The evolving landscape of global governance is prompting a significant shift away from customary, unilateral approaches to international issues. Increasingly, we’re witnessing a move towards whatS termed a “post-hegemonic” order, where the influence of single dominant powers is waning and regional actors are assuming greater responsibility. This transition is particularly evident in the realm of humanitarian intervention, a complex area where the principles of sovereignty and the responsibility to protect frequently enough collide.
The Rise of Regional Ownership
For decades, humanitarian interventions were largely conceived and led by Western powers. Tho, this model has faced increasing scrutiny, frequently enough criticized for it’s perceived neo-colonial undertones and lack of genuine local buy-in. You’ll find that contemporary interventions are now emphasizing regional ownership, meaning that regional organizations and states are taking the lead in addressing crises within their own spheres of influence.
This isn’t simply about shifting responsibility; it’s about recognizing that regional actors often possess a deeper understanding of the specific political, social, and cultural contexts driving conflict. Consequently, interventions led by regional bodies are frequently enough more effective and sustainable. Consider the African Union‘s involvement in mediating conflicts across the continent – their interventions, while not without challenges, demonstrate a commitment to African-led solutions.
However, the transition to regional ownership isn’t seamless. It requires significant capacity building within regional organizations, ensuring they have the resources and expertise to effectively manage complex crises. It also necessitates a delicate balance between respecting state sovereignty and upholding the responsibility to protect populations at risk.
According to a 2024 report by the International Crisis Group, interventions with strong regional support are 30% more likely to achieve lasting peace then those imposed from outside.
Great Power Management in a Changing World
Even as regional actors gain prominence, the role of great powers remains crucial. The United States,China,Russia,and other major players still wield significant influence on the global stage. However, their approach to humanitarian intervention is evolving. we’re seeing a move away from direct military intervention towards more subtle forms of influence,such as diplomatic pressure,economic sanctions,and support for regional initiatives.
this shift reflects a growing recognition that unilateral action can be counterproductive, frequently enough exacerbating conflicts and undermining international legitimacy. Instead, great powers are increasingly attempting to manage crises through international organizations and multilateral frameworks. But this “management” isn’t always straightforward. Competing geopolitical interests and diverging strategic priorities can hinder effective cooperation.
I’ve found that the tension between great power competition and the need for collective action is a defining feature of the post-hegemonic era. Such as, differing views on the Syrian conflict between Russia and the United States have consistently hampered efforts to find a lasting resolution.
The Role of international Organizations
International organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, are central to navigating this complex landscape. They provide a platform for dialog, negotiation, and collective action.However, their effectiveness is often constrained by the political dynamics of their member states.
The UN Security Council, in particular, is often paralyzed by the veto power of its permanent members. This can prevent the organization from responding effectively to urgent humanitarian crises. As of November 2025, the WTO forecasts a 12.6% drop in global trade volume, possibly exacerbating economic vulnerabilities and contributing to instability in already fragile regions (WTO, 2025).
Furthermore, the rise of new economic powers is reshaping the global economic order.The great trade rearrangement
(White et al., 2025) is leading to a fragmentation of global supply chains and a shift in economic influence away from traditional Western powers. This has implications for humanitarian assistance, as it affects the flow of resources and the ability to respond to crises.
When analyzing humanitarian interventions, always consider the broader geopolitical context and the underlying power dynamics at play.
navigating the Anti-Liberal Challenge
The post-hegemonic turn is also occurring against a backdrop of rising anti-liberalism in many parts of the world. This trend challenges the core principles of international cooperation and human rights that underpin humanitarian intervention.We’re seeing a resurgence of nationalism, populism, and authoritarianism, which can undermine support for multilateralism and erode the norms that protect civilians in conflict.
Europe, traditionally a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention, is grappling with its own internal divisions and external challenges. As explored in Jørgensen et al.’s (2025) work, the continent is navigating a complex interplay of policy paradigms and strategic thinking in the face of this anti-liberal challenge. This internal struggle impacts its ability to project influence and lead on the global stage.
The English School of International Relations offers valuable insights into this dynamic, emphasizing the importance of shared norms and institutions in maintaining international order (Knudsen & Navari, 2019).However, as Navari (2020) points out, the relationship between agents and structures is constantly evolving, and the concept of co-constitution is crucial for understanding how norms are challenged and re-negotiated.
Power Transitions and the Future of Intervention
The ongoing power transition from the West to the rest of the world is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of humanitarian intervention. As new powers emerge,they are likely to have different priorities and approaches to addressing global crises. This could lead to increased competition and fragmentation, but it also presents opportunities for greater inclusivity and a more equitable distribution of responsibility.
Understanding the historical context of great power management is essential. Kacowicz (2025) highlights how international organizations have been used throughout history to promote peaceful change, but also acknowledges the limitations of these institutions in the face of competing interests. The principles articulated by classic international law, as outlined by Scott (1916), continue to resonate, but their interpretation and request are constantly contested.
As Kupchan (2012) argued over a decade ago, we are moving towards a ”no one’s world,” where no single power is able to dictate the terms of international order. This requires a more nuanced and collaborative approach to humanitarian intervention, one that recognizes the legitimacy of diverse perspectives and prioritizes the needs of those affected by conflict.
Ultimately,the success of humanitarian intervention in the post-hegemonic era will depend on our ability to navigate these complex challenges and forge a new consensus on the principles and practices of international cooperation. It’s a task that demands both realism and idealism, a recognition of the limits of power and a commitment to the values that underpin a just and peaceful world.
Here’s a speedy comparison of the pre- and post-hegemonic approaches to humanitarian intervention:
| Feature | Pre-Hegemonic | Post-Hegemonic |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership | Western-dominated | Regional and multilateral |
| Focus | Imposing solutions | Supporting local ownership |
| Approach | Unilateral action | Diplomacy and cooperation |
| Legitimacy | Often questioned | Increasingly vital |
Evergreen Insights: The Enduring Relevance of international Law
Despite the shifts in power dynamics, the basic principles of international law – particularly those related to the protection of civilians and the prohibition of atrocities – remain critically important. These principles provide a moral and legal framework for humanitarian intervention, even as the practical application of these principles is constantly debated and contested. The ongoing relevance of Wight’s (1979) work on power politics underscores the enduring tension between ideals and interests in international relations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- What is humanitarian intervention? It refers to the use of force by a state or group of states to intervene in another state to prevent or end widespread human rights violations.
- Why is regional ownership important in humanitarian intervention? It ensures that interventions are more culturally sensitive,politically sustainable,and aligned with local needs.
- How are great powers adapting their approach to humanitarian crises? They are increasingly focusing on diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and support for regional initiatives rather than direct military intervention.
- What is the impact of anti-liberalism on humanitarian intervention? It undermines support for multilateralism and erodes the norms that protect civilians in conflict.
- What role do international organizations play in managing
