Recent decisions by the United States to withdraw from, or disengage with, key multilateral treaties and international institutions have reignited an old but enduring debate in international relations: whether the decline of empires is marked not by sudden collapse, but by gradual ideological retreat. When a state historically regarded as one of the principal architects and guarantors of the post - World War II liberal international order begins to openly question the utility of that very system, the implications extend far beyond procedural diplomacy.

To many observers, such withdrawals signal more than policy recalibration; they suggest a deeper structural shift in how power is conceived and exercised. The argument advanced by U.S. policymakers that certain international frameworks no longer serve their national interests, implicitly challenges the foundational premise of multilateralism: that collective restraint enhances long-term stability. This development invites scrutiny not only of American foreign policy, but of the broader lifecycle of hegemonic power.

Historically, empires rarely concede decline willingly. More often, as political theorists and historians have observed, waning powers respond to perceived loss of influence through intensified assertion either military, economic, or ideologically. Expansionism, coercive diplomacy, and the instrumentalisation of international law are common features of late-stage dominance. In this sense, recent global interventions, resource-driven geopolitical manoeuvres, and the rhetorical normalisation of territorial or economic extraction from weaker states fit a recognisable historical pattern rather than an aberration.

The diminishing coherence of U.S. global leadership can be examined through the lens of 'asabiyah', a concept developed by Ibn Khaldun in Al-Muqaddimah. Asabiyah refers to the binding social cohesion and shared collective purpose that enable groups and by extension, states to rise, consolidate power, and dominate. For Ibn Khaldun, empires ascend when this cohesion is strong and decline when it erodes under the weight of excess, internal contradiction, and moral fatigue.

Crucially, Ibn Khaldun argued that power functions as both persuasion and domination. At the height of empire, authority is legitimised by shared ideals and institutional credibility. At its decline, however, those same ideals lose their persuasive force, and domination increasingly relies on coercion rather than consent. This transition is often accompanied by ideological withdrawal: the abandonment of doctrines and commitments that once underpinned legitimacy, including legal and moral obligations to a wider international community.

In recent reality, the U.S. retreat from certain international treaties, particularly those rooted in collective security, human rights norms, and global governance can be interpreted as symptomatic of declining asabiyah. It shows not merely dissatisfaction with institutional inefficiency, but a weakening consensus around the universalist values that previously justified American leadership. When adherence to international law becomes selective, and multilateral engagement is reframed as a burden rather than a strategic asset, the coherence of hegemonic authority is inevitably questioned.

However, this is not to suggest an imminent collapse, nor to indulge in deterministic narratives of imperial fall. Rather, my opinion is a structural reality of international politics: when the centre can no longer sustain ideological unity, legal consistency, and moral authority, its influence becomes increasingly contested. Power persists, but legitimacy fragments.

In this light, current U.S. disengagement from elements of the international legal order may be less an act of strategic renewal than an indication of systemic transition. Whether this moment represents recalibration or long-term decline will depend on the capacity to reconstruct asabiyah, internally and externally - through renewed commitment to law, institutions, and collective responsibility. Absent this, history suggests that withdrawal from shared norms rarely halts decline; it merely accelerates the interrogation of dominance.

 

Adelani Azeez writes for London, United Kingdom.