Content

1. The new world disorder, from rules to might
2. Front and centre

The new world disorder, from rules to might

A. Issue in Brief

• The post-1945 rules-based international order (RBIO) built on UN system, international law, collective security, and free trade is weakening amid great-power rivalry, unilateralism, and norm erosion.
• Increasing use of sanctions, trade wars, selective treaty compliance, and military coercion reflects shift from rules to power-centric geopolitics, challenging stability of global governance.
• Rise of multipolarity (US–China rivalry, resurgent middle powers, Global South assertion) is reshaping institutions, norms, and agenda-setting in global politics.

Relevance

GS II – International Relations

• Crisis of rules-based order directly linked to themes of multilateralism, global governance, UNSC reform, and India’s foreign policy strategy.
• Helps answer questions on multipolarity, decline of liberal order, rise of minilateralism, and strategic autonomy.
• Useful for analysing India’s positioning in Quad, BRICS, G20, SCO, and Global South diplomacy.

B. Historical / Conceptual Background

• UN Charter (1945) institutionalised sovereign equality, peaceful dispute settlement, and collective security, aiming to prevent another world war.
• Rules-Based Order rests on pillars: international law, multilateral institutions, open trade, human rights norms, and security alliances.
• Cold War bipolarity paradoxically maintained stability via deterrence and predictable spheres of influence; post-Cold War era saw US-led liberal order.

C. Key Dimensions

1. Geopolitical Dimension

• US retrenchment and selective multilateralism weaken institutional leadership; examples include treaty withdrawals and preference for bilateral deals.
• China’s institutional activism (BRICS, SCO, BRI, AIIB) signals norm-shaping ambitions and parallel governance structures.
• Middle powers (India, Brazil, Türkiye, South Africa) pursue strategic autonomy, not bloc politics.

2. Institutional Dimension

• UNSC paralysis visible in Ukraine and Gaza crises; P5 veto politics undermine collective security credibility.
• WTO dispute settlement crisis (Appellate Body dysfunction since 2019) weakens rule-based trade governance.
• Bretton Woods institutions face legitimacy deficit due to under-representation of Global South.

3. Security Dimension

• Rise in inter-state conflicts and grey-zone warfare (cyber attacks, proxy wars, maritime coercion).
• Arms control architecture erosion (INF Treaty collapse, New START uncertainty) increases strategic instability.
• Expansion of minilateral security groupings (Quad, AUKUS) reflects shift from universalism to selective coalitions.

4. Economic Dimension

• Shift from hyper-globalisation to geo-economic fragmentation, friend-shoring, and supply-chain securitisation.
• IMF notes rising trade restrictions and industrial subsidies, distorting multilateral trade norms.
• Weaponisation of energy, technology, and finance (sanctions regimes, SWIFT access) shows economic statecraft dominance.

5. Normative / Ethical Dimension

• Declining consensus on human rights, democracy promotion, and humanitarian intervention.
• Sovereignty increasingly invoked to resist external scrutiny, weakening universal norms.
• “Might is right” narrative challenges rule-of-law-based global ethics.

D. Data & Evidence

• UN reports highest number of state-based conflicts since 1945 in recent years.
• Global military expenditure crossed $2.4 trillion (SIPRI), indicating security competition.
• WTO records rise in trade-restrictive measures annually since late 2010s.
• Proliferation of regional and minilateral groupings over universal treaties signals institutional bypassing.

E. Critical Analysis

• Crisis is not collapse but transition from unipolar liberal order to contested multipolar order.
• RBIO always reflected power realities; norms survived when backed by major powers.
• Present erosion stems from power diffusion, domestic nationalism, and techno-strategic competition.
• However, interdependence (climate, trade, health) still necessitates cooperation.

F. India’s Perspective

• India supports reformed multilateralism, not status-quo multilateralism.
• Advocates Global South voice, UNSC reform, climate justice, and development equity.
• Balances between strategic autonomy and issue-based partnerships.
• Leadership in G20, International Solar Alliance, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure reflects constructive multilateralism.

G. Way Forward

• Reform global institutions: UNSC expansion, WTO dispute restoration, IMF quota reforms.
• Promote inclusive multilateralism reflecting Global South priorities.
• Strengthen issue-based coalitions on climate, health, digital governance.
• Develop norms for cyber, AI, and space governance.
• Rebuild trust via predictable rule adherence by major powers.

Exam Orientation

Prelims Pointers

• UN Charter signed in 1945; core principle = sovereign equality.
• UNSC P5 veto power often causes paralysis.
• WTO Appellate Body non-functional since 2019.
• SIPRI tracks global military expenditure.
• AIIB and NDB (BRICS Bank) are alternatives to Bretton Woods institutions.
• Quad = India, US, Japan, Australia (not a military alliance).
• AUKUS = Australia, UK, US security pact.
• New START = US-Russia nuclear arms treaty.
• Global South ≠ geographic south; refers to developing world.
• Minilateralism = small-group, issue-specific cooperation.

Practice Question (GS II – IR)

• “The rules-based international order is under strain but not obsolete.”
  Examine the causes of its erosion and discuss how India should navigate the emerging multipolar world. (15 Marks)

Front and centre

 A. Issue in Brief

• The Supreme Court of India has pushed mandatory Front-of-Package Labelling (FOPL) on foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats, linking consumer information with the right to health under Article 21.
• Judicial concern arises from rising non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and regulatory delay, with the Court seeking time-bound action from FSSAI to adopt effective, globally aligned warning labels.
• Debate centres on adopting clear warning labels vs. industry-friendly rating systems, balancing public health priorities against processed-food industry concerns and market interests.

Relevance

GS II – Governance / Social Justice

• Links to Right to Health (Article 21), Article 47 DPSP, and consumer rights.
• Example of judicial activism in public health regulation.
• Shows regulatory role of FSSAI and evidence-based policymaking.

GS III – Health / Human Capital

• Relevant for NCD burden, preventive healthcare, nutrition policy, and food regulation.
• Connects with SDG-3 (Good Health & Well-being).

B. Constitutional / Legal Dimension

• Article 21 (Right to Life) judicially expanded to include right to health, nutrition, and safe food, legitimising state action on food regulation and disclosure norms.
• Directive Principles (Art. 47) obligate the State to improve public health and nutrition, providing constitutional backing for stricter food-labelling rules.
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers FSSAI to regulate labelling, standards, and consumer information for packaged foods.

C. Governance / Administrative Dimension

• FSSAI’s regulatory delay and preference for an Indian Nutrition Rating model shows tension between evidence-based health regulation and stakeholder accommodation.
• Effective FOPL requires standardised symbols, enforcement capacity, and monitoring, not merely voluntary compliance.
• Inter-sectoral coordination needed between health, education, consumer affairs, and information ministries for behavioural change.

D. Social / Ethical Dimension

• FOPL strengthens consumer autonomy and informed choice, reducing information asymmetry between corporations and citizens.
• Ethical principle: citizens must not be unknowingly exposed to health risks due to opaque labelling.
• Protects vulnerable groups like children and low-literacy consumers, who are highly influenced by packaging and advertising.

E. Public Health Dimension

• High intake of HFSS (High Fat, Sugar, Salt) foods strongly linked to diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular diseases.
• ICMR-INDIAB (2023): 101 million diabetics (11.4%), 136 million prediabetics, hypertension 35.5%, abdominal obesity 39.5%, high cholesterol 24% — indicating NCD crisis.
• Prevention via dietary awareness reduces long-term healthcare burden and productivity loss.

F. Economic Dimension

• NCDs impose large healthcare and productivity costs, straining families and public health systems.
• While industry fears reduced sales, global evidence shows reformulation and healthier product innovation often follow FOPL adoption.

G. Global Best Practices

• Countries like Chile, Mexico, and Israel use interpretive warning labels (stop signs/black boxes) showing measurable reduction in HFSS consumption.
• WHO endorses simple, interpretive FOPL over complex nutrient scoring models.

H. Key Challenges

• Industry lobbying and regulatory capture risks.
• Consumer awareness gaps despite labels.
• Need for periodic scientific threshold revision for sugar/salt/fat limits.

I. Way Forward

• Adopt simple, colour-coded or symbol-based warning labels aligned with WHO guidance.
• Integrate FOPL with school nutrition campaigns and media literacy.
• Encourage product reformulation incentives for industry.
• Establish independent nutritional science panels for threshold-setting.

Exam Orientation

Prelims Pointers

• FSSAI is statutory body under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
• Front-of-Package Labelling (FOPL) targets HFSS foods.
• Article 47 relates to public health duty of State.
• ICMR-INDIAB study tracks diabetes prevalence.
• WHO supports interpretive warning labels.
• HFSS = High Fat, Sugar, Salt foods.
• NCDs are leading causes of mortality in India.

Practice Question (GS II/III)

• “Front-of-package labelling is a low-cost but high-impact public health intervention.”
  Examine its significance in tackling India’s NCD burden and discuss regulatory challenges. (15 Marks)