Namig Aliyev. The Pope, the “New World Order,” and International Law: Between Utopia and Survival
Author: Namig Aliyev,
Doctor of Law, Professor, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Head of the Department at the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Pope Leo XIV has once again reminded the world of a simple truth that history has shown to be difficult to implement: “Enough of war.”
On April 11, Vatican News quoted the head of the Roman Catholic Church speaking during a prayer vigil for peace throughout the world. He called on world leaders to stop and sit down at the negotiating table, “not at the table where rearmament is planned and decisions on deadly actions are made.” The Church will always call for peace, the Pontiff emphasized, “even if rejecting the logic of war may lead to misunderstanding and contempt,” and it will always cultivate “obedience to God rather than to any human authority.”
The call to reject the “logic of war” did not sound like an abstract sermon, but rather as a reaction to the rapidly changing architecture of international relations — the very one increasingly described as a “new world order.”
Yet this concept conceals a profound paradox. The world is indeed changing. But can it change faster than humanity destroys itself?
A New World Without Rules?
Discussions about a “new world order” have been going on for decades. After the end of the Cold War, it seemed that humanity had come closer to a universal system of international law in which norms would be binding on all. Institutions such as the United Nations and the system of international treaties were meant to play a central role in this project.
But reality turned out differently. The twenty-first century has demonstrated that international law has not disappeared — it has become an instrument interpreted by the powerful. Military interventions, sanction wars, and hybrid conflicts have all gradually eroded the previous normative foundation.
Today, the “new world order” is being shaped not in the halls of diplomacy, but in conflict zones. This is fundamentally dangerous: any order that emerges through force inevitably inherits the logic of force.
Law Requires Time, War Does Not
Creating a new system of international law is a lengthy process. Historically, it has taken decades, and sometimes centuries. One need only recall the formation of the post-war legal order after the Second World War.
Law requires a whole set of conditions: the consent of states, institutional stability, recognition of norms by all key actors, and above all, time.
But the modern world may not have that time.
Military technologies are developing faster than diplomacy. Escalation proceeds faster than negotiations. Destruction unfolds faster than its legal assessment.
This is precisely what Pope Leo XIV indirectly warns about when he says that the future cannot be discussed at a “table of rearmament.” Because in that case, the future may simply never arrive.
Religion Against War or Against Its Justification?
Particularly significant in the Pontiff’s address is his criticism of using religion to justify conflicts. This is not new in history, but today it has acquired renewed urgency.
When political leaders appeal to faith in order to legitimize military action, a dangerous conflation occurs: morality is turned into an instrument, faith into ideology, and law into a formality.
It is noteworthy that the Vatican did not support the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 — one of the key episodes in the crisis of international law at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This underscores the consistency of the Church’s position: war cannot be “just” under conditions in which it destroys the very possibility of a legal order.
Is There a Way Out?
The question of how to emerge from the current global turbulence no longer sounds like an academic discussion, but rather as a question of survival. Humanity has reached a point where familiar mechanisms of restraint are weakening, while new ones have not yet been formed. In this dangerous pause, Pope Leo XIV’s call to abandon the “logic of war” sounds especially forceful.
Let us try to determine whether the world has any real alternatives.
Scenario One: Order Through Destruction
History seems to give a clear answer: new world orders have almost always been born out of catastrophe. After the Second World War, the modern system of international institutions emerged, including the United Nations. After the Cold War, there arose the illusion of global consensus.
From this, a dangerous conclusion is drawn: in order to create a new order, one must first destroy the old one.
But the twenty-first century is radically different from all previous eras. Today’s wars are not only about tanks and front lines. They also involve cyberattacks, economic strikes, destruction of infrastructure, and, most importantly, weapons capable of calling into question the very existence of civilization.
And whereas earlier wars, however tragic, still left room for recovery, there is now a fundamentally different risk: the scale of destruction may prove irreversible.
Put simply, the world may not survive long enough to see the “new order” take shape.
Scenario Two: A Return to Law
Against this background, the Pope’s position sounds almost like a challenge to political realism. His appeal is not merely a moral declaration, but an attempt to return international politics to the framework of rationality.
Ending wars, rejecting escalation, and restoring the role of law are often perceived as utopian. But if ideology is set aside, it becomes obvious that this is the only scenario in which humanity still has time.
Law is not an abstraction. It is a mechanism that slows conflicts down, moves them into the sphere of negotiation, and creates predictability.
And predictability is precisely the condition for the survival of complex systems.
Critics may object: international law has already been violated, trust has been undermined, institutions have weakened. All this is true. But the damage to the system is not an argument for its final dismantling. On the contrary, it is an argument for its urgent restoration.
The alternative is a world without rules, where force becomes the only regulator. Historically, such systems are extremely unstable and always end in new catastrophes.
Scenario Three: Slow Evolution Under Pressure
The third path appears the most realistic — not revolution, but evolution. The world is already moving toward multipolarity, in which several centers of power will shape their own spheres of influence and rules of the game.
In such a system:
old institutions such as the United Nations will not disappear, but they will lose their monopoly;
regional legal regimes will emerge;
norms will be formed through compromise rather than universal agreements.
However, this scenario has one strict condition: conflicts must not spiral out of control.
The paradox is that even gradual evolution requires a minimum degree of stability. Without it, the world slips not toward a new order, but into prolonged chaos.
Time as the Main Resource
All three scenarios hinge on the same factor — time.
To create a new system of international law takes decades. To destroy the existing one takes only a few years, and sometimes only months.
It is here that Pope Leo XIV’s appeal acquires special significance. He speaks not only about morality, but also about pace: to stop the acceleration of conflict, to buy time, to give law a chance to catch up with reality.
Between Cynicism and Responsibility
Modern politics often justifies itself through “realism.” But under this word there is increasingly hidden a simple logic: whoever is stronger is right.
The problem is that under conditions of global interdependence, such logic becomes self-destructive. There may be no winners in the full sense of the word.
Then the question sounds different: is humanity prepared to renounce the short-term gains of force for the sake of long-term survival?
The answer is not yet obvious.
But one thing is clear: if the world does not heed warnings such as those voiced by Pope Leo XIV, then the “new world order” risks remaining not a political project, but a lost possibility.
Instead of a Conclusion
The Vatican’s appeal is not only a religious message. It is a political and philosophical warning.
A new world order is indeed possible. But it cannot emerge under conditions of constant war. Because law is always an agreement. And agreement is impossible where gunfire is heard.
The way out, paradoxically, appears simple — and therefore difficult: to stop.
Not for the sake of ideals, but for the sake of survival.