This new era of disorder is defined by competing powers, constantly shifting alliances, and transactional deals that undermine global cooperation, enable power- and influence-driven conflicts, and strip away protections for the most vulnerable.
By David Miliband
If recent years marked the era of the “polycrisis,” then 2026 is the dawn of a new global disorder. This new era is not defined by rules for states and rights for individuals, but by the absence of both. As a result, humanitarian crises have escalated, and nearly 240 million people now need humanitarian assistance. The IRC’s Emergency Watchlist for 2026, which identifies the 20 countries most at risk of worsening humanitarian crises, suggests we are in uncharted waters—a portrait, worthy of Oscar Wilde, of the post–World War II international order’s promise decaying before our eyes. This new era of disorder is characterized by competing powers, constantly shifting alliances, and transactional agreements that undermine global cooperation, enable conflicts driven by power and influence, and eliminate protections for the most vulnerable.
THE WITHDRAWAL OF AID AND THE RISE OF CONFLICTS
The crisis in Sudan starkly reflects this new global disorder. For the third consecutive year, Sudan tops the IRC’s Emergency Watchlist. It is not only the epicenter of today’s largest humanitarian crisis; it is the largest humanitarian crisis ever recorded.
This is no longer merely an internal civil war. Sudan has become a hub of external interventions and regional rivalries; a battlefield where business models are fueled by the spoils of war, as warring parties and their regional backers fight for control of gold mines, trade routes, and weapons; and where diplomacy is paralyzed by geopolitical competition. Around 21 million Sudanese face critical levels of hunger, 12 million have been forcibly displaced, and, in the latest chapter of horror in Darfur, 150,000 civilians believed to have been in El Fasher are now missing.
International inaction in Sudan is painful to witness, but it is not an isolated case. It is emblematic of the new global disorder—and of the paralysis of institutions meant to restrain it. Over the past 10 years, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have used their veto 49 times, compared with just 19 times in the preceding decade, often blocking resolutions related precisely to the crises that dominate the IRC’s Watchlist.
THE HUMAN COST OF DISORDER
The direct consequences of this disorder are measured in human suffering. According to the UN Refugee Agency, 117 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide; nearly 40 million face severe hunger; there are more active conflicts than at any point since World War II; attacks on civilians and schools have risen by nearly 50% compared with last year; and 2025 is expected to be the deadliest year ever for humanitarian workers.
Countries on the IRC Watchlist account for 89% of the world’s 240 million people in humanitarian need, while representing just 12% of the global population. Meanwhile, global donors have pulled back. As early as the first quarter of this year, 83% of USAID programs were canceled. Donor countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and France have followed the same trend. This year, 2 million IRC beneficiaries have lost life-saving services, including Sudanese refugees in South Sudan. Overall, humanitarian funding has fallen to 50% of its 2024 level.
This new global disorder is not merely destabilizing—it is dangerous. The clearest example is global health security. Disease and pandemic prevention has stalled. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention report a 40% increase in public health emergencies, while global health financing is at its lowest level in 15 years.
WHAT WORKS—and WHAT MUST BE DONE
The irony is that, despite this neglect, the evidence is clear about what works: cash assistance, simplified treatments for malnutrition, vaccination campaigns, and preventive action ahead of climate shocks are proven, cost-effective, and transformative tools.
First, donors must focus on those most in need. At least 60% of Official Development Assistance should go to fragile and conflict-affected states, with 30% specifically dedicated to countries on the Emergency Watchlist. Climate adaptation financing must follow real need, increasingly concentrating on these countries. Institutions such as the World Bank should show greater innovation and work directly with local actors and civil society, which are best positioned to deliver services amid conflict.
Second, the center of gravity in war zones must shift from profit to protection by reviving diplomacy. The UN Security Council should suspend the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities—a proposal supported by 120 countries. Conflict economies must be dismantled through targeted sanctions, financial enforcement, and diplomatic pressure. Coalitions of the willing—states, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and civil society—must serve as a powerful counterweight to instability, not only out of charity but out of self-interest.
Third, it is time for the rule of law to have real meaning. Impunity in conflict is not inevitable; it is a choice. The denial of humanitarian aid must be condemned and consigned to history. States should condition arms sales and security assistance on respect for international humanitarian law. Accountability mechanisms, such as UN Commissions of Inquiry, must be strengthened. And in a world of record displacement, governments must reaffirm the core principle of the 1951 Refugee Convention: no one should be returned to danger.
History teaches us that crises that begin in conflict-affected states do not stay there. Citizens of countries on the Emergency Watchlist are paying the price of the new global disorder with their lives and livelihoods. But the hard truth is that, if we do not change course, we will all pay—through greater instability, shared threats, and an international order too damaged to respond when we need it most.
The question is: will we respond with vision and renewal, or with even greater retreat? (Time)