars is increasing, which are collectively hollowing out the foundations of peace.
• Crisis of Trust: The credibility of international courts and institutions is at stake because powerful countries are bending rules to suit themselves.

Ideological and Practical Aspects of the Crisis

• Ideological Paradox: On one hand, there are ideals of sovereign equality and human rights; on the other, there is their violation for strategic interests.
• Practical Failure: The system of collective security has become paralyzed due to veto power, and trade is being used as a weapon.

India's Position: Strategic Autonomy and Global Responsibility

• Strategic Autonomy: Middle-power countries like India are cautious about their position in this changing order, as they know that without rules, they will remain dependent only on the mercy of the hegemon.
• Investment in Multilateralism: India has been continuously supporting multilateralism so that the fragmentation of global governance can be prevented.
• Regional Challenges: The weakening of global rules is also having complex impacts on India's relations with neighboring countries and regional stability.

Key Dimensions of the Challenges

• Inclination from Multilateralism towards Unilateralism:
  • In the past few years, a deep shift has occurred, especially in the foreign policies of great powers. Withdrawing from international treaties and organizations (such as WHO, UNESCO, Paris Climate Agreement) is an indication that nations are now prioritizing 'narrow national interests' over a 'shared future'. This is a form of 'realism' where international rules are accepted only when they are favorable to oneself.
• Selective Respect for Sovereignty:
  • Today, sovereignty is becoming a 'bargaining chip' rather than an absolute right. The Ukraine crisis, China's expansionist policies in the South China Sea, the ongoing instability in West Asia, and the increasing America First policy and hegemonistic willpower of countries like the US show that when the interests of great powers clash, international law becomes a silent spectator. This sends a dangerous message that rules are only for the weak, while the powerful are above them.
• 'Passport-less' Problems and Institutional Failure:
  • The biggest challenges of the 21st century—climate change, pandemics, cyber warfare, and terrorism—are problems that no country can solve alone. But the irony is that when global cooperation is most needed, institutions like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remain paralyzed due to the politics of the veto.

Dominance of Large Countries vs. Crisis of Small Countries

• Challenge: Large countries often place themselves above the rules, which destroys the legitimacy of the entire system.
• Crisis of Small Countries: When law cannot subdue power, small and developing countries become victims of opportunism and coercion.
• Demand for Change: There is a need to remove the inequality present in the design of global institutions, where power is concentrated in only a few hands.

Analysis

We are living in a period of 'interregnum' where the old world is fading and the new order is yet to be formed. The international system is not completely dead, but it is struggling. The problem is that the very forces responsible for maintaining the system today possess the greatest capacity and desire to disrupt it.

Way Forward

• Restoration of Good Faith: Political will and trust between countries must be re-established for the adherence to rules.
• Inclusive Institutions: Global institutions must be adapted to today's realities so that they do not remain merely clubs for a few powerful countries.
• Collective Solutions: It is mandatory to adopt an integrated global approach for "passport-less problems" like climate and health.

Conclusion

The promise of 1945 was that law would tame power, but today's danger is that power is taming law. The task of the current generation is not to resurrect the past, but to prevent the future from sliding into an anarchy where there are no rules at all. To escape hell, the international order still requires shared efforts as much as it did eighty years ago.