{"id":532246,"date":"2026-04-27T09:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T07:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=532246"},"modified":"2026-04-27T17:30:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T15:30:56","slug":"liberal-international-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/policy\/world\/liberal-international-order\/","title":{"rendered":"The liberal international order and the return of power"},"content":{"rendered":"

The intensification of trade after 1989 nurtured the idea of a world governed by cooperation. Today, geopolitical rivalries are overturning this belief and reshaping economic relations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, many believed in the \u00abend of history\u00bb described by Francis Fukuyama: the advent of a liberal international order based on rules, economic openness and interdependence. Over the following decades, this vision seemed to materialize. Free trade agreements proliferated, international investment protection became widespread, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), created in 1994, became the pillar of a system designed to promote mutual gains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This admittedly imperfect order was based on the idea that economic cooperation, framed by legal rules, could produce shared prosperity and reduce the risk of conflict. International trade and investment have indeed contributed to a sharp reduction in world poverty and an intensification of interdependence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

False unanimity from the outset<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In reality, this liberal order has never been unanimously supported. As early as the 1990s, a number of criticisms emerged. First, neo-Marxist currents denounced a system that primarily benefited multinationals. Then, populist movements of both left and right highlighted the losers of globalization, particularly among the working classes in industrialized countries. More recently, geopolitical critics have pointed out that economic openness can be exploited by powerful states pursuing strategic objectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, these challenges are converging to fuel a shift towards what has become fashionable to call geo-economics. In this environment, the economy becomes an instrument of power: sanctions, investment control or industrial relocation serve political and security objectives. Economic interdependence, once seen as stabilizing, can also be \u00abinstrumentalized\u00bb as a means of pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n