Amid threats to the post-World War II rules-based international order, leaders and thinkers are dusting off old economic strategies like protectionism and strategic autonomy to navigate a shifting global landscape.

Cracks in the Post-1945 Global Framework

The rules-based international order, forged in the ashes of World War II, has long shaped how nations interact through shared laws, norms, and institutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization.

This system promised stability by prioritizing multilateral cooperation, open markets, and respect for sovereignty over raw power plays.

But today, that framework faces unprecedented strain from rising powers challenging Western dominance, aggressive territorial claims, and economic weaponization.

Critics from Beijing to Moscow argue it favors a select few, imposing rules that suit the West while ignoring broader global voices.

As geopolitical tensions simmer—from Arctic resource grabs to trade wars—the illusion of a neutral, enforceable order is fading, prompting a scramble for alternatives.

Echoes of Historical Economic Playbooks

With the old guard weakening, familiar economic ideas from bygone eras are making a comeback.

Protectionism, once vilified after the Great Depression's tariff-fueled collapse, is resurfacing as countries shield key industries from foreign competition.

Think back to the mercantilist strategies of the 19th century, where nations hoarded resources and built self-reliant economies to outmaneuver rivals.

Today, strategic autonomy—stockpiling critical minerals, subsidizing domestic tech, and forging bilateral deals over multilateral pacts—mirrors those tactics.

Even middle powers are hedging bets, blending realism with pragmatism to avoid over-reliance on fragile global supply chains.

"Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights."

This shift isn't chaos; it's a calculated pivot toward power-balanced compacts, much like the Concert of Europe after Napoleon, where great powers managed rivalries without a formal charter.

Navigating a Multipolar Power Game

In this emerging multipolar world, the question isn't whether rules vanish, but if new ones can emerge from competition rather than consensus.

Economic nationalism could stabilize volatile regions by discouraging reckless expansion, yet it risks fragmenting trade and igniting arms races.

Leaders at forums like Davos are already adapting, with figures like Canada's prime minister pushing for autonomy amid eroding trust in shared institutions.

Old ideas like bilateral bargaining and resource control—evident in high-stakes Arctic maneuvers—are filling the void left by multilateral gridlock.

While the UN Charter offers mechanisms to update norms, political will is scarce when interests clash.

Proponents of reform urge inclusive tweaks to keep some rules intact, preventing a slide into unfettered hegemony struggles.

Yet skeptics warn of volatility, as ideology gives way to unvarnished realism among strategic players.

As the rules-based order buckles under power shifts, revisiting protectionist and autonomous economic models offers a pragmatic path forward, balancing competition with guarded cooperation to avert deeper turmoil.

• Tags
• #Geopolitics
• #Economics
• #International Relations