The World Order Everyone Is Trying to Save Or Replace

In this year's speeches at the United Nations General Assembly, European leaders repeated the same message overall but in different words: that the rules-based international order must be protected.  Then on the other hand Donald Trump speaks about economic strength, leverage, and putting national interests first. The disagreement is about what kind of world should exist after the one we've known for decades. The problem is that many countries feel foreign to this conversation. 

The "rules-based international order" appeared after World War II the international system became increasingly organized around institutions like the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, and international law institutions. The idea was that disputes should increasingly be managed through rules, diplomacy, and institutions rather than raw force alone.

For the United States and Europe in particular, this framework became the foundation of decades of relative peace, economic integration, and political stability, so leaders -on the European side- are trying to defend the environment that shaped modern Europe itself.

That's why Macron's warning about "the law of the jungle" feels so revealing, but from another perspective this feels like an attempt to persuade others that are not so sure that this framework is still worth believing in. 

The next world order is already being negotiated

Recently the question has become whether  the current order survives, or collapses, but I don't think that's what's happening. I think we're already watching the pieces moving, that its  “replacement” is being negotiated.

The interesting part is that there isn't just one alternative, there are several visions, and each reflects a different understanding of how power, sovereignty, and legitimacy should work. 

Europe's proposal consists of adapting the current order  rather than abandoning the post-1945 framework to reflect a more multipolar world. Language consistently returns to the UN Charter, international law, multilateral institutions, and cooperation between allies. The message is straightforward: the system isn't perfect, but it's still the best available foundation for international stability.

The issue is that confidence in this model is weakening. There are other candidates competing for world powers and  the United States has become less predictable about its commitments. Critics are constantly growing that this "rules-based order" functions as a Western order and that its rules are applied selectively. 

China presents  itself as a reformer trying to rebalance the existing model. Its preferred language includes "equal and orderly multipolar world," sovereign equality, non-interference, and greater representation for developing countries. They have already started to suggest world initiatives like the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the AI Infrastructure Investment Bank, and an expanded BRICS. China argues that global governance can become more inclusive without necessarily dismantling institutions like the United Nations but undoubtedly having China as a big influence in it.

Russia pushes further with a more challenging voice, Moscow frequently frames the moment as the end of Western hegemony altogether. Its vision centers on "civilizational states," spheres of influence, and security arrangements that recognize multiple centers of power as equally legitimate. Russia's is more disruptive, reflecting a greater willingness to challenge existing security arrangements directly.

Then there’s the new American political discourse, particularly around Donald Trump. Here, international institutions are tools rather than objectives. Alliances remain valuable only as long as they advance national interests, economic leverage becomes a primary source of power, and global commitments  are negotiable rather than permanent, meaning that there is a more transactional approach. 

But what if none of these debates feels like yours?

This is where my perspective changes. I'm Colombian, I come from a country that didn't build the post-war order, doesn't define global rules, and rarely gets invited to write them. Looking at this debate from that position, many countries outside those centers aren't really trying to preserve or overthrow the international order per se. They're trying to function inside its transformation.

That creates a different mindset, the question isn't "Which world order should lead the world?" It's much more practical: Who can finance infrastructure? Who buys our exports? Who provides technology? Who helps address today's security challenges?

From that perspective, strategic networks make perfect sense. Countries trade with China while maintaining security cooperation with the United States, they participate in Western institutions while joining BRICS conversations, they strengthen regional organizations without committing themselves permanently to one geopolitical camp.

Those decisions are more adaptive than anything else.

Maybe that's the real gap

I think that's the biggest piece missing in these UN speeches: defending the rules-based order is not necessarily the world's shared mission. For many countries, that emotional attachment doesn't exist. That doesn't mean they want chaos. They still value sovereignty, predictability, and functioning institutions, but the same world order often feels foreign because the system has never felt equally owned or benefited the same way. 

Maybe that's what this transition really looks like. Not one new world order replacing another, but a world where different countries build overlapping networks of trade, technology, finance, and security according to the challenges they're currently facing, instead of waiting for a single center to organize everyone else.

That could also be an irony, while some countries are still arguing over the next “rulebook” , some others have already stopped waiting for permission to turn the page.