This system was built on the post-war balance of power, which granted the victorious nations near-absolute authority through permanent seats on the Security Council, accompanied by the right of veto. Despite some relative achievements over the decades—whether in development or in strengthening the framework of international human rights law—the accumulation of political, economic, environmental, and human rights crises has exposed the system’s limited capacity to adapt to the profound transformations reshaping the world. Hence, there is a pressing need for a reconfigured global order that is more just and effective.
One of the primary drivers for this need is the shifting balance of global power. The Western dominance that underpinned the post-1945 system has waned, giving way to the rise of new major players such as China, India, and Brazil, alongside the growing influence of regional powers in Africa and Latin America. Yet, despite these structural changes, the international system remains rigid in composition and exclusionary in representation, rendering many of its decisions lacking in global legitimacy. The proliferation of armed conflicts and proxy wars has directly threatened international peace and security. At the same time, the United Nations has shown a glaring inability to intervene effectively or impose fair settlements. Nowhere has this structural weakness been more apparent than in Israel’s aggression against Palestine, where UN impotence has been systemic rather than incidental.
At the core of this paralysis lies the monopolization of power within the Security Council. The veto power, initially intended as a mechanism for balancing great-power interests, has evolved into a tool for obstructing international action whenever it conflicts with the priorities of the five permanent members. The result has been the prolongation of human suffering and unchecked violations of human rights. This pattern has been evident since 1948, when the Council failed to enforce a just resolution to Israel’s ongoing aggression against the Palestinians, blocked repeatedly by American vetoes—dozens of them—used to prevent resolutions condemning Israel or demanding a halt to settlement expansion and military operations in Gaza. By contrast, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Moscow wielded its veto to shield its actions from censure, further exposing the Council’s incapacity to fulfil its foundational mission of maintaining peace and security.
Equally troubling has been the blatant double standards in the application of international law. Sanctions are selectively imposed on certain states under the guise of human rights, while egregious violations are often overlooked when committed by allies of the great powers. During Israel’s assault on Gaza beginning October 7, 2023, and continuing to the present, the international community confined itself to non-binding condemnations, while the United States vetoed recognition of Palestinian statehood. The atrocities, therefore, continued with impunity. Meanwhile, the response to Ukraine was strikingly different: within weeks of Russia’s invasion, the UN and Western powers moved with unprecedented speed to denounce Moscow, secure overwhelming General Assembly votes declaring the invasion illegal, impose sweeping sanctions, and allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in financial and military aid to Kyiv. This stark contrast highlights the politicisation of international law, which has evolved into a selective instrument rather than a universal framework.
The failings of the international order are not confined to security, politics, or human rights. They also extend to the economic domain. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have maintained inequitable structures of representation, granting disproportionate voting power to wealthy nations—particularly the United States and Europe. Their policies have frequently prioritised northern interests over the needs of the south. Programs of so-called “economic reform,” imposed on countries like Lebanon (2019–2022) and Pakistan (2023), emphasised austerity and subsidy cuts, thereby deepening poverty and social crises rather than addressing structural economic challenges. This has only widened the developmental divide between the global North and South.
Given these systemic failures, a radically reimagined order is needed. Such a framework must embrace multipolarity to reflect evolving geostrategic realities, incorporating emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil, alongside Western states, and ensuring broader representation across all continents.
Reforming the Security Council is paramount. Its current structure entrenches the concentration of power. Permanent membership should be expanded to include states from Asia (India, Japan), Africa (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa), and Latin America (Brazil). Introducing semi-permanent seats, with renewable terms of eight to ten years, would allow prominent regional powers greater representation and adaptability. Meanwhile, regional organisations—such as the African Union—should be granted collective seats with voting rights.
Equally critical is the urgent need to constrain the use of the veto. A model of “collective veto,” requiring at least two permanent members to block a resolution, would prevent unilateral obstruction. Initiatives such as the “Responsibility Not to Veto,” which commits the permanent five to refrain from veto use in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity, should also be institutionalized. Additionally, the Human Rights Council’s authority should be strengthened, enabling it to refer cases directly to the Security Council, reducing the influence of political maneuvering.
Ultimately, the envisioned international order must place human rights at its core—not only as an ethical principle but as the very foundation of global legitimacy. Linking peace and security with sustainable development and social justice would provide the holistic framework needed to confront transnational challenges such as climate change, refugee crises, irregular migration, and digital security. In this context, the call for a new world order is not a matter of choice but a historical necessity, dictated by the nature of the crises and challenges of our age.
*Essam Shiha, a councilor, President of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
Short link: