No one changes their behaviour in front of a stack of paper. Until someone says it is money. The philosopher John Searle, one of the most influential thinkers on how institutions work, used this simple example to illustrate a deeper truth: much of the social world exists only because we collectively agree that it does. A line on a map becomes a border. Words written in a treaty become binding obligations. And yes, a piece of paper becomes wealth.

These shared fictions make life in society possible. Money is one of them. So are the multilateral system and the rules of international law that organise relations between states. Yet many who would never question the first are quick to reject the second. The reason is simple: some fictions place limits on power. And breaking the rules-based order can be profitable for a few – but it comes at the expense of everyone else.

In recent years, pressure on the international order has intensified on two fronts. On the one hand, some major and emerging powers see an opportunity to weaken existing norms and reshape them to their own advantage. The most brutal expression of this trend is war itself. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the devastating genocide perpetrated in Gaza, and the unilateral attempts by the United States to engineer regime change in Venezuela and now Iran – all without seeking even a veneer of international approval – signal that some governments are openly challenging the foundations of the international system. The same logic is visible beyond the battlefield, in the weaponisation of trade, technology and even migration flows – tools increasingly used to coerce rivals and advance geopolitical interests.

Defection does not go unnoticed

On the other hand, the rules-based global order is also strained when political leaders, faced with these aggressions, choose silence or ambiguity instead of defending international law. In seeking to avoid confrontation, they fall into appeasement – the mistaken belief that restraint will calm those who break the rules. They believe words cannot damage the international order the way bombs do. They are wrong. When it comes to norms, words make worlds. When middle powers fail to defend global rules – or worse, abandon them – they accelerate their erosion. Defection does not go unnoticed. Allies see it. Rivals see it. Large and small states alike. And once enough actors conclude that the rules no longer matter, the system begins to unravel. In trying to shield themselves, they end up creating the very disorder they fear.

Behind these dynamics lies a simple but mistaken idea: that in a multipolar world, a return to spheres of influence would both benefit great powers, producing a stable balance between them, and benefit their citizens. But history suggests otherwise. When shared rules disappear, stability does not emerge – rivalry does. And this leads to struggle and poverty for all. Or, almost all. People should realise that much of what we take for granted and makes our lives decent – economic growth, functioning markets, social welfare – rests on international stability and peace.

The international order rests on a shared belief: that power can be restrained by law, commitments can outlast immediate interests, and cooperation can moderate rivalry

Multilateralism is not an abstract ideal – it is an everyday reality. A factory job in Detroit. A well-stocked supermarket in Paris. A student in London. A holiday in Japan. Our prosperity rests, above all, on something as fragile as it is essential: the preservation of the rules-based order. And if anyone still doubts it, imagine sustaining our welfare states in a world with a long-term war in the Middle East pushing oil prices to $150 a barrel. A third of global fertiliser supplies cut off by conflict. Major trade routes disrupted. Energy markets locked in permanent volatility. This is not a distant scenario. It is one we are facing when the rule of force prevails. And it is the proof that the only real alternative to a multilateral order is not a new equilibrium, but disorder and chaos.

Despite what some claim, the system is not failing people. Quite the opposite. For the past 75 years it has helped deliver the most prosperous and stable period in human history. Deaths from armed conflict fell by roughly half over recent decades, even if they have risen again in recent years. Global per capita income has multiplied by five. International trade has expanded at an unprecedented scale, with global volumes growing roughly 40 times since 1950, lifting living standards across continents. And extreme poverty has fallen from around 60% of the world’s population to less than one in ten. This record is far from perfect – but it is far better than any alternative humanity has ever tried.

None of these achievements should prevent us from recognising its imperfections. The multilateral system is not sufficiently representative. One example is the UN Security Council, which still reflects the balance of power of 1945 rather than that of the 21st century. Certainly, international norms are sometimes applied selectively. And when they are violated, institutions frequently lack the authority or capacity to ensure compliance.

But acknowledging the cracks in the building should not make us demolish it and go to sleep out in the open. Because a world without a rules-based order is a world in which brute force counts more, coercion is cheaper and coordination to solve humanity’s problems is harder. And we can’t afford that. Not now.

Structural reforms urgently required

Today, we need instruments of global governance more than ever. Nation-states remain the central actors of international politics, yet many of our current challenges cross borders and cannot be solved by any country alone. Plus, they are far more complex and more urgent than the ones societies faced when the multilateral architecture was first designed. Climate change threatens to reshape life across vast regions of the planet. Migration reflects deep global imbalances and has become a major political challenge in many societies. And the governance of artificial intelligence, together with the accelerating pace of technological change, raises new risks that ignore borders altogether.

These challenges require global cooperation. And only the multilateral system can provide that. But in order to deliver the expected results, reforms would be required. Urgent, structural ones.

First, we must abandon the illusion that the multilateral system can act as a constraint on the real distribution of power in the world. If the system is to survive, it must reflect the balance of power of the 21st century. The UN Security Council is the clearest example of this anachronism: its membership, structure and veto system contradict the very principles on which the multilateral order was built. Much of the perception that the system cannot respond to today’s security crises stems from this failure to adapt.

More democratic, diverse, inclusive

Second, the system must become more democratic, diverse and inclusive. Countries of the global South cannot remain passive recipients of resources. They must become active agents of their own future – with voice, vote and real influence in multilateral institutions. The large democracies of the global South must have a seat at the table where the most important decisions of international governance are made.

Third, we must strengthen the supervisory and enforcement capacity of the institutions responsible for global security. Rules only matter if they can be monitored, defended and applied. For too long, those who violate them have been the ones who sleep soundly, while those who respect them limit themselves to issuing statements of ‘deep concern’. That balance must change: concern must change sides. It is time for those who break the rules to be the ones who feel the pressure, and for those who defend them to act with the resolve the moment demands.

Reform must therefore focus on efficiency as well as representation: faster decision-making, clearer mandates and stronger mechanisms to implement collective decisions. All of this, while making international institutions more efficient and less bureaucratic, and fostering their ability to respond to urgent crisis. Without this, the credibility of the multilateral system will continue to erode.

Nowhere is the logic of multilateralism clearer than in Europe. The European Union was born from a hard lesson: unconstrained rivalry had twice produced catastrophe. It had failed the peoples, the economies and the states of the continent. International law, shared institutions and pooled sovereignty were therefore not idealistic aspirations. They were instruments of survival first – and later of prosperity.

The European project shows what happens when interdependence is governed rather than feared. Through common rules and institutions, European states transformed a continent once defined by war into one defined by cooperation, integration and development. Today, European countries rank among the highest in global measures of wellbeing, life expectancy, social development and democracy. Above all, they have preserved peace on a continent that for centuries was the epicentre of global conflict.

For Europe, multilateralism is therefore not only a normative commitment. It is a structural necessity. In a world governed by rules and institutions, Europe enjoys far greater influence than its population or GDP alone would suggest. The EU amplifies the power of its member states by embedding them in a system of law, rules and cooperation.

The reverse is also true. In a world dominated by spheres of influence and raw power, Europe’s structural position deteriorates. Bilateral power politics favour larger and more coercive actors. Economic interdependence becomes a tool of pressure rather than prosperity. Security alliances become fragile. And Europe’s openness – one of its greatest strengths – becomes a vulnerability.

The consequences of this erosion are already visible. As the rules-based order weakens, geopolitical competition, economic coercion and external pressure increasingly test the cohesion of the European project itself. In a more fragmented world, the temptation to retreat into narrow national calculations grows stronger.

Yet that path offers only an illusion of security. For Europe, abandoning multilateralism would not restore sovereignty – it would reduce influence. The European project itself is proof that cooperation can tame rivalry, and that rules can transform interdependence from a source of vulnerability into a source of stability and prosperity.

A once-in-a-century opportunity

The international order rests on a shared belief: that power can be restrained by law, that commitments can outlast immediate interests, and that cooperation can moderate rivalry. Some would call these beliefs a fiction. Yet it is precisely this fiction that has allowed billions of people to cooperate, trade, prosper and live in greater peace than in any previous era of history.

The current crisis should therefore be treated not as an inevitable decay of multilateralism, but as a test of our willingness to renew it. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform, rather than abandon, the globally shared rules, norms and institutions that make that cooperation possible. Without them, what passes for realism quickly dissolves into something far more brutal: the law of the strongest.