The world stands on the brink of a profound transformation.

In 2024, the fragility of the post-World War II international order was starkly and tragically exposed. Once hailed as the cornerstones of global stability, the institutions forged in the aftermath of that devastating conflict are now faltering under the weight of polarisation, irrelevance, and inaction.

Their architects, and those who once benefited from them, do not deny their obsolescence. Meanwhile, millions across the globe are bearing the costs of these institutions’ incompetence, indifference, and the profound divisions among the world’s most powerful actors.

Institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) face growing polarisation and the erosion of credibility. Their legitimacy, mandates, and jurisdictions are increasingly being questioned, while their rulings are being undermined by selective adherence and blatant defiance.

Ironically, the United States, long the backbone of this global system, has emerged as one of its chief saboteurs. Without offering viable alternatives or fostering a meaningful discourse on the future of global governance, the US is accelerating the dismantling of this order.

While imperfect, the post-war framework provided a structure within which nations could coexist and address global challenges. Today, that framework neither serves the US ambitions nor accommodates the rising influence of regional and international competitors.

These emerging powers, driven by economic, strategic, and parochial interests, are undermining the principles that were meant to govern international relations: respect for human rights, national sovereignty, adherence to international law, and commitments to global agreements on trade, climate, and nuclear non-proliferation.

As this legal and moral framework disintegrates, the selective, opportunistic, and self-serving responses of the US to global crises have intensified a chaotic and multipolar disorder. Regional actors now act with impunity, flouting international law, human rights, and the sovereignty of their neighbours.

This dysfunctioning was laid bare in 2024 from the occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the atrocities in Gaza to foreign interventions in Syria and Israel’s renewed territorial incursions, all of which were met with international silence.

In Sudan, external powers are stoking the fires of conflict, while Lebanon is enduring repeated violations of its sovereignty, including Israeli military deployments within its borders. Yet the UN Security Council, paralysed by vetoes and geopolitical discord, is unable to act.

Amid this turmoil, a pressing question resonates: is the international system, born from the ashes of World War II, still capable of fulfilling the purpose for which it was created?

You need look no further than Gaza, where a relentless genocide against civilians has continued for nearly 14 months unimpeded by effective international intervention, to feel that the answer is no.

Doubts about the United Nations and the efficacy of the Security Council are not new, particularly in the Global South. Yet the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has magnified these doubts, lending them new urgency.

The harrowing images of killings, displacement, starvation, and destruction, all now disturbingly normalised, should have provoked decisive action within weeks of the conflict’s onset. Instead, since October 2023 the US has vetoed every Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza.

This failure of international institutions to uphold their responsibilities and enforce international law has not only deepened the crisis but also further eroded trust in the global order’s ability to serve humanity.

Tragically, the US, along with other Western powers allied with Israel, has actively obstructed the Security Council’s ability to compel Israel to halt its aggression in Gaza. These same powers have cast doubt on the authority of the ICJ and ICC to investigate accusations of genocide and war crimes levied against Israel and its leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This deliberate undermining of vital international institutions that were created to shield victims from aggressors irrespective of global power dynamics represents an egregious failure.

The US and its Western allies bear significant responsibility for this. The ICC in particular was not established overnight and was the result of years of arduous negotiations, delicate compromises, and a shared determination to end impunity for the gravest of crimes.

By eroding the court’s authority and credibility in 2024, the actions of the US and its allies embolden those who would perpetrate genocide and war crimes, both now and in the future.

The US, resolute in its alliance with Israel, finds itself at increasing odds with various European powers. In recent months, countries such as Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia have formally recognised a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, other nations, including France, the UK, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada, have taken punitive measures against Israel, such as suspending arms sales licences.

This fracture within the Western alliance reflects the unravelling of a once-shared consensus as moral imperatives clash with political calculations. This division is likely to deepen in 2025, especially as the administration of US President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to support Israel’s plans to assert sovereignty over parts of the West Bank.

While US leaders may underestimate the ramifications of their actions, ranging from providing material support for what many regard as genocide in Gaza to shielding Israel from accountability through the use of the veto in the Security Council, the damage done to US global standing is already profound.

Across Europe and beyond, the reputation of the US has suffered dramatic erosion, with polls consistently reflecting a steep decline in its international image, particularly among the younger generations.

Moreover, the indictment of Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes poses a significant challenge to the Western alliance. While the US is providing steadfast bipartisan support for Israel in its resistance to the ICC charges, most European Union member states, along with Britain, Australia, and Canada, are expected to honour the ICC indictment.

Nonetheless, the situation is complicated by threats from the US against any nation that enforces the ICC’s warrant. In a stark warning, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, said “to any ally—Canada, Britain, Germany, France—if you try to help the ICC, we will punish you... America should crush their economy.”

Graham acknowledged the underlying fear driving these aggressive US stances: that the ICC could one day pursue the US itself for war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It will be our turn,” he said, adding that “Israel is not a member of the ICC, and neither is America... If we do not resist the ICC’s attack on Israel, it is as if we are recognising that they have jurisdiction over America.”

US Congressman Michael Waltz, expected to serve as National Security adviser in the Trump administration, echoed this sentiment, pledging a forceful response to what he termed the “anti-Semitic bias of the ICC.”

These positions align closely with Trump’s longstanding views. He has previously denounced the ICC as “a politicised, ineffective, biased institution and an infringement on American sovereignty.”

During his first presidency in 2020, his administration went so far as to impose sanctions on the court, targeting its employees with travel bans to the US and freezing their financial assets.

These punitive measures were a response to ICC investigations into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by US forces in Afghanistan and by Israeli military forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Gaza and the West Bank.

This growing divisions between the US and its allies come at a pivotal moment, with Trump’s impending presidency poised to exacerbate tensions in transatlantic relations. Even before taking office, Trump’s promises to impose heavy tariffs on European exports, as well as on goods from China, Canada, Mexico, and other nations, already strained diplomatic ties.

Western allies, such as Canada, have threatened reciprocal measures, setting the stage for potential economic confrontation.

Trump’s well-documented scepticism towards NATO has further unsettled European partners. In response, discussions have intensified among NATO members about raising defence spending from two to three per cent of GDP, an extraordinary burden given the severe economic pressures most European countries are enduring in the wake of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The war itself is likely to deepen transatlantic discord. While the incoming Trump administration appears eager to broker a peace quickly, aiming to minimise US financial and military involvement, European leaders are wary of a superficial or temporary resolution to the conflict.

They fear that a fragile ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could collapse at the first sign of instability, leaving the continent vulnerable to renewed conflict and perpetuating its dependence on a volatile security environment.

China presents another diplomatic conundrum for Europe in 2025. The EU has generally aligned with the US on security-focused tariffs and export controls under Biden, such as tariffs on goods that could pose a security or strategic threat to the European market, including high-speed communication systems or Chinese batteries and electric cars that could undermine domestic European industries.

However, Trump’s return could pressure Europe to take a firmer stance against Beijing. This could risk a backlash from China and potential economic repercussions if Europe distances itself too drastically.

As economic, military, and geopolitical pressures mount, the rift between the US and its traditional allies threatens to redefine the very foundations of the Western alliance.

Compounding this crisis is the rise of nationalist and populist movements, which prioritise sovereignty and domestic agendas over multilateralism. Leaders promoting such ideologies often frame international institutions as impediments to national interests, further undermining their legitimacy. This shift has made it harder for international bodies to secure the cooperation needed to function effectively.

 The fragmentation of global governance reflects deeper structural issues that demand urgent attention. Calls for reform, particularly within the UN, have grown louder but remain mired in disagreements over representation and power distribution.

Proposals to expand the Security Council, for instance, face resistance from Permanent Members who are reluctant to dilute their influence, as well as from aspiring nations with competing claims.

The ICC and ICJ are similarly struggling to balance calls for greater inclusivity and impartiality with maintaining their core principles and without alienating the major powers that fund them and frequently threaten sanctions if they try to perform their duties without discrimination between countries.

As 2024 draws to a close, the urgency of such pivotal questions intensifies. Can international justice and its institutions rise to fulfil the purpose for which they were established? Can the UN Security Council, entrenched in its post-1945 configuration, address the demands and grievances of the Global South without succumbing to the pressures of major powers?

Will traditional frameworks and institutions prove capable of confronting emerging existential challenges such as artificial intelligence and cyber warfare, domains that demand new rules, standards of engagement, and definitions of legal responsibility?

The tension between outdated structures and the pressing reality of a transformed world is no longer abstract; it is immediate and palpable as the world confronts an unsettling reality. The foundational principles of sovereignty, accountability, and international cooperation that once upheld global stability are unravelling. Chaos reigns, as power dynamics shift, and unchecked aggression becomes the norm.

UN Secretary General António Guterres has admitted that the UN system is no longer functioning as it should, stating that “the world has changed dramatically since 1945, but the UN Security Council has not. The United Nations was designed for a different era and does not reflect the realities of the 21st century.”

The upheaval underscores the fragmentation of the unipolar moment that defined the late 20th century when the dominance of a single superpower provided a semblance of order.

That era has given way to a fractured and often chaotic mosaic of state and non-state actors. In this evolving paradigm, the certainties of the past are fading, replaced by a volatile global landscape that upends traditional alliances, economic systems, and geopolitical norms

* A version of this article appears in print in the 26 December, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly