WORLD: Human Rights Losing Ground in a Changing World Order
By Hans Noot, Associate director of Human Rights Without Frontiers
HRWF (23.01.2026) – Across regions and political systems, human rights are no longer at the center of global decision-making. Not because governments openly reject them, but because they are increasingly treated as secondary—balanced against economic growth, national security, geopolitical rivalry, or political survival. This quiet shift represents one of the most serious challenges to human dignity today.
The trend is not confined to authoritarian regimes. Democracies, too, are redefining priorities. Legal safeguards remain on paper, treaties are still cited, and human-rights language continues to appear in official statements. Yet in practice, protections are more often postponed, narrowed, or made conditional. The cumulative result is a steady loss of ground for human rights.
This development is neither accidental nor temporary. It reflects a broader transformation in how power is exercised and justified in the international system—a shift that has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic.
From a rule-based order to a power-driven reality
After World War II, the international community sought to prevent a return to unchecked power politics. Institutions such as the United Nations, international courts, and human-rights treaties were built on a shared assumption: that law should restrain power and that states should be accountable beyond their borders.
For decades, this system functioned imperfectly but meaningfully. Even when violations occurred, governments felt compelled to justify their actions within a common legal and moral framework. Human rights were not always respected, but they were widely accepted as legitimate standards.
That consensus has weakened. During the pandemic, emergency measures normalized exceptional governance—restrictions on movement, expanded surveillance, limits on assembly, increasing regulations and administrative reporting, and rule by executive decree. Although often presented as temporary, these measures reshaped political habits. In the post-COVID period, global politics increasingly operate on transactional logic, where influence, wealth, and strategic advantage outweigh legal obligation.
Geopolitical competition has further intensified this trend. Major powers challenge norms when they conflict with national interests, while multilateral diplomacy is frequently sidelined. Economic forums such as those surrounding the World Economic Forum reflect this reality: global coordination focuses on markets, technology, and national security, while human rights are framed as peripheral.
The result is a gradual but decisive shift from a rules-based order to a power-driven one.
Short-term effects: pressure, selectivity, and shrinking space
In the short term, this shift produces several visible consequences.
First, legal protection becomes less predictable. When law is used as a tool of control rather than a constraint on power, rights enforcement depends on political convenience. Courts may still function, but their independence weakens, and administrative rules are applied selectively. Individuals and organizations can no longer rely on stable legal standards—especially when they are politically unpopular.
Second, civic space contracts. Rather than banning dissent outright, governments rely on licensing requirements, funding controls, registration rules, or vaguely defined security laws. Globally, only about two percent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is fully open. A clear example is India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, which has been used to restrict NGO access to foreign funding under broad notions of “national interest,” effectively limiting civil-society activity. Such measures are difficult to challenge internationally but highly effective in silencing dissent.
Third, human rights become selective. Violations are condemned when committed by adversaries and overlooked when committed by allies. Western responses to armed conflicts illustrate this clearly: strong sanctions and protection mechanisms were mobilized after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while allegations of serious violations in other conflicts—such as the Israel–Hamas war or Yemen—have triggered more restrained responses. This inconsistency undermines the universality of rights and erodes the credibility of international advocacy.
Long-term effects: normalization, inequality, and institutional decay
Over time, these patterns lead to normalization. Practices that directly violate core rights—arbitrary detention, denial of due process, mass surveillance, or restrictions on freedom of religion or belief—gradually cease to shock. A clear example is the prolonged use of large-scale, extra-judicial detention and ideological coercion against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. Despite credible findings by UN bodies, international responses have remained limited. Particularly troubling is that many Western companies continue to source from or invest in supply chains linked to the region, often relying on weak due-diligence procedures. Although the European Union has begun to address this through emerging legislation, abuses have already been absorbed into global markets. As accountability lags, public expectations adjust downward, and systemic rights erosion becomes socially accepted.
Inequality deepens as well. A global order centered on wealth concentration and strategic dominance weakens economic and social rights, limiting access to healthcare, education, housing, and protection. These disparities fuel resentment, polarization, and scapegoating—further undermining civil and political rights.
Institutions also suffer. International courts, treaty bodies, and monitoring mechanisms depend on cooperation, funding, and moral authority. Persistent underfunding and politicization within parts of the UN human-rights system, including mechanisms linked to the United Nations Human Rights Council, have reduced capacity and impact. Over time, compliance becomes optional, and accountability gives way to political bargaining.
Perhaps most concerning is the effect on future generations. Young people growing up in a world where power routinely overrides law may come to see human rights as rhetorical rather than real—making future defense far more difficult.
Why this moment matters
Human rights are not disappearing because they are openly rejected, but because they are no longer treated as foundational. When subordinated to short-term interests, they lose their role as safeguards against abuse.
History shows that erosion rarely happens in dramatic leaps. It advances through small, justified adjustments—until damage becomes structural.
If world leadership continues to lose sight of human rights as a core element of policymaking, the outcome will not be stability or prosperity. It will be a world where protection depends on power, law follows strength rather than restrains it, and dignity becomes conditional rather than universal.
For human-rights organizations, policymakers, and scholars, the task is not only to document violations, but to insist—clearly and consistently—that human rights are not obstacles to effective governance. They are its foundation.
Photo: AI generated by HRWF
