What does a rupture in the world order mean for small islands?
Since World War 2, there has been this concept called “the international order. It is a system of political, legal, and economic rules which have arguably governed international relations since 1947. A rupture in the “international order” is characterized by a shift from a rules-based system to one of intense great power rivalry, economic coercion, and diminishing multilateralism. This shift poses real risks to small island nations under European supervision (such as French, Dutch, or Portuguese overseas territories). US territories face similar risks under US supervision.
For these territories, a fractured world means the loss of the “permissive” international environment that has historically guaranteed their security, economic stability, and sovereign autonomy within European frameworks.
There are four specific vulnerabilities that this rupture means for these small island territories.
The first threat is an increase in geopolitical vulnerability as “global powers” challenge existing norms. Remote territories become strategic pawns, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean. Targeted by “rival” global powers, these territories face increased risks of being entangled in conflicts not of their own making. Previously, the liberal order of global powers allowed small states to thrive through specialized niches (shipping, finance, tourism). These niches are familiar to the Dutch Caribbean.
It is predicted that as global trade becomes weaponized through tariffs and sanctions, small islands, which are largely reliant on imports, will face acute economic shocks. The specialized, niche economies (financial services, luxury tourism) could be undermined if the global financial system fragments.
Political scientists proclaim that the world is now entering a “muscular era”. In political terms, a “muscular era” refers to a period characterized by assertive, often aggressive leadership, foreign policy, and governance style. This new, “muscular” era means these remote territories may be forced to choose sides, limiting their capacity to navigate between major powers.
It can mean reduced autonomy, and it can threaten maritime security. The European Union’s role as a guarantor of security in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) may be challenged, especially as competitors disregard UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) norms.
If Europe is forced to focusing on its own security and suffering economic downturns, financial aid and both economic and social development support for these “Overseas Countries and Territories” (OCTs) and “Outermost Regions” (ORs) could shrink. These islands will be left to develop their own security and food resilience capabilities, climate financing, and climate emergency plans, even while remaining under European supervision.
In short, for islands under European supervision, the “rupture” means that the rules-based, permissive system that has protected their development and security is being replaced by a “brutal reality” of power politics. This will require them to navigate heightened risks with potentially fewer resources from their European partners.
