2026 Will Mark a New World Disorder

If the past few years marked the age of “polycrisis,” then 2026 is the dawn of a new world disorder. This era of disorder is being defined not by rules for nations and rights for individuals, but instead notable for the absence of both. As a result, humanitarian crises have skyrocketed and nearly 240 million people require humanitarian assistance. 

The IRC’s 2026 Emergency Watchlist, which identifies the 20 countries most at risk of worsening humanitarian crisis, suggests that we are in uncharted waters, a Wildean portrait of the decaying promise of the post-World War II international order.

This new era of disorder is defined by competing powers, shifting alliances, and transactional deal-making that in turn undermines global cooperation, enables conflicts fought for power and influence, and tramples protections for the most vulnerable.

The retreat of aid and the rise of conflict

The crisis in Sudan reflects this new world disorder. Topping the IRC’s Emergency Watchlist for the third year in a row, Sudan is not just home to the largest humanitarian crisis today but the largest ever. 

No longer merely an internal civil war, Sudan is a crucible of external interference and regional competition; of business models powered by the spoils of war, as warring parties and their regional backers vie for control of gold mines, trade routes and weapons; and of diplomacy castrated by geopolitical competition. An estimated 21 million Sudanese people face critical levels of hunger, 12 million have been forcibly displaced, and in the latest chapter of horrors in Darfur, 150,000 civilians who were presumed to be in El Fasher are unaccounted for.

International inaction in Sudan is painful to witness but not an isolated incident. It is an avatar for the new disorder, and the gridlock in institutions charged with containing it. Over the past 10 years, the UN Security Council’s five permanent members used their veto 49 times—compared to just 19 in the previous decade—most often on resolutions related to the very crises that dominate the IRC’s Watchlist. 

The direct consequence of the new world disorder is measured in human suffering. According to the UN Refugee Agency, around the globe, 117 million people have been forcibly displaced. Nearly 40 million people face severe hunger. There are more conflicts burning than any other time since the Second World War. Attacks on civilians, and on schools, have increased nearly 50% since last year. We are on track for 2025 to be the deadliest year on record for aid workers. Countries in the IRC’s Watchlist account for 89% of the 240 million in humanitarian need worldwide, while also accounting for a mere 12% of the global population. 

Meanwhile, global donors have fled the scene. By the first quarter of this year, 83% of USAID programs had been cancelled. Donor countries such as 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 50% of what it was in 2024.

This emerging new global disorder is not just destabilizing—it is dangerous. The clearest example is global health security. Global disease and pandemic prevention has stalled. The Africa CDC has reported a 40% increase in public health emergencies. Yet global health funding is at a 15-year low. 

This neglect of humanitarian action is all the more ironic in the face of evidence that shows very clearly what works. Cash assistance, simplified malnutrition treatment, immunization campaigns and anticipatory action in advance of climate shocks are proven, cost-effective, transformative tools.

Adapting to the new world disorder

As we enter this new world disorder, we need to shift our global aid strategy.

First, donors must target those who are most in need in order to both respond to surging crises and protect decades of hard-won progress. At least 60% of Official Development Assistance funds should go to fragile and conflict-affected states, with 30% dedicated specifically to Watchlist countries. Climate adaptation finance should follow need, increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected states. And institutions like the World Bank must innovate, partnering with local and civil society actors directly, because they are better equipped to deliver services in conflict conditions. 

Second, we must shift the locus of control in war zones from profit to protection by reclaiming the tools of diplomacy. The UN Security Council should suspend the veto in cases of mass atrocity—a proposal which is supported by 120 countries. Conflict economies that feed off violence must be dismantled through targeted sanctions, financial enforcement, and diplomatic pressure. Coalitions of the willing—composed of states, multilateral institutions, the private sector and civil society—should be a powerful antidote to the forces of instability. Not just out of charity, but enlightened self-interest.

Third, it is time to make the rule of law mean something in practice. The rise of impunity in conflict settings is not inevitable—it is a choice. The denial of aid flows, increasingly a feature in conflict settings, needs to be called out and overcome. States should reassert the primacy of international humanitarian law by conditioning arms sales and security assistance on its respect. Support for international accountability mechanisms, such as UN Commissions of Inquiry, should be reinforced. And amid record levels of displacement, governments should renew their commitment to uphold the very fundamental 1951 Refugee Convention commitment, that no one should be sent back to danger.

History teaches us that issues which begin in crisis-affected states will not stay there. Citizens in Watchlist countries are paying the costs of the new world disorder with their lives and livelihoods. But the painful truth is that unless we change course, we will all pay—through greater instability, greater common threats, greater disruption, and an international order too broken to respond when we need it most.

The question is whether we will respond with vision and reinvention, or with further retreat.