Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • IP25056 | End of the Liberal Order? Multiplexity and International Disaster Law
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    IP25056 | End of the Liberal Order? Multiplexity and International Disaster Law
    Lim Junli

    02 May 2025

    download pdf

    Dramatic changes in US foreign and domestic policies have triggered panic and forecasts of the end of the liberal international order or rules-based order. However, a more likely scenario is a multiplex world order, a system in which elements of existing orders persist with greater inclusivity and cross-regional collaboration. Disasters and the growth of international disaster law present a notable area for multilateral cooperation.

     

    A multiplex world order at work
    A multiplex world order at work: ASEAN’s AHA Centre disbursing aid for internally displaced persons at Marawi City. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

    The re-election of President Donald Trump and the onslaught of his administration’s actions have led many pundits to question the (final) end of the liberal international order (LIO) or rules-based order (RBO). While few question that the United States and its Western allies have championed this post-WW2 architecture, fewer yet have sought to ask what these terms really mean and whether a consensus exists. Understanding and defining these terms is not only critical in assessing current global shifts — and the types of shifts — but in identifying and understanding areas of continued multilateral cooperation.

    Defining LIO and RBO

    For some, LIO and RBO are synonymous and used interchangeably. Others have asserted that rather than being a rebranding of sorts, LIO was supplanted by RBO. Yet another viewpoint is that these are separate concepts but with overlaps. That said, the term “liberal” is as ambiguous as they come, with contention about whether one refers to political, economic, or social liberalism, among other disagreements.

    Regardless, three common features and elements are widely accepted. Firstly, both are based on a specific vision of liberalism led by the United States and generally sponsored by the West in the post-WW2 environment. Secondly, both are premised on state sovereignty, expressed through territorial integrity, political independence, and equality between nation-states. Thirdly, the “rules” are primarily established through multilateral institutions, most notably the United Nations and related agencies. While other common features may exist, the preceding three remain at the core; without them, neither order would have occurred.

    If we agree that these features form the crux of LIO and RBO, then panic at the impending end of these is unwarranted. State sovereignty and multilateral institutions — the United Nations or not — are concepts and mechanisms unlikely to be contested. If anything, they are likely to strengthen against the outlier(s). Instead, it is the fragility in leadership — and the consequences of that — from which the frenzy stems. The trade war instigated by President Trump against traditional friends and foes alike is ostensibly the most immediate and greatest concern.

    American foreign and domestic policies are changing, but this does not necessarily signal the end of LIO or RBO. However, it could certainly mean the end of liberal dominance — more specifically, the end of American, or Western, hegemony. To this, experts have pointed to the emergence of a multipolar world order, but even that is a polarised concept and debate.

    A Multiplex World Order

    A more likely shift is one towards what Amitav Acharya has described as a multiplex world order. In this vision, powerful global actors, norms, ideas, and interaction patterns beyond the state are recognised for their critical influence on the world order, without the need for or heed of a hegemon. Indeed, globalisation has given rise to these elements alongside increased interdependence.

    Features of a multiplex world order are already on the rise. Among many, we see non-United Nations-based regional institutions gain prominence and offer alternative systems and processes to LIO; “Global South” entities increasingly play more significant roles; and forms of interdependence no longer centre solely on the primacy of US- and Western-led trade. The growth of BRICS and its establishment of the New Development Bank is one example. Elements of LIO will persist (we see this in BRICS nations emphasising the “central role of the United Nations”), but alongside other systems and forms of organising the world. This shift gives way to greater inclusivity — the democratisation of the world order.

    Multiplexity, Disasters, and Opportunities for Cooperation: The Growth of International Disaster Law

    Emerging patterns and forms of interdependence also feature strongly in multiplexity. As the world has recently experienced, the consequences arising from a pandemic are deep and far-reaching. The same can be said for climate change and natural hazards, particularly as anticipatory and mitigation measures fail to keep up with their impact on societies. In 2024 alone, 167.2 million people were affected by natural hazards, with economic losses at US$241.95 billion. Such transboundary issues have an indiscriminate impact. They will rise on the agendas of policy and decision-makers, presenting sites for greater multilateral cooperation, albeit in a multiplex world.

    ASEAN already leads with the world’s first legally binding instrument on disaster governance. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response was signed in July 2005 — shortly after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami — and entered into force in 2009. It represents one of the fastest-negotiated agreements in the institution’s history, demonstrating that when there is a will, there is a way.

    As natural hazards and climate-related disasters are projected to rise, cooperation around international disaster law (IDL) appears ever more imminent. As a growing body of law, IDL offers great potential for deepening partnerships among states and non-state entities across regions and the globe. The subject matter frequently bypasses traditional sensitivities (such as human rights) and reinforces the international duty to cooperate. While the duty to cooperate is typically state-centric, the indiscriminate nature of natural hazards and resulting disasters necessitates a whole-of-society approach, including efforts toward engaging non-state entities and enhancing civil-military coordination. A significant step was marked by the UN General Assembly’s adoption of resolution 79/128 (2024). The resolution commits to an international convention on disaster governance based on the International Law Commission’s 2016 Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters by the end of 2027.

    The growth of IDL is also reflected in the increasing number of domestic and regional legislation as well as collaborative practices that address disaster governance. Examples of such legislations include the African Union’s Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (2009) addressing internal displacement resulting from disasters; the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters (2011); and more recently, Ecuador’s adoption of the Organic Law for Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management (2024),  alongside a growing number of states seeking to strengthen domestic disaster law. Practices and commitments arising out of collaborative platforms, such as the Arab Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, also contribute to norm-building and hence customary international law.

    Crucially, a multiplex world order would support the enhancement of cross-regional partnerships and collaboration. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, for example, emerged from the Tsunami Core Group (comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia). The group coordinated extra-regional assistance in response to the Indian Ocean tsunami and laid the foundations for broader cooperation.

    Recent events indicate that multiplexity is likely. Elements of LIO and RBO will persist alongside the democratisation of the world order. Within this paradigm, pressing transboundary issues such as disasters continue to necessitate cooperation while enhancing cross-regional collective action. It signals the creation of new, more, or alternative “rules” to the present order.

    About the Author

    Junli Lim is a Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) programme, Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: IDSS Papers
    comments powered by Disqus

    Dramatic changes in US foreign and domestic policies have triggered panic and forecasts of the end of the liberal international order or rules-based order. However, a more likely scenario is a multiplex world order, a system in which elements of existing orders persist with greater inclusivity and cross-regional collaboration. Disasters and the growth of international disaster law present a notable area for multilateral cooperation.

     

    A multiplex world order at work
    A multiplex world order at work: ASEAN’s AHA Centre disbursing aid for internally displaced persons at Marawi City. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

    The re-election of President Donald Trump and the onslaught of his administration’s actions have led many pundits to question the (final) end of the liberal international order (LIO) or rules-based order (RBO). While few question that the United States and its Western allies have championed this post-WW2 architecture, fewer yet have sought to ask what these terms really mean and whether a consensus exists. Understanding and defining these terms is not only critical in assessing current global shifts — and the types of shifts — but in identifying and understanding areas of continued multilateral cooperation.

    Defining LIO and RBO

    For some, LIO and RBO are synonymous and used interchangeably. Others have asserted that rather than being a rebranding of sorts, LIO was supplanted by RBO. Yet another viewpoint is that these are separate concepts but with overlaps. That said, the term “liberal” is as ambiguous as they come, with contention about whether one refers to political, economic, or social liberalism, among other disagreements.

    Regardless, three common features and elements are widely accepted. Firstly, both are based on a specific vision of liberalism led by the United States and generally sponsored by the West in the post-WW2 environment. Secondly, both are premised on state sovereignty, expressed through territorial integrity, political independence, and equality between nation-states. Thirdly, the “rules” are primarily established through multilateral institutions, most notably the United Nations and related agencies. While other common features may exist, the preceding three remain at the core; without them, neither order would have occurred.

    If we agree that these features form the crux of LIO and RBO, then panic at the impending end of these is unwarranted. State sovereignty and multilateral institutions — the United Nations or not — are concepts and mechanisms unlikely to be contested. If anything, they are likely to strengthen against the outlier(s). Instead, it is the fragility in leadership — and the consequences of that — from which the frenzy stems. The trade war instigated by President Trump against traditional friends and foes alike is ostensibly the most immediate and greatest concern.

    American foreign and domestic policies are changing, but this does not necessarily signal the end of LIO or RBO. However, it could certainly mean the end of liberal dominance — more specifically, the end of American, or Western, hegemony. To this, experts have pointed to the emergence of a multipolar world order, but even that is a polarised concept and debate.

    A Multiplex World Order

    A more likely shift is one towards what Amitav Acharya has described as a multiplex world order. In this vision, powerful global actors, norms, ideas, and interaction patterns beyond the state are recognised for their critical influence on the world order, without the need for or heed of a hegemon. Indeed, globalisation has given rise to these elements alongside increased interdependence.

    Features of a multiplex world order are already on the rise. Among many, we see non-United Nations-based regional institutions gain prominence and offer alternative systems and processes to LIO; “Global South” entities increasingly play more significant roles; and forms of interdependence no longer centre solely on the primacy of US- and Western-led trade. The growth of BRICS and its establishment of the New Development Bank is one example. Elements of LIO will persist (we see this in BRICS nations emphasising the “central role of the United Nations”), but alongside other systems and forms of organising the world. This shift gives way to greater inclusivity — the democratisation of the world order.

    Multiplexity, Disasters, and Opportunities for Cooperation: The Growth of International Disaster Law

    Emerging patterns and forms of interdependence also feature strongly in multiplexity. As the world has recently experienced, the consequences arising from a pandemic are deep and far-reaching. The same can be said for climate change and natural hazards, particularly as anticipatory and mitigation measures fail to keep up with their impact on societies. In 2024 alone, 167.2 million people were affected by natural hazards, with economic losses at US$241.95 billion. Such transboundary issues have an indiscriminate impact. They will rise on the agendas of policy and decision-makers, presenting sites for greater multilateral cooperation, albeit in a multiplex world.

    ASEAN already leads with the world’s first legally binding instrument on disaster governance. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response was signed in July 2005 — shortly after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami — and entered into force in 2009. It represents one of the fastest-negotiated agreements in the institution’s history, demonstrating that when there is a will, there is a way.

    As natural hazards and climate-related disasters are projected to rise, cooperation around international disaster law (IDL) appears ever more imminent. As a growing body of law, IDL offers great potential for deepening partnerships among states and non-state entities across regions and the globe. The subject matter frequently bypasses traditional sensitivities (such as human rights) and reinforces the international duty to cooperate. While the duty to cooperate is typically state-centric, the indiscriminate nature of natural hazards and resulting disasters necessitates a whole-of-society approach, including efforts toward engaging non-state entities and enhancing civil-military coordination. A significant step was marked by the UN General Assembly’s adoption of resolution 79/128 (2024). The resolution commits to an international convention on disaster governance based on the International Law Commission’s 2016 Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters by the end of 2027.

    The growth of IDL is also reflected in the increasing number of domestic and regional legislation as well as collaborative practices that address disaster governance. Examples of such legislations include the African Union’s Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (2009) addressing internal displacement resulting from disasters; the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters (2011); and more recently, Ecuador’s adoption of the Organic Law for Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management (2024),  alongside a growing number of states seeking to strengthen domestic disaster law. Practices and commitments arising out of collaborative platforms, such as the Arab Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, also contribute to norm-building and hence customary international law.

    Crucially, a multiplex world order would support the enhancement of cross-regional partnerships and collaboration. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, for example, emerged from the Tsunami Core Group (comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia). The group coordinated extra-regional assistance in response to the Indian Ocean tsunami and laid the foundations for broader cooperation.

    Recent events indicate that multiplexity is likely. Elements of LIO and RBO will persist alongside the democratisation of the world order. Within this paradigm, pressing transboundary issues such as disasters continue to necessitate cooperation while enhancing cross-regional collective action. It signals the creation of new, more, or alternative “rules” to the present order.

    About the Author

    Junli Lim is a Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) programme, Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: IDSS Papers

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info