German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently joined a growing number of world leaders in highlighting the erosion of the rules-based international order, asserting it “no longer exists.”

At the Munich Security Conference, Merz cautioned fellow leaders about the fragility of freedom in today’s world, indicating a reemergence of “big power politics.”

His sentiments were mirrored by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum in Davos, who described the current global climate as a “rupture, not a transition.”

Carney emphasized the necessity for middle powers like Australia and Canada to strengthen their alliances, stating, “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

“Stop romanticizing the rules-based international order as if it functions as intended. It’s now a stage for heightened great power rivalry, with the most influential nations leveraging economic ties for coercion,” Carney remarked.

Although neither leader directly referenced US President Donald Trump, their speeches came against a backdrop of growing tensions between the United States and its Western allies.

Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about annexing Greenland — a territory of Denmark — along with his use of tariffs and criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance have shaken confidence in the post-World War Two global order.

As Trump issued a new threat to Iran this week, that a deal on nuclear must be reached within 10 days, he raised the risk he will act in disregard of the wishes of the UN Security Council, on which the US is a permanent member.

SBS News spoke with two geopolitical experts who had differing opinions on whether Merz and Carney accurately described the decline of the rules-based order or overstated the crisis.

What is the rules-based order and is it being challenged?

The rules-based order refers to the international system in which countries interact according to agreed rules, norms and multilateral institutions rather than through force or coercion.

Established after World War Two and led by the United States, the system promotes free trade, security cooperation and sovereignty of states.

Tom Chodor, a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Monash University, told SBS News the US has historically underpinned the system through what he described as a “hegemonic approach”.

“Hegemony is a basis for a rules-based order, because you need one state that’s more powerful than everyone else but willing to compromise and to offer concessions,” he said.

While authoritarian states have long challenged the system, most notably by the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, Chodor argues it is now the US that is upending the order.

“It’s imposing its will on other countries and not offering them much in return if they agree to do what the US wants them to do,” he said.

Trump has pulled out of dozens of international organisations and agreements, questioned the purpose of the United Nations and set up a US-led Board of Peace to implement a peace plan for Gaza.

The US has also expanded its military presence near the Middle East in recent weeks, raising the prospect of new strikes on Iran, following last year’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities — an action some experts argued breached international law.

Australian National University professor Donald Rothwell said Trump was not authorised by the UN to attack Iran last year, therefore violating its charter, and also acting in violation of the clause on the right to self-defence.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also challenged the core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the rules-based order.

Meanwhile, the rise of China and its expanding global influence have disrupted the post–Cold War era in which the US stood as the sole superpower.

Although middle powers could attempt to uphold the rules-based order without the US, Chodor said that it becomes far more difficult when major powers actively undermine those efforts.

He cited a proposed International Maritime Organization plan that would have required shipping companies to pay a levy on carbon dioxide emissions.

While most countries backed the regulation, a final vote scheduled last October was postponed for a year amid US pressure, including threats of tariffs, sanctions and visa restrictions against countries that supported the measures.

“You can negotiate nice rules amongst yourselves, but if the most powerful country attacks those rules … that system you negotiate can’t function,” Chodor said.

Chodor said Australia was particularly exposed to a “shakedown” from the US through security arrangements such as AUKUS, which will see Australia acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines through the trilateral partnership with the US and United Kingdom.

“If the US suddenly decides that they want us to pay $15 billion into the shipping industry … we really don’t have an option but to say yes, because without that, our capacity to project force collapses,” he said.

He said the alliance also meant Australia was less likely to speak out against the US when it undermined the rules-based order, damaging Australia’s credibility with other countries.

‘More robust, more enduring’

Not everyone agrees that the system is in terminal decline.

Dr John Blaxland, professor of international security and intelligence studies and director of the Australian National University’s North America Liaison Office, told SBS News the rules-based order was more robust than it was credited for.

He said countries continued to follow rules governing trade resolution, international transactions and maritime regulation.

“These are things you can mock, you can say ‘it’s all over’,” he said.

“They’re still functioning …. we all have a vested interest in that continuing, even the United States.

“The rules-based order is, in fact, more robust, more enduring, more profound than people are prepared to give acknowledgement to.”

Unless there was a global conflict, Blaxland believed it was unlikely that a fully fractured multi-polar world would emerge, noting that countries are more interconnected than ever before.

He noted China’s rise, a counter-weight to US dominance, had occurred during the era of globalisation and was underpinned by the rules-based order.

“It has been a huge beneficiary of that order, and has shown no signs of wanting to destroy it,” he said.

A day after Merz’s speech, Blaxland noted US secretary of state Marco Rubio’s address to the Munich conference struck a far more conciliatory tone towards Europe than Trump’s earlier rhetoric.

Rubio said Europe and the US “belong together”, reassuring allies it was “neither our goal nor our wish” to end the transatlantic partnership.

“We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored, and we don’t need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed. These must be rebuilt,” Rubio said.

Blaxland described the speech as a “circuit breaker” and could signal the repairing of US and European relations.

For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.