While the debate about the rules-based international order is going on, the Iran war has further fuelled concerns about the norms and institutions that defined and held the post-war world together. As a result, the notion of collective security, alliance solidarity, and institutionalised multilateralism are under strain. Some foreign policy moves by the Donald Trump Administration, including the withdrawal from key multilateral agreements, its attitude towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), threats to acquire Greenland, and the “Board of Peace”, have brought such underlying tensions into sharp relief. Taken together, these developments have reignited debates about how the post-war order came into existence, how it evolved, and whether it continues to serve its purpose in the changing landscape of international relations. Interestingly, the collective security alliance NATO acquires a centrestage in this debate. Interwar lessonsNATO came into existence in 1949 against the backdrop of the failure of the interwar period and the beginning of the Cold War. The League of Nations, formed after WWI, couldn’t manage to prevent aggression and great-power rivalry. A number of factors exposed its weaknesses, including:1. The failure to keep the US on board.2. Continued aggression by powerful states (such as Japanese aggression in Manchuria). 3. Lack of enforcement mechanisms. 4. The belief in moral condemnation vis-a-vis strong, credible deterrence.Must Read | How Delhi’s IOR vision combines security, connectivity, and digital governance The idea of the League was premised on an idealist vision that overlooked the realities of power politics. The architect of the post-WWII order tried to avoid repeating the mistakes of the League. As a result, the Charter of the United Nations (formed in 1945) reflected a more pragmatic understanding of international politics, most notably through the institutionalisation of great-power privilege in the Security Council. Story continues below this adNATO and collective security after WWIINonetheless, even this arrangement was soon overtaken by geopolitical realities. By the late 1940s, relations between the Western powers and the Soviet Union deteriorated, while Europe experienced deep political and economic instability, prompting a realisation in the West that universal collective security alone was insufficient. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the Berlin Blockade reinforced the perception that the Soviet Union posed not merely a regional threat but a systemic challenge to the Western political and economic system.Against this backdrop, NATO was formed as a trans-Atlantic security alliance. Anchored in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises the inherent right of collective self-defence, NATO was conceived explicitly as a strategic Western bloc. Its purpose was not to provide universal security, but to deter a specific adversary through binding commitments and integrated military planning. The alliance institutionalised the American security guarantee to Europe, ensuring a sustained US presence on the continent while reassuring European states still shaped by memories of interwar vulnerability.Story continues below this adBeyond deterrence, NATO also served important political functions. It embedded West Germany within a multilateral framework and fostered a shared strategic identity. It was never merely a military alliance; it was a political project aimed at consolidating a Western community of values and interests. In this sense, NATO represented cohesion and credibility over inclusivity, a departure from the League of Nations.Don't Miss | Beyond Trending: What is deterrence?Post–Cold War expansion of NATO Yet, the end of the Cold War posed a fundamental challenge to NATO’s original rationale. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the alliance’s principal adversary disappeared. Questions were raised about whether NATO needs to be dissolved, transformed, or continue to exist unchanged. During the 1990s, NATO redefined its role in significant ways. First, it expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact states and, eventually, the Baltic republics. For these countries, accession was driven by historical experience and enduring fears regarding Russia.Supporters of this enlargement saw it as a tool for democratic transitions and stabilisation of Europe, while critics argued that this would antagonise Russia and undermine the possibility of having a cooperative European security architecture. Story continues below this adScholars note that security assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990-1991 that NATO would not be enlarged beyond the reunited Germany were rather ambiguous. It paved the way for a mistrust that continues to shape the relations between NATO and Russia. Tensions between NATO and the UN The other notable move that redefined NATO was extending its operational mandate beyond the borders of Europe to address hybrid threats from both state and non-state actors. Its interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s marked a shift towards crisis management and humanitarian intervention. NATO’s Kosovo intervention was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council (UNSC). This ignited a tension between NATO’s expanding role and the UN’s legal framework regulating the use of force. Russia often cites the Kosovo intervention as an example of Western overreach and undermining international law. Over time, NATO’s operations extended far beyond the North Atlantic area as it acted as security provider, engaged in counterterrorism, cyber defence, and capacity-building partnerships. This has caused tensions between NATO and the UN, which reflect a broader dilemma in contemporary global governance. The UN enjoys unparalleled legitimacy but is often paralysed by great power rivalry. Story continues below this adAlso Read | Why adjusting water governance to climate change has become imperativeAlternative visions of global governanceAgainst this backdrop, alternative visions of global governance have been discussed. India’s position within this evolving landscape has been defined by its commitment to strategic autonomy, avoiding formal alliance commitments, and a balanced partnership with every country. India’s vision emphasises reform rather than replacement. It demands a more representative UNSC, a greater voice for the Global South, and respect for sovereignty. The G20 Summit that New Delhi hosted in 2023 is an example of bringing the world together, including the consensual G20 declaration and the inclusion of the African Union countries as the permanent members of the group. In this sense, India seeks to reconcile order with pluralism, resisting both alliance-centric security models and hierarchical governance frameworks.Interestingly, China has also articulated its own vision for global governance. Through initiatives such as the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Development Initiative (GDI), Beijing has advanced a framework that emphasises sovereignty, non-interference, and developmental security.Story continues below this adChinese officials argue that existing institutions reflect outdated power hierarchies and impose normative agendas that fail to account for the political and cultural diversity of the Global South. Chinese messaging has been of shared identity, anti-colonial solidarity, and mutual development, while promoting reform of the international order. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative illustrate this point. However, whether China’s framework represents a genuine alternative or a rearticulation of traditional power politics remains contested. Nevertheless, debates over NATO, global governance, and competing visions of order point to a deeper structural transition in world politics. At the same time, the recent attack on Iran by the US and Israel suggests that, despite growing discussions about multipolarity, America’s hegemony over the world order and power politics continue to shape the international system. Against this backdrop, the upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping will be closely watched.Post read questionsExamine the reasons behind the failure of the League of Nations in maintaining collective security during the interwar period.Story continues below this adDiscuss the circumstances that led to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949. How did the end of the Cold War challenge the original rationale of NATO?Evaluate the tensions between NATO’s expanding role and the authority of the United Nations Security Council in regulating the use of force.Examine India’s approach to global governance reform in the context of its demand for reforms in the United Nations Security Council.Compare India’s vision of global governance with that proposed by China through initiatives such as the Global Security Initiative.Story continues below this ad(Dr Indrani Talukdar is a Fellow at Chintan Research Foundation.)Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for February 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.