The post-war international order, painstakingly built on rules and laws, is facing an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy and credibility. As the United States, its principal architect, turns away under the leadership of Donald Trump, the world is witnessing what many describe as a morbid transition into a new, uncertain era.
The Deliberate Dismantling of a World Order
In 2025, Western leaders openly acknowledged living through a profound transitional period. The framework for international relations established after the Second World War had effectively crashed to a halt. The warning signs were clear. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during his Senate confirmation hearing in February 2025, stated with stark clarity that the postwar global order was not merely obsolete but had become "a weapon being used against us." He declared it a dangerous delusion, built on the false assumption that nations would abandon identity to become part of a single, democratic, Western-led human family.
This assessment was formalised in the subsequent US National Security Strategy, which warned of European cultural erasure and pledged support for nationalist parties advocating "strategic stability with Russia." The document asserted America would no longer seek to "prop up the entire world order like Atlas." In practice, Trump's foreign policy became a confusing blend of non-interventionist rhetoric and sporadic, aggressive actions, creating a "catherine wheel of disconnected explosions" across the global stage.
Mobster Diplomacy and the Assault on Institutions
Amid the chaos, one consistent target emerged: the constraints of international law. Trump's administration pursued what analysts term "sheer coercive power" or mobster diplomacy, where shakedowns, blackmail, and transactional deal-making replaced legal norms. This was evident in Ukraine, where the choice between expelling Russia or forging a profitable relationship with Vladimir Putin to plunder resources saw Trump lean decisively towards the latter.
The sovereignty of resource-rich nations like Venezuela, with its 303 billion barrels of crude oil, became subject to what critics call Trump's "marauding eye." When Vice President JD Vance was warned that bombing Venezuelan boats constituted a potential war crime, he brazenly replied, "I don't give a shit what you call it." The Pentagon later claimed, implausibly, that attacking shipwrecked sailors was permissible under US law as they were combatants.
Simultaneously, an open assault was launched on the institutions upholding international law. French International Criminal Court judge Nicolas Guillou detailed how US sanctions, imposed after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, devastated his daily life. His accounts with companies like Amazon, Airbnb, and PayPal were closed, and a hotel booking via Expedia was cancelled. European banks and companies, cowed by US Treasury threats, rushed to cut ties with him and major Palestinian human rights groups like Al-Haq.
A World Sliding into Disorder
The erosion of legal norms is brutally visible in Gaza. Majed al-Ansari, foreign policy adviser to Qatar's Prime Minister, lamented that diplomacy in 2025 was reduced to begging aggressors "to kill fewer people, destroy fewer neighbourhoods" rather than demanding respect for international law. He described an age of "disgusting impunity" taking the world back hundreds of years.
At the United Nations, the US almost relished its isolation, having cut an estimated $1 billion in funding and fired 1,000 government staff supporting UN functions. It left or undermined bodies like the Human Rights Council and UNESCO. Former US Vice President John Kerry accused the Trump administration of turning America "from leader to denier, delayer and divider," a vacuum China is slowly filling.
This crisis has triggered a profound intellectual debate. Over 40 academics contributed to a special edition of the London Review of International Law, questioning whether the law can bear the weight of public faith placed upon it. Professor Thomas Skouteris describes a "fin de siècle mood," where international law's lexicon is everywhere yet its power to settle disputes feels weakened—what once promised order now reads as performance.
As Christoph Heusgen, former security adviser to Angela Merkel, warned, the rules-based order is easy to disrupt but hard to rebuild. Yet the prevailing sentiment, captured by Al-Ansari, is grim: "We are moving into a system where anybody can do whatever they like... As long as you have the ability to wreak havoc, you can do it because no one will hold you accountable." The interregnum Gramsci foresaw is now a reality, and every act carries decisive weight for the future of global sovereignty.
