Urgency for Action

The post-WWII Rules Based International Order now faces its most severe global threat since the Cold War, as diverse regimes challenge core values like human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Unlike the Cold War era’s regional conflicts, today’s challenges stem from a global patchwork of authoritarian governments whose actions lead to widespread violence, weakened governance, and eroded social contracts. Concurrent aid cuts and shifting geopolitical alliances further undermine state institutions, jeopardising sustainable development and the broader pursuit of peace and justice.

The post-WWII-established Rules Based International Order (RBIO) is under greater threat than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Many countries oppose core RBIO values including individual and collective human rights for all citizens; functioning, genuinely open and fair democracy; and respect for the rule of law.

The threat today differs from that at the height of the Cold War: opposition to Western liberal democracy no longer is confined to any regional or formal political groupings, such as the former proto-Communist 'Second World'. Instead, there is a global patchwork of countries run by governments and rulers, including military regimes, whose core ethos conflicts with RBIO values.

Violence and insecurity are pervasive in many parts of the world. Many leaders hold onto power through tyranny and with little accountability: the antithesis of RBIO values. This leads inevitably to polarization and paralysis in every such country: without honest and open governance democracy is eroded, the rule of law is undermined, opponents are persecuted, and justice remains elusive for the many.

Under corrupt and unresponsive governments, social contracts disappear. State institutions frequently fail to deliver public services for all citizens equally, as is their statutory duty. Government and commercial enterprise alliances distort markets, stifle economic growth and work together to the personal gain of the few at the expense of the majority of citizens and of cross-societal benefit.​

Governance indicators measured by the World Bank, Freedom House and Bertelsmann Stiftung all show significant downward trends in the integrity of governance over the past decade, in an increasing number of states. The Bertelsmann Stiftung speaks of “the quality of governance and the ability of states to advance the norms of a constitutional democracy and an inclusive market economy hitting a new nadir” (See: “Shaping Change: Strategies for Development and Transformation”, BTI Project Report 2024)

Overlaying and critically further damaging this already fragile context are the correlated issues of aid decline and policy deflection. The current US Administration’s withdrawal of support for USAID and the WHO and the UK Government’s decision to further cut aid expenditure to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI)[1] are significant measures already adversely impacting the lives and livelihoods of the world’s poorest.  Even more critical is the recent alignment of voting of the US and Russia in the UN General Assembly, that has sent shockwaves through the international community. Observing the impact, the Geopolitical Monitor[2] was prompted to highlight “moves away from the moral and strategic certainties of the past …. toward a transactional, interest-driven realignment”.  There appears now growing ambivalence and indifference toward basic human rights.

Meanwhile, as Western countries focus their attention on the major conflicts of the Middle East and in Ukraine, they risk ignoring other existential critical issues: long-term strategising is damaged and policy decision making is deflected from other major issues such as the Sudan crisis and, more generally, the governance of aid in fragile states. The second of these is of particular concern as the World looks toward state reconstruction on a scale unprecedented since WWII and in the knowledge of what has historically happened, particularly in Iraq. 

Taken together, these trends not only have seriously adverse implications for the achievement of UN SDG16 – the ambitions of peace, justice and strong institutions – but the SDGs as a whole.

[1]  The UN set the GNI Benchmark of 0.7% in 1970. It was enshrined in UK law in 2015, and subsequently cut to 0.5% in 2021.  The most recent cut means that in real terms, aid that is developmental in nature will be circa 0.15% once refugee hosting and Domestic ODA (e.g. for research and overseas students) are taken out. 

[2] See “The United Nations, Ukraine, and the Crumbling Pillars of Global Order”, Dr Hasim Turker, Geo Political Monitor, 26th February 2025.