What should replace the American-led world order?

The Guardian  |  Aslı Bâli, Samuel Moyn

The decline of the American-led world order presents a critical opportunity to establish a global security framework based on mutual restraint rather than unilateral hegemony. This transition requires states to commit to a narrow, four-part antiwar agenda designed to limit conflict in an inevitably plural and rivalrous world.

Historically, the post-1945 rules-based international order suffered from systemic hypocrisy and uneven enforcement, which ultimately eroded its legitimacy across the Global South. To prevent multipolarity from devolving into regional domination, states must strengthen limits on self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and reject territorial acquisition by force. Additionally, great and middle powers must halt proxy warfare and restrict arms sales that abet aggression, leveraging frameworks like the Arms Trade Treaty to regulate the $2.9tn global military market. Ultimately, this self-interested restraint offers a more stable foundation for international security than a fading hierarchy, especially in light of costly conflicts in Ukraine and Iran.

Comment

The reliance on the Arms Trade Treaty to restrict conventional weapons transfers exposes a fundamental vulnerability in international legal frameworks. Without centralised enforcement, signatory states interpret the treaty's risk-assessment criteria to justify continued supply to strategic partners. This structural flexibility ensures that unilateral definitions of defensive assistance consistently override multilateral export restrictions. Consequently, the treaty remains subordinate to the geopolitical imperatives of major arms-exporting nations.

To read in details click here