THE SHIFTING ORDER OF GLOBAL JURISPRUDENCE: RESPONSES OF INTERSECTIONALITY TOWARDS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Daniel Ketcher

Keywords

Abstract

This interdisciplinary study investigates how the second Trump administration is reshaping the capacity and legitimacy of key multilateral institutions and proposes an Integrative Justice Governance (IJG) framework to counter those effects. Guided by three research questions, projecting budgetary and normative impacts on bodies such as the WHO, WTO, and ICC; identifying specific mechanisms of U.S. disengagement; and testing conditions under which IJG interventions could theoretically offset damage with specific implementation praxis examples, the article advances three hypotheses: renewed U.S. withdrawal is triggering measurable or observable declines in institutional funding and perceived legitimacy; trans-national civil-society coalitions that adopt IJG principles would blunt those declines; and middle-power states that legislate IJG norms could at least partially restore institutional authority.
Methodologically, the report blends historical–juridical survey (from the U.S. elections of 1800, 1932, 2012, and 2024), comparative policy analysis, and paradigm intersectionality to reveal how overlapping structures of race, class, gender, and nation mediate global-governance shifts. Sectional analyses map discrete pathways through which Trumpism already weakens multilateralism, diffuses ethnonationalist rhetoric, and accelerates post-truth politics.
Building on these diagnostics, the article formulates IJG as a synergy of justice-centered economics, social-justice normativity, and intersectional analytics. It specifies three operational levers: intersectional justice budgeting, community co-governance councils, and global solidarity compacts. From this operational framework, it demonstrates via application to climate breakdown and NATO-related security dilemmas.
The final sections distil a ten-point action agenda: embedding social rights constitutionally, regulating disinformation, reallocating defense spending toward welfare, and activating international tribunals against authoritarian abuses. The conclusion argues that Trump’s re-election is catalyzing a broader pattern of democratic erosion. It also posits that only a rigorously intersectional, materially grounded IJG approach can optimally defend and extend global justice in an unstable world.
 

Table of contents

ISSN: 2975-836X