If the past several years marked an era of “,” then 2026 signals the dawn of a new global disorder. This chaotic period is not defined by national rules or individual rights—instead, it stands out for the absence of both. As a result, humanitarian crises have surged, with nearly 240 million people now requiring humanitarian assistance.
The IRC’s (which identifies the 20 countries most at risk of worsening humanitarian crises) suggests we are in uncharted waters: a Wildean depiction of the fading promise of the post-World War II international order.
This new disorder is shaped by competing powers, shifting alliances, and transactional deal-making—factors that undermine global cooperation, enable conflicts driven by power and influence, and trample protections for the most vulnerable.
The retreat of aid and the rise of conflict
The crisis in Sudan embodies this new world disorder. Topping the IRC’s Emergency Watchlist for the third consecutive year, Sudan is not just home to today’s largest humanitarian crisis—it is the largest ever recorded.
No longer merely an internal civil war, Sudan has become a crucible of external interference and regional competition; a space where war profiteering models thrive as warring parties and their regional backers vie for control of gold mines, trade routes, and weapons; and where diplomacy has been weakened by geopolitical tensions. An estimated Sudanese people face critical hunger, have been forcibly displaced, and in the latest Darfur atrocities, people presumed to be in El Fasher are unaccounted for.
Witnessing international inaction over Sudan is distressing, but it is not an isolated incident. It is a symbol of the new disorder and the gridlock plaguing institutions tasked with containing it. Over the past 10 years, the UN Security Council’s five permanent members have used their veto—compared to just 19 in the previous decade—most often on resolutions related to the crises dominating the IRC’s Watchlist.
The direct toll of this new disorder is measured in human suffering. According to the , 117 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced. Nearly million face severe hunger. There are more active conflicts now than at any time since the Second World War. Attacks on , and on , have risen by nearly 50% since last year. We expect 2025 to be the deadliest year on record for aid workers. IRC Watchlist countries account for 89% of the in global humanitarian need, yet they make up only 12% of the world’s population.
Meanwhile, global donors have pulled back. By the first quarter of this year, of USAID programs had been canceled. Donor nations like Germany, the UK, and France have followed suit. This year, 2 million of the IRC’s clients lost services—including Sudanese refugees in South Sudan. Overall, humanitarian aid funding is at of its 2024 level.
This emerging disorder is not just destabilizing—it is dangerous. The clearest example is global health security. Progress on global disease and pandemic prevention has stalled. The Africa CDC reports a increase in public health emergencies. Yet global health funding is at an .
This neglect of humanitarian action is especially ironic given clear evidence of what works. Cash assistance, simplified malnutrition treatments, immunization campaigns, and anticipatory measures ahead of climate shocks are proven, cost-effective, and transformative tools.
Adapting to the new world disorder
As we enter this new disorder, we need to overhaul our global aid strategy.
First, donors must target the most vulnerable to both address surging crises and safeguard decades of hard-won progress. At least 60% of Official Development Assistance should go to fragile and conflict-affected states, with 30% specifically earmarked for Watchlist countries. Climate adaptation funding should align with need, increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict zones. Institutions like the World Bank must innovate by partnering directly with local and civil society groups—they are better equipped to deliver services in conflict conditions.
Second, we need to shift control in war zones from profit to protection by reviving diplomatic tools. The UN Security Council should suspend the veto in cases of mass atrocities—a proposal backed by countries. Conflict economies fueled by violence must be dismantled via targeted sanctions, financial enforcement, and diplomatic pressure. Coalitions of willing actors (composed of states, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and civil society) should serve as a powerful counter to instability. This is not just charity; it is enlightened self-interest.
Third, it is time to make the rule of law meaningful in practice. The rise of impunity in conflict zones is not inevitable—it is a choice. The flows (increasingly common in conflict settings) need to be exposed and stopped. Nations should reaffirm the primacy of international humanitarian law by conditioning arms sales and security assistance on compliance with it. Support for international accountability mechanisms (like UN Commissions of Inquiry) should be strengthened. Amid record levels of , governments should renew their commitment to upholding the fundamental pledge: no one should be returned to danger.
that crises starting in affected states will not stay contained. Citizens in Watchlist countries are paying the price of this disorder with their lives and livelihoods. But the harsh truth is: unless we change course, we will all pay—through greater instability, more shared threats, increased disruption, and an international order too broken to help when we need it most.
The question is: will we respond with vision and innovation, or continue to retreat?