The Risky Endgame of Global Institutionalism

Analytical Report by the Institute of Danube Research (IDR)
September 16, 2025

A Question Long Avoided: Has International Institutionalism Died?

At the 5th Geopolitical Summit in Budapest, a provocative question was raised — one that for years was whispered but rarely spoken aloud: Is international institutionalism still alive, or has it entered its final, risky endgame?

The answer that emerged from the panel was sobering. The global order, once propped up by sprawling institutions and lofty declarations, is faltering. Its structures, weakened and detached from reality, have become less a guarantor of peace and more a source of instability.

“Sovereignty Is Not a Museum Piece”

Hungarian government official Zoltán Kovács cut to the heart of the matter: “International organizations have no sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to states, as it has since the 16th century.”

For him, the issue was not theoretical. Bodies like the International Criminal Court and even the European Union, he argued, increasingly overstep their mandate, interfering in core areas of national decision-making. Sovereignty, Kovács insisted, is not an archaic relic — it is the very currency of modern politics.

The Fiction of a “Rules-Based Order”

Eugene Kontorovich of the Heritage Foundation echoed this sentiment, dismissing the so-called “rules-based order” as a fiction. “If you search the literature for a definition, you’ll find long paragraphs with no clarity. That tells you everything: no one really knew what it meant.”

According to him, the UN has failed in its most basic duty — security — and instead drowns in bureaucratic overreach, extending its influence deep into domestic issues like education and health policy. The result is a system that is intrusive, ineffective, and unattractive.

The “Wounded Buffalo” Metaphor

From South Africa, Ernst Roets offered a vivid metaphor: international institutionalism is like a wounded buffalo. Dying, yes — but therefore all the more dangerous.

“Those who resist centralization are branded as anti-democratic,” Roets argued, drawing parallels between the Afrikaners’ resistance to Pretoria and Hungary’s clashes with Brussels. The real solution, he claimed, lies in “our true communities — our nations, created by God — not in artificial international structures.”

Bureaucracy Thriving Without Accountability

Stefano Gennarini, a lawyer with years of experience at the United Nations, warned against assuming the institutions are collapsing. “Bureaucratically, they are thriving. The UN General Assembly passes some 350 resolutions a year, many by consensus, and increasingly they intrude into domestic governance. Twenty years ago, it would have been unthinkable for UN texts to speak of ‘global governance.’ Today it is commonplace.”

The danger, in his view, is not the weakness of institutions but the unwillingness of states to assert sovereignty. Walking away would not diminish their influence — it would allow others, particularly the EU, to step in and expand it.

A Bureaucracy That Lives a Life of Its Own

What united the speakers was the recognition that international organizations now operate largely without accountability. As Kovács put it, “Step by step, sovereignty is taken away from member states through legal and semi-legal maneuvers.” Kontorovich added: “These organizations can continue regardless of whether they fulfill their mission. That is their danger.”

The specter raised was not of peaceful reform, but of conflict. If international institutions collapse, the alternative will not be a benign vacuum, but confrontation.

Why the Danube Region Should Care

For the Danube region, this debate is not an academic exercise. Central and South-Eastern Europe sit at the crossroads of competing powers and overlapping institutional logics.

• The European Union often acts beyond its intended mandate, pressing member states on migration, energy, and health policy.
• Ukraine’s war of survival has exposed the impotence of the UN and OSCE as security guarantors.
• The Balkans and Black Sea region, historically fragile, risk becoming theaters of instability if the global order fragments further.
• Regional formats such as the Visegrád Group, the EU Danube Strategy, and the Three Seas Initiative may become more important as alternatives to failing global structures.

Possible Scenarios Ahead

1. Status Quo Drift: International institutions continue but lose real influence, becoming symbolic bureaucracies.
2. Fragmentation: Regional alliances (EU, BRICS, Three Seas) replace global mechanisms, competing with one another.
3. Reform from Below: Coalitions of states force reforms, making institutions more accountable.
4. Collapse: Global institutions disintegrate, creating a power vacuum filled by conflict.

IDR’s Conclusion

The world is entering a risky endgame of global institutionalism. Neither blind faith in bureaucratic structures nor their sudden collapse offers a path to stability. The only viable way forward lies in:

• reaffirming national sovereignty as the cornerstone of politics,
• building regional coalitions capable of defending shared interests,
• and ensuring policies are rooted in real communities, not abstract global orders.

As one speaker put it, the true test of any institution is simple: If it disappeared tomorrow, would the world notice? In the case of the UN, the unsettling answer today is: probably not.