International institutions have traditionally operated as the primary arbiters of global security and coordinators for transnational crisis management. However, their recent inability to effectively mediate pressing crises has exposed deep structural flaws, sparking what is widely observed as a profound crisis of trust. Yet, framing this dynamic merely as a "decline" misses the broader strategic shift occurring in global governance. This crisis of trust, rooted in outdated power distributions and systemic inequities, is not simply the decay of the post-World War II liberal order—it is a market correction. Driven by a widening representation gap and the selective enforcement of international law, emerging and middle powers are no longer merely seeking institutional reform; they are engaging in active "institutional hedging." This analysis argues that rather than witnessing the end of multilateralism, the global system is transitioning into a competitive marketplace of governance, where states bypass legacy bottlenecks in favor of agile, interest-based minilateral blocs and alternative institutional architectures.
Old Power Distributions, New Geopolitical Realities
One structural component of international institutions that has resulted in a crisis of trust is the idea these institutions are reliant on old power distributions, which results in a gap in representation between member states. This reliance on previous power distributions stems from the post-World War II era, where Western powers who were victorious formed international institutions such as the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The creation of such international institutions has resulted in these Western powers gaining the ability to “…shape the norms, values, and institutions of international relations for the coming decades”. However, the reliance on old power balances and dynamics created a ridged system that is not based on current geopolitical realities. This is evident in the case of the UN Security Council, where smaller nations are only given temporary status, whereas countries such as the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France have permanent membership and have used their positions to block resolutions and set their own agendas. Due to the institutional architecture of the UN being frozen in 1945, emerging powers are structurally blocked from proportional influence, forcing them to seek returns on their diplomatic investments elsewhere.
The Western-dominated liberal order that is being maintained by these post-WWII institutions is devolving, and middle powers are becoming aware of the power gap between themselves and the West, naturally resulting in a lack of trust and a demand for greater representation. This is clearly illustrated by the representation of Western powers and non-Western powers such as the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK, which have significant power over international institutions. For example, the US is the most capable ally in NATO and currently hosts NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), while also being the largest shareholder in the World Bank and IMF. It should be noted that France and the UK also have influence over these institutions; however, their influence is based on combined voter shares. Moreover, all five have extensive privileges as members of the UN Security Council, including the right to veto any resolutions that go against their interests. However, especially in the case of the UN and NATO, the US has become an unreliable partner when it comes to managing the rules-based order and has taken an adversarial approach to international affairs. This is clear as “…the United States has adopted an avowedly nationalist and transactional approach to its foreign, economic, and national security policies and is pursuing a strategy of dominance via disruption and even imperialism”.
The consequence of such power imbalance in international intuitions (primarily governed by Western powers) is that these institutions become ineffective at producing solutions to the most pressing issues facing the world. This is clear, as these institutions rely on the backing of great powers, who due to engaging in systemic rivalry for global power and prestige, leave institutions paralysed due to great power gridlock. As a result, trust isn’t just eroding emotionally; it is evaporating functionally because the Return on Investment (ROI) for using these platforms is currently zero. Institutions fail not because they are overly bureaucratic, but because they have become arenas for strategic stalling rather than conflict resolution.
The reliance on old power dynamics by international institutions has resulted in the way middle powers implement their foreign policy agendas, as they believe that over-reliance on great powers and the international intuitions they control is no longer in their best interests. One way in which the middle powers shifted their reliance away from institutions led by older power dynamics is through minilateralism, where smaller, more compact blocs are formed to deal with pressing issues in a more effective manner due to members of these blocs having similar interests. For example, South and Central American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico formed a group in a targeted effort to preserve supply chain sovereignty and exploitation due to South America having large lithium deposits. This shows how minilateralism is effective because it removes the vetoes of uninterested great powers. Beyond minilateralism, middle powers have also shifted away from Western-backed institutions. Non-Western actors have increasingly instrumentalised Western-led institutions to spotlight what they see as double standards in the conduct of Western powers, even as a growing number of states from the Global South have turned toward platforms such as BRICS, which present themselves as alternative venues for advancing developing-country interests. Taken together, these moves underscore how many so‑called middle powers have become more skeptical of a Western-centric rules-based order and are seeking additional, and in some cases competing, institutional pathways through which to pursue their strategic and economic priorities.
Selective Enforcement of International Law
Beyond the reliance on old power dynamics and distributions, a more concerning reason as to why there is a crisis of trust in these international institutions stems from the selective enforcement of international law. International law has functionally transitioned from a universal standard to a geopolitical tool. The analytical takeaway is that the “crisis of trust” is a realization by smaller states that international law is a mechanism of statecraft used by the powerful, rather than an impartial shield for the weak.
The extent of the selective enforcement of international law stems from the lack of enforcement mechanisms within established institutions, which results in states being able to undermine international law to secure their political interests. This is clear, as the effectiveness of the legal instruments of international law is determined by state ratification and cooperation with international institutions. For example, legal instruments such the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions (both binding but heavily reliant on state compliance and have limited jurisdiction) have been exploited, as when enforcement relies entirely on state compliance, the legal framework becomes a marketplace of leverage. Powerful states don’t just “overlook” violations; they actively trade immunity for strategic alignment. Because of this structural vulnerability, states are incentivized to engage in transactional diplomacy over collective security.
Overall, the institutionalization of selective enforcement results in states being able to apply or disregard international law whenever they feel suits them, thus creating a crisis of trust in the way international institutions implement international law.
The selective enforcement of international law by international institutions has generated the perception that there is a double standard when it comes to the application of international law. The double standard of applying international law is evident in the current conflicts that are afflicting the world today, especially in conflicts in the MENA region and the Russo-Ukraine War. When it comes to intervention in the Russo-Ukraine War, the West was quick to apply international law, as heavy sanctions were imposed on Russia and the ICC and ICJ began to conduct investigations into human rights abuses. However, in the case of the MENA conflicts, the Western-backed international institutions did not show this same level of urgency or desire to investigate potential war crimes and human rights abuses. This is clearly seen through the lack of accountability the US and UK have faced for potential war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan during the global war on terror as well as the US turning a blind eye to Israeli aggression against Gaza and Lebanon. Moreover, conflict zones such as Syria and Yemen have not been given the same level of attention as Ukraine when it comes to humanitarian aid or intervention, which raises questions regarding the concept of “responsibility to protect”. Therefore, these examples are explicit in showing how international law is selectively enforced, which, in turn, exposes glaring flaws in the way international institutions selectively choose which entities should be held accountable for their actions.
The inconsistencies in how the West chooses to apply international law are staggering and create the perception that the selective enforcement of international law is there to serve Western interests and power. This is evident as “For the non-Western world, a point comes when the enforcement of international law seems so selective, so hostage to power, and so privileging of Western interests that it no longer looks like law at all. It is just imperialism cloaked in law, for which only contempt, not respect, can be felt”. If international law is perceived strictly as Western imperialism, then non-Western actors will no longer feel bound by it. The analytical consequence is the normalisation of rogue state behaviour and the fracturing of global norms. Conclusively, this perceived imperialism doesn’t just erode trust; it actively legitimises the use of hard power by revisionist states, effectively dismantling the deterrence value of international law altogether.
Effectiveness as a Metric for Legitimacy
Ultimately, the crisis of trust in international institutions can be attributed to a perceived lack of effectiveness, which raises questions regarding the legitimacy of such institutions. One metric used to measure institutional effectiveness is whether international institutions can produce a positive impact stemming from formulated policies. In this case an institution’s survival is entirely dependent on its practical utility. If an institution cannot deliver actionable solutions to transnational crises, it ceases to be a governing body and devolves into a mere debating society. By analysing impact, one can gain understanding into how effective an international institution has been in implementing positive policies that have real-world implications, such as ending a war, mitigating health crises, or providing solutions to economic struggles.
Essentially, whether an international institution is legitimate in the eyes of the public or states is to an extent dependent on the performance effectiveness of implemented policies. This is explained as “When decisions fall short of widely held expectations, this opens opportunities to contest an IO’s legitimacy. For instance, the economic crisis in the Eurozone from 2009 to 2015 gave additional ammunition to those political parties and movements that contested the EU and its policies”. The issue of ineffectiveness and poor performance from international institutions today stems from the structural issues that were designed into the fabric of these institutions. This is clear as states use international institutions to further their own national and international agendas, which serves as an obstacle to effective state performance.
This assertion is exemplified by the UN Security Council, where countries such as the US and Russia have used their veto powers to block meaningful steps to bring about the end of crises such as Gaza and Ukraine. In this case, great powers have used institutional mechanisms such as the veto powers to pursue their own interests, which leaves the Security Council paralysed when it comes to negotiating potential ends to the conflicts. Now the question remains, what happens when the primary security organ of the world is paralysed? It accelerates the fragmentation of the global security architecture. Conclude the issue by arguing that this loss of legitimacy forces middle powers and regional actors to take security into their own hands, relying on regional defense pacts, minilateral security arrangements, or unilateral hard power to fill the vacuum left by an ineffective UN. It is actions such as those that prevent international institutions such as the UN from being effective in peacekeeping and maintaining international security, thus harming the legitimacy of international institutions. Consequently, trust in international institutions erodes, as states and individuals view these institutions as ineffective, and as a result, some can argue that legitimacy is lost.
In conclusion, the crisis of trust in legacy international institutions is a symptom of a shifting global architecture, rather than a mere failure of policy implementation. The perceived inability of these institutions to solve contemporary global issues—which stems from structural inequalities based on bygone power dynamics and glaring double standards in the application of international law—has irreversibly altered how states approach global governance. Rather than waiting for major powers to enact structural reform or equalise representation, middle and emerging powers are actively diversifying their geopolitical portfolios. Moving forward, the international system will not be defined by the collapse of multilateralism, but by its fragmentation and competition. As states increasingly prioritise functional effectiveness over the symbolic prestige of legacy institutions, the future of global order belongs to competitive minilateralism and pragmatic institutional hedging.
References
Blockmans, Steven, Hylke Dijkstra, Jan Karlas, Mihaela Papa, Michal Parízek, Clara Weinhardt, Thomas Sommerer, and Andrea Liese. 2024. “Can International Institutions Still Deliver? Patterns and Sources of Effectiveness and Democracy in Global Governance.” Ensured. Ensured. https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65f94def12935f07cab6eb39/6633a657d29660fed924ba52_ENSURED_lit_review_2.1_public.pdf.
CIVICUS. 2026. “UN Security Council: Reform or Irrelevance.” Civicus LENS. January 27, 2026. https://lens.civicus.org/un-security-council-reform-or-irrelevance/.
Colombatto, Enrico. 2025. “Will International Organizations Survive? .” GIS Reports. June 30, 2025. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/international-organizations-failure/.
Ezirigwe, Jane. 2025. “Double Standards in International Law: Critical Reflections for an Academic Lens for Teaching and Research.” Opinio Juris. July 21, 2025. https://opiniojuris.org/2025/07/21/double-standards-in-international-law-critical-reflections-for-an-academic-lens-for-teaching-and-research/.
Janardhan, Husain Haqqani, Narayanappa. 2023. “The Minilateral Era.” Foreign Policy. January 10, 2023. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/10/minilateral-diplomacy-middle-power-india-israel-uae/.
Kaplow, Jeffrey. 2015. “Selective Enforcement and Revealed Preferences in International Security Organizations.” https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/peio9/102_80_1443646409258_kaplow30092015.pdf.
Lall, Ranjit. 2016. “Beyond Institutional Design: Explaining the Performance of International Organizations.” Forthcoming, International Organization 71 (2): 1–42.
Oguzlu, Tarık. 2017. “The United Nations in a Changing World Order.” Aa.Com.Tr. September 21, 2017. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis-news/the-united-nations-in-a-changing-world-order/915600.
Patrick, Stewart. 2026. “The Middle Power Moment.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. January 20, 2026. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/01/the-middle-power-moment.
Phillips, Christopher. 2024. “The Evolution of Global Power Dynamics.” Arab News. December 24, 2024. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2584204.
Politics Today. 2022. “How Middle Powers Can Wield More Influence on Global Politics – Politics Today.” Politics Today. March 5, 2022. https://politicstoday.org/how-middle-powers-can-wield-more-influence-on-global-politics/.
Professor Ben Saul. 2022. “The Problem Is Selective Enforcement of International Law.” NST Online. New Straits Times. May 11, 2022. https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2022/05/795380/problem-selective-enforcement-international-law.
Ribut Harwanto, Edi. 2025. “Human Rights Violations and International Legal Responses.” Journal of Law and Social Politics 3 (1): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.46799/jlsp.v3i1.54.
Suresh, Sapna. 2024. “How The United Nations Helps And Hurts The Global South.” Theowp.Org. December 6, 2024. https://theowp.org/how-the-united-nations-helps-and-hurts-the-global-south/.
Tallberg, Jonas, and Michael Zürn. 2019. “The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework.” SSRN Electronic Journal 14 (January). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3060204.
Related Articles
Three Decades of Absence: Why Have Arabs Been Shut Out of the UN’s Top Job?
Pulse: The New World Order
The End of Free Passage? The Future Struggle Over the World’s Sea Lanes
From the Climate to the Strait of Hormuz: How Will the Next Food Crisis Begin?
The Age of Vibes: Vibe Coding, Lawyering, and Vibe Everything
Comments