Papers in the "JIIA Strategic Commentary Series" are prepared mainly by JIIA research fellows to provide commentary and policy-oriented analyses on significant international affairs issues in a readily comprehensible and timely manner.
Power Shifts and the US Reluctance to Engage the Global Order
2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Throughout last year's election super-cycle, incumbent political ruling forces experienced quite tough times in many democracies, resulting in changes of government and the rise of extremism.
The advanced countries of the West face many serious socio-economic challenges - e.g., widening income disparities and low economic growth as well as intolerance of diversity, hostility to and exclusion of different opinions - that are exacerbating divisions within countries.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed under democratic regimes, but the spread of social media has led to an overflow of unprocessed information disseminated by unknown individuals. Such information spaces tend to contain groundless disinformation, and there may be foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI). In some countries, FIMI may have had significant consequences for the election results. The rise of populism, which is unlikely in authoritarian systems, is a dilemma of democratic systems. Freedom of expression, inherently the strength of democracy, should not be its vulnerability.
For the time being, the Western democracies are likely to continue facing difficult times.
In the global landscape, the relative weight of developed countries is declining while that of emerging powers and the Global South is on the rise. The total GDP of the G7, which accounted for 43% of the world total in 2000, fell to 30% in 2024. In contrast, the total GDP of the BRICS in 2000 was 21% of the world total, but in 2018 it overtook the G7 and the gap continued to widen thereafter, reaching 36% in 2024 for the expanded BRICS. On a population basis, the total population of the expanded BRICS in 2023 is 3.57 billion, about five times that of the G7, which has a total of just 780 million. The population share of developed countries, given their low birthrates and aging populations, is bound to continue declining in coming years.
At the same time, revisionists and Global South countries will become more assertive and vocal in contesting the West-led global order.
Although the United States remains the largest military and economic power, Americans are becoming less willing to shed blood and get involved in preventing and resolving international conflicts. This tendency is more prevalent among younger generations. Therefore, it is likely that the US will continue to see administrations prioritizing domestic concerns over international affairs even after Trump 2.0.1
The US, together with its Western allies, was a founding power of liberal multilateralism and its global governance architecture and has exercised leadership to advocate for a rule-based international order. However, it seems the US is no longer willing to shoulder the burden of promoting universal norms and values alone.
Against a backdrop of global power shifts and intensifying great power competition exacerbated by US reluctance to engage in global governance, the primacy of the West-led post-Cold War global order is at a critical crossroads. Is the world moving into an era of fragmented multipolarity2?
Revisionist Challenges and the Global South
The Trump 2.0 administration is pursuing a transactional foreign policy that blatantly focuses on immediate national interests over respect for global commons and universal values. Trump has called for withdrawing from international organizations and treaties such as the WHO and the Paris Agreement and expressed territorial ambitions over Panama and Greenland. The present rule-based international order is threatened not just by frontal attempts by revisionists to change the status quo but also by assaults from the rear by its leading advocate.
The countries of the Global South, while still upholding the values and norms of the present global order, criticize the West for its "double standards" when they find the West differentiating between Ukraine and Gaza in the application of international humanitarian law. Many developing countries also feel cheated by the conflict between the WTO's nondiscrimination rules and the restrictive measures unilaterally taken by the West for economic security objectives.
Revisionist Russia and China are trying to take advantage of the divisions among states, insisting that the present international order has been imposed by the West, equating it to imperialist hegemonic control over developing countries, and seeking to change the global order in their favor.
Do these revisionist views propose realistic alternatives that could replace the current rule-based international order?
Russia has launched a "World Majority" policy3 asserting that Russia belongs to the "world majority" consisting of the Global South and East. It defines BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as its front line and advocates for the formation of an order that excludes the West. It denounces the Western order as being in decline and unable to provide global public goods.
China has been promoting the vision of "a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind."4 China also favors the pursuit of an "equal and orderly multipolar world". These concepts are not clearly defined, but it would seem from China's behaviors that equality applies only to the great powers and an orderly multipolar world means the coexistence of great powers' spheres of influence.
The commonalities among these revisionist views are attempts to create anti-West alternatives that enchant the Global South and justify domestic regimes devoid of basic humanitarian values. It should be noted that there are certain discrepancies between their behaviors and words.
The Missions of Europe, Japan and the West
Is the current international order really a unilateral imposition of Western dominance?
The rule-based international order benefits advanced countries but it has also benefited the majority of countries on the globe. The rule of law offers particular protection to small and medium-sized countries from the use of force and coercion to change the status quo. If the world were to become a place where rules and norms no longer prevailed, force and power would dominate and the world would revert to the time of the Yalta regime when bargaining by the leaders of major powers determined the fate of other countries.
Under the UN Charter, the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security is given to the UN Security Council. However, except for a short period after the end of the Cold War, the Security Council has not been able to fulfill its primary function. Against this backdrop, the US, together with trusted allies, has undertaken responsibility for resolving international conflicts for many decades, but the US is no longer shouldering its mission alone. As the remaining guardians of the global order, how will Western countries respond to this situation?
Make Alliances with the US More Resilient
First, the West, as US allies, should commit to their own security responsibilities and mitigate the US burden. In this respect, the recent Munich Security Conference was a historic watershed for Europe in that it awoke to the need to transform trans-Atlantic security relations. Clear and decisive commitments to the peace and security of Europe were voiced by a number of leaders. As the recent rift between the US and Europe shows, being an ally is no longer a privilege, and countries do not deserve protection by US forces unless they commit to their own security.
In this respect, both Europe and Japan have started moving in the right direction. Europe announced a giant rearmament program that mobilizes 800 billion euros. In addition, Europeans have started to form a "coalition of the willing" to provide peacekeepers for post-war Ukraine.
For its part, the Japanese government has decided to double defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2027. Japan is also determined to possess long-range standoff missiles as counter-strike capability. While Japan may be required to make further security efforts in the near future, there has already been an historic change in people's mindset.
It is important that both Europe and Japan revamp their security relations with the US on a more equal basis and restore the resilience of their alliances to bring the US back into alliance engagement.
The Consequences of the War in Ukraine
Second, the consequences of the war in Ukraine will have significant impacts on the global order. If the unlawful invasion committed by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council ends up giving Russia what it wants, the rule-based international order will be seriously jeopardized. The West should continue to be a primary promoter of a just and enduring peace for Ukraine and should not accept any settlement that rewards Russia or recognizes its territorial claims.
The Need to Correct Double Standards
Third, unfairness and imbalance in the application of international laws should be rectified. As the countries that have advanced the rule-based international order need to stand on the moral high ground, they need to avoid applying rules in ways that result in different outcomes depending on whether an ally or friendly country is involved. Furthermore, developed countries sometimes preach to developing countries what democracy and human rights should be. Due to differences in domestic circumstances and development stages, there will inevitably be relative differences in the degrees of maturity between developed and developing countries. It is desirable to work together with the countries of the Global South to address their problems and to encourage them to pursue gradual progress in human rights and democracy5.
A Rule-Based Economic Order
Globalization has its drawbacks as well as its benefits: it has created gaps between the haves and the have-nots, and interdependence has been weaponized by some countries. There are some areas where WTO rules no longer match present reality. Meanwhile, if a trade war breaks out because of massive tariff exchanges, the world economy will fall into serious recession. Decoupling supply chains and fostering bloc economies will hinder the efficient allocation of resources and benefits.
We need to narrow the gap between free/fair trade and economic security and work to refine the WTO's security exceptions, thereby revitalizing the free trade system.
In this regard, there is a positive precedent known as the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), which leverages the joint efforts of developed and developing countries to supplement the WTO's defunct Appellate Body dispute settlement mechanism. While we cannot expect meaningful contributions from the US in strengthening multilateral trade mechanisms for the time being, the major WTO economies should not quit updating multilateral trade regimes.
Of course, WTO reform is a tough task but plurilateral partnership on specific issues such as MPIA as well as regional economic mechanisms such as the CPTPP, Mercosur, and APEC may become driving forces in bolstering international economic governance.
UN Reform
A restoration of global governance and its concomitant architecture is also necessary.
Japan and Germany, together with Brazil and India, have advocated reform of the UN Security Council within the G4 format. If the Security Council, which is unable to make meaningful decisions regarding its basic mandate, is not restructured to meet the present reality of a multipolar world, the UN system will become meaningless.
The Global Judicial Order
The international judicial order is also facing severe challenges. China has ignored the UNCLOS-based arbitration ruling regarding sovereignty in the South China Sea6. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague has issued an advisory opinion stating that Israel's occupation policy in Palestine violates international law and that it is obligated to stop Jewish settlement activities, but Israel continues to build settlements. The International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued arrest warrants for Russian and Israeli leaders on suspicion of war crimes, has been subjected to US sanctions. Ignorance and disrespect of the global justice system are shaking the very foundations of the rules-based international order.
The Japanese government did not sign on to the statement issued by the ICC's 79 member states condemning the ICC sanctions. The president of the ICC is a judge nominated by the Japanese government and, as a country pledged to uphold the rule of law, Japan should not turn a blind eye to challenges to international justice.
The same goes for universal issues such as climate change and global health. Even if the Trump administration refrains from addressing these matters, the West should remain committed to the Paris Agreement and the WHO's governance.
Conclusion
To prevent the collapse of the rules-based international order, we must expand partnerships to create a "critical mass" that will enhance leverage vis-à-vis great powers and achieve a numerical majority for decision-making within the global architecture. In this respect, it is obvious that the developed countries cannot achieve this on their own and that outreach to the Global South is a key factor.
At the same time, the major countries in the Global South are also expected to show willingness and determination to share responsibilities and burdens in solving global problems rather than simply calling for improved status and rights.
1 The social divisions in the United States are growing deeper. The Republican Party has transformed into an inward-looking MAGA (Make America Great Again) party that does not hesitate to push an America First policy even at the expense of other states. The Democratic Party has transitioned into a party that prioritizes liberal governance by elites, moving away from its traditional base of workers and minorities. The Republicans achieved a trifecta in last year's presidential and congressional elections, but in both the margin of votes was historically narrow. If the House of Representatives flips after the midterm elections next year, the administration will enter a lame duck phase.
With this in mind, President Trump is in a hurry to push forward with America First policies to fulfill his election promises within a short period of time. There has been a backlash against the DEI and immigration policies, not to mention his mediation in the war in Ukraine. Distrust in bureaucracy and elites has led to the shutdown of executive departments and the dismissal of government officials. Dismantling governing bodies may bring about serious consequences for the US in the long run.
2 A certain degree of caution may be needed when we use the term "multipolarity." Under Pax Americana, the United States has been responsible for preventing conflicts and resolving problems, and principles and rules based on multilateralism have been applied. Universal values backed by US power have maintained international peace and stability. In contrast, the present multipolarization process features multiple powers coexisting as if they are the "poles" but with none of them undertaking primary responsibility for global peace and security. Furthermore, clear-cut values and rules applicable in each "sphere of influence" have yet to emerge. Such a heterogeneous jumble of powers could well lead to a "G Zero" world, to use a term coined by the Eurasia Group.
3 Russia's government-affiliated Council on Foreign and Defense Policy published a 48-page report titled "Russia's Policy Towards World Majority" in 2023. The report stipulates the fundamental values of a World Majority policy to be: ① the strengthening of state institutions and the liberation of countries from neocolonial dependence, ② respect for the socio-cultural identities of all countries and people as well as peaceful coexistence and cooperation among the many ethnic groups, cultures, and religions within a given civilization, ③ rejection of the West's "transhumanism", ④ respect for the sovereignty of states and their national interests, ⑤ the right to development, ⑥ the equality of states, ⑦ justice, ⑧ solidarity and mutual assistance, ⑨ respect for the traditions of peoples as the basis for the internal development of states, ⑩ mutual benefit, ⑪openness, ⑫ religious tolerance and respect, and ⑬ priority of collective values over individual ones.
The document is filled with principles that will please the countries of the Global South, as it is designed to gain wide support from the world's developing countries, and the intention to exclude foreign interference in the governing system is obvious. It is interesting to note the values that are inconsistent with Russia's real behavior, e.g., sovereign equality, equality of nations, and openness. It has also been pointed out that the primacy of collective values over individual values and the denial of universal humanitarianism are concepts that justify domestic authoritarian governance contrary to the respect for fundamental human rights embodied in international law and the UN Charter.
4 China proposed a "Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" at the 2012 Party Congress; a similar phrase was successfully included in UN Security Council Resolution 2344 adopted in 2017. At the 2018 Party Congress, the Constitution was amended to add in the preamble that China will "advance the building of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind." In line with this concept, China has launched the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). However, the expression's definition and specific details are still unclear. The underlying idea behind these statements is that "the international order and the US-led world order are separate entities and, while China belongs to the international order centered on the UN Charter, it will not accept the US-led world order in its entirety" (FU Ying, former ambassador to the UK). Therefore, there is a clear intent to form an anti-Western international order. Meanwhile, China claims that "as a responsible major power, it will adhere to the international system centered on the UN and an international order based on international law," but its behaviors are inconsistent. A clear example is China's dismissal of the South China Sea arbitration ruling. There is also no clear explanation of China's view on "multipolarity"; China once proposed to the Obama administration the idea of a US-China G2 alliance, with the US and China managing the Pacific Ocean under a "new great power relationship." While talking about multipolarity, China seems to be intent on exerting control over other countries under a balance of power among the major powers. Recently, China linked the concept with the Non-Aligned Movement's "Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence"; President Xi Jinping at the conference commemorating the 70th anniversary of the announcement of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence put forth "five principles: territorial integrity, non-interference in each other's sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence". However, these principles are not bound by universal values and norms such as democracy and human rights, and they conceal the objective of guaranteeing a free hand in domestic governance. It seems that the proposed agenda is aimed at attracting Global South countries that are averse to being lectured about human rights and democracy by developed countries.
5 The notions of democracy and human rights may vary from one country to another, and "rules-based order" may be interpreted entirely differently depending on whether it refers to the "rule of law" or "rule by law". The narrative of authoritarian regimes should be properly examined from the viewpoint of how consistent the substance of the law is with basic human rights and freedoms.
Mindful of these pitfalls, the Japanese government has recently begun to use a more inclusive "human dignity" narrative, refocusing its attention on the concept of "human security" rather than placing emphasis on controversial democracy and human rights tropes. In addition, the concept of "Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)" has been used in parallel with "Free and Open International Order (FOIO)" which does not feature any geographical constraints, but recently the expression "free, fair, transparent rule-based international order" has begun to appear more frequently. These are all attempts to clarify the fundamental elements that democracy respects by delving into the nature of values and norms.
6 Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China, otherwise known as the South China Sea Arbitration