Get audio access with any FP subscription. Subscribe Now ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

Get audio access with any FP subscription.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

Not so long ago, it seemed that the world was becoming more civilized. The end of the Cold War was supposed to bring the triumph of the rules-based order. Enlightened norms and cooperation, buttressed by a broad-minded superpower, would supplant anarchic patterns of the past. It was an inspiring vision—and, alas, an illusion.

Now, all around the world, rules are in retreat. Aggression and conquest are surging; economic coercion and predation are rampant. Respect for international law and organizations is cratering; arms control is in decline. Great powers are reviving dreams of empire; the United States is tempted to seek narrow national aggrandizement at the cost of world order. And as global norms falter, strong leaders are shredding political constraints and institutions at home.

Not so long ago, it seemed that the world was becoming more civilized. The end of the Cold War was supposed to bring the triumph of the rules-based order. Enlightened norms and cooperation, buttressed by a broad-minded superpower, would supplant anarchic patterns of the past. It was an inspiring vision—and, alas, an illusion.

Now, all around the world, rules are in retreat. Aggression and conquest are surging; economic coercion and predation are rampant. Respect for international law and organizations is cratering; arms control is in decline. Great powers are reviving dreams of empire; the United States is tempted to seek narrow national aggrandizement at the cost of world order. And as global norms falter, strong leaders are shredding political constraints and institutions at home.

Our world is at risk of becoming a gangster’s paradise, in which rules matter far less than they once did—and raw power matters more.

This is a harsh shift for those whose mindsets were made in a kinder moment. It will present severe tests for leaders who must navigate an unforgiving age. There’s little utility, at this point, in lamenting the fall of the post-Cold War order. The task is to understand the requirements of survival in our post-rules world. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to sketch a map of the new era we’re entering and provide some guidelines for making the best of the bad times ahead.

The dream of a rules-based order is fading into history, but there was a time when it seemed like the future. After World War II, Washington and its Western allies built half a rules-based order—a set of deeply cooperative relationships, structured by shared norms and supranational institutions—within the free world as a way of containing the Kremlin. Once the Soviet bloc collapsed and the Cold War ended, there was a chance to take that project global.

The core of the rules-based order was the idea that old, destructive impulses could be overcome through the adoption of liberal practices and principles—and the consistent application of U.S. power. A flourishing, open economy would enrich all participants; commercial disputes would be resolved through World Trade Organization (WTO) procedures, not mutually immiserating tariff fights. Habits of conquest and domination would be discouraged; vital norms, such as freedom of navigation and respect for borders, would be strengthened. Freed from Cold War paralysis, international organizations and law would gain influence. Great-power rivalry itself would fade as potential spoilers—a rising China, a resurgent Russia—became satisfied stakeholders in a system that delivered prosperity and peace.

The core of the rules-based order was the idea that old, destructive impulses could be overcome through the adoption of liberal practices and principles—and the consistent application of U.S. power.

That vision was an effort to tame the destructive forces that had repeatedly torn the world apart in the 20th century. It wasn’t as utopian as it might seem in hindsight: Just as laws are enforced by sheriffs, the rules-based order rested upon U.S. power. The U.S. Navy beat back piracy and other threats to freedom of the seas; the Pentagon anchored alliances that deterred aggression; Washington rallied coalitions that fought terrorism, rogue-state proliferation, and other scourges. The rules-based order was made in America: Washington, more than any other actor, set the terms of international stability. The country’s preferred concepts—free markets, democracy, human rights—advanced around the globe.

Russian President Vladimir Putin wasn’t wholly wrong when he angrily alleged, in 2007, that the rules-based order was a cloak for U.S. hegemony. That’s part, but only part, of why that order came undone.

Rules are never value-free, and Washington’s rules seemed oppressive, even existentially threatening, to autocratic regimes that sought to crush liberal impulses at home while building empires abroad. Putin’s Russia began forcibly changing borders in the post-Soviet space as soon as it regained the strength to do so. China plunged into the global economy and used the explosive growth that followed to fund a record-busting military buildup, a determined campaign to dominate the industries of the future, and a bid to dominate the South China Sea.

Washington’s rules prevailed in a unipolar environment. They sagged as the balance shifted—and America soured on its own global project.

The United States had always taken a selective approach to rule-following: It waged wars, in Kosovo and Iraq, without the blessing of the United Nations. But then something more fundamental changed.

Washington’s rules prevailed in a unipolar environment. They sagged as the balance shifted—and America soured on its own global project.

Americans became tired of playing sheriff after draining Middle East fights and a global financial crisis: By 2013-14, U.S. President Barack Obama was declining to enforce his own red line against Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons attacks against his population and doing little to contest Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine. Frustration followed fatigue: Persistent allied free-riding led politicians from both major parties to argue that the United States was bearing too much responsibility for global order and reaping too few benefits. Perhaps most damaging, China’s meteoric rise produced a sense that the system worked against U.S. interests—that an open world economy had eviscerated U.S. manufacturing and enriched a ruthless rival.

The rules-based order came to seem like a burden, or perhaps a bad deal, for its chief defender. Now, we’re in a new moment, as that order comes undone.

We’re a long way from a rules-based economy: Commercial and strategic rivalries are ripping that system apart. The WTO has been moribund for years as countries take trade fights into their own hands. Protectionism proliferates as governments try to dominate key........

© Foreign Policy