2026 Could Mark a New World Disorder, IRC Warns

The International Rescue Committee warns that 2026 will be defined by a new world disorder, marked not by well-established rules for nations and secure rights for individuals, but by a broad absence of both. The IRC's 2026 Emergency Watchlist identifies the 20 countries most at risk of worsening humanitarian crisis. For the third year running, Sudan sits atop the list, signaling that the crisis there is no longer simply a domestic civil war but a proving ground for external interference and regional competition. Warring parties and their regional backers chase control of gold mines, trade routes and weapons, while diplomacy is constrained by geopolitical competition. In Sudan, an estimated 21 million people face critical hunger levels, 12 million have been forcibly displaced, and in Darfur, about 150,000 civilians presumed to be in El Fasher are unaccounted for.

International inaction in Sudan is not isolated; it is an emblem of a broader shift that characterizes the new disorder. The UN Refugee Agency reports that around 117 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, and nearly 40 million face severe hunger. Conflicts are more widespread than at any time since World War II, and attacks on civilians and schools have risen roughly 50 percent since last year. Aid workers face rising danger, and 2025 appears on track to be the deadliest year on record for aid workers. Countries on the IRC watchlist account for about 89 percent of the 240 million people in humanitarian need, while making up only about 12 percent of the global population. Donor funding has retreated: by the first quarter of this year, roughly 83 percent of USAID programs had been canceled, and major donors including Germany, the United Kingdom and France have reduced their commitments. In the year to date, about 2 million of the IRC’s clients lost access to services, including Sudanese refugees in South Sudan. Overall humanitarian aid funding is roughly half of what it was in 2024.

Facing this new disorder will require a recalibration of global aid strategy. The plan calls for directing about 60% of official development assistance to fragile and conflict-affected states, with 30% aimed specifically at Watchlist countries. Climate adaptation finance should follow need, with emphasis on these contexts, and the World Bank should deepen partnerships with local and civil society actors to deliver services in conflict environments.

Second, the world must shift the balance from profit to protection by reclaiming the tools of diplomacy. The United Nations Security Council should suspend the veto in cases of mass atrocity, a proposal supported by about 120 countries. Conflict economies that finance violence must be dismantled through sanctions, financial enforcement, and diplomatic pressure. Coalitions of the willing—comprising states, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and civil society—could serve as a powerful antidote to forces of instability, not merely out of charity but in enlightened self-interest.

Third, the rule of law must be meaningful in practice. Impunity in conflict settings is not inevitable; it is a choice. The denial of aid flows must be identified and overcome. States should reaffirm the primacy of international humanitarian law by conditioning arms sales and security aid on its respect. Support for international accountability mechanisms, such as commissions of inquiry, should be reinforced. And amid record displacement, governments should renew their commitment to uphold the Refugee Convention of 1951, that no one should be sent back to danger. History shows that crises begin in crisis-affected states but do not stay there; citizens in Watchlist countries are paying the costs with their lives and livelihoods. If the world does not change course, global instability will worsen, mutual threats will rise, and an international order unable to respond when it matters most will be in jeopardy. The question is whether nations will respond with vision and reinvention, or retreat.