The Concept of “Emerging Disorder” as a Systemic Phase
In April 2026, Bruce Jones posits that the world is not simply witnessing the “collapse” of an old order, but rather a “reordering” process where all foundational assumptions—security, legitimacy, and fairness—are being contested simultaneously. He argues that what we perceive as “disorder” is actually the visible surface of a system trying to reconfigure itself. Consequently, 2026 has become a pivotal year where multiple actors—states, corporations, and public movements—are attempting to rewrite the global ruleset through trade policy, technology standards, and the strategic use of force. This suggests that the current turbulence is not a temporary glitch but a transition into a new, as-yet-undefined state of international relations.
Origins and the Convergence of Crisis
Originally, the post-Cold War era was defined by a relatively stable, U.S.-led liberal order. However, the origin of the current “peril” lies in the convergence of three major disruptions: the withdrawal of the U.S. from its role as the global “security guarantor,” the rise of China as a systemic rival, and the direct kinetic conflict in the Middle East (the Iran war). By 2026, these factors have merged with “frontier threats” like AI and climate-driven migration to create a state of chronic instability. Furthermore, the report emphasizes that the “possibility” within this peril lies in the potential for new, more inclusive coalitions to emerge—such as the recent UK-led 35-nation summit—which could establish a “New Order” based on shared survival rather than ideological hegemony.
Structure of Reconfiguration: Trade, Tech, and Territory
The structure of this global reordering is organized around three primary battlegrounds:
- Trade and Sanctions: The use of interdependence as a weapon, specifically seen in the U.S. “Maximum Pressure” campaigns on Iran and Cuba, which have forced a bifurcation of the global economy.
- Technology Standards: A race between the U.S. and China to define the rules for AI and digital infrastructure, leading to a “Digital Splinternet.”
- Territorial Integrity: The erosion of humanitarian law and the return of large-scale interstate warfare, which has challenged the UN’s capacity to mobilize collective action. This structured conflict creates an environment where “strategic imagination” is often crowded out by the immediate needs of crisis management, making long-term stability difficult to achieve.
Synthesis of Institutional Strain and the Choice of Engagement
The successful transition to a “New Order” now faces a paradox: the multilateral institutions needed to solve these crises (like the UN or WTO) are the very ones being hollowed out by great-power rivalry. This objective is essential to understand because it illustrates that the choice facing major powers is no longer between “order” and “no order,” but between a “Coherent New Order” and a state of “Chronic Instability.” Simultaneously, there is a clear intent in Jones’s analysis to urge the U.S. to adapt its leadership to these new realities rather than attempting to restore a vanished past. Ultimately, the Brookings report provides a stable warning: 2026 is the year where the “Old Order” officially became a memory, and the “New Order” became a necessity that has yet to be born.
Reference
Jones, B. (2026, April 2). Peril and possibility: Collapsing old order, emerging disorder, or new order? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/peril-and-possibility-collapsing-old-order-emerging-disorder-or-new-order/