Is the 80-Year Global Order Finally Breaking Down?

Eighty years. That's how long the current international order has been running on the same operating system. The 2026 Munich Security Report calls this moment an era of "wrecking-ball politics," where the post-war order built in 1945 is "under destruction."

But here's the question: Is it really being destroyed? Or is an outdated system simply failing to keep up with reality?

From Steel and Grain to Data and Algorithms

The 1945 system was designed for a world of bipolar rivalry, later sustained by American dominance. Back then, global power meant controlling steel production, grain supplies, and territorial sovereignty. Today's world? Not so much.

Value creation and systemic risk now transcend borders and sectors. Data flows, artificial intelligence, cross-border platforms, and globally integrated capital markets have rewritten the rules of the game. Climate change, digital fragmentation, supply-chain insecurity, debt distress, and geopolitical rivalry demand frameworks that 80-year-old institutions simply weren't built to handle.

Consider how Taiwan's semiconductor foundries can shut down Apple's iPhone production, or how a single software update from Microsoft can ground airlines worldwide. The old architecture of territorial sovereignty struggles with problems that exist in the cloud.

The Western Stewardship Model's Limits

The late 20th century was defined by confidence that a rules-based international order could universalize principles under Western stewardship. This worked when Western nations held overwhelming economic and military advantages, and when most of the world was willing to accept this arrangement.

But multilateral institutions remain anchored in yesterday's distribution of power. The UN Security Council still reflects 1945's victors, not 2026's economic realities. China and India together represent over 35% of global GDP by purchasing power parity, yet their institutional influence remains constrained by structures designed when they were largely agrarian economies.

Meanwhile, rising populism in Western countries seeks to dismantle multilateral structures perceived as constraining national prosperity. Brexit was just the beginning. From America First policies to European skepticism about EU integration, the very architects of the current order are questioning its value.

New Forms of Cooperation Emerge

Yet despite international tensions, countries continue seeking cooperation based on shared interests. The Paris Climate Agreement survived multiple political upheavals. COVAX showed how nations could collaborate during a global health crisis. Recent AI safety discussions bring together unlikely partners around common concerns about technological risks.

These new forms of cooperation look different from traditional multilateralism. They're more issue-specific, more flexible, and less dominated by traditional powers. The Quad partnership between the US, Japan, India, and Australia operates outside formal treaty structures. The BRICS expansion reflects emerging economies' desire for alternative platforms.

Power's New Geography

Economic influence has become more diffuse. No single country can dictate terms the way the US could in the 1990s. Technology platforms wield influence that crosses national boundaries—Meta's content policies affect global discourse, TSMC's production decisions shape entire industries.

Environmental constraints add another layer. Carbon border adjustments, ESG investment criteria, and sustainability standards are becoming new axes of international economic order. Countries that master green technology gain competitive advantages that traditional military or economic metrics don't capture.

The Question of Legitimacy

Perhaps the deepest challenge isn't institutional—it's about legitimacy. The post-1945 order derived authority from victory in a global war and subsequent economic success. Today's institutions struggle to explain why their decisions should matter to billions of people who had no voice in creating them.

China's Belt and Road Initiative, whatever its flaws, represents an attempt to create alternative frameworks for international cooperation. India's digital public infrastructure offers a different model for technological governance. These aren't necessarily challenges to Western values, but they do challenge Western monopolies on institutional design.