The Shifting Order of Global Jurisprudence: Responses of Intersectionality Towards Social and Economic Justice

This interdisciplinary study investigates how the second Trump administration is reshaping the capacity and legitimacy of central multilateral institutions and proposes a framework for Integrative Justice Governance ( IJG ) to counteract these effects. Guided by three research questions – projecting the budgetary and normative impacts on bodies such as the WHO, the WTO, and the ICC; identifying specific mechanisms of US disengagement; and testing the conditions under which IJG-based interventions could, in theoretical terms, offset the damage through concrete examples of implementation practices – the article advances three hypotheses: the renewed US withdrawal is causing measurable or observable declines in institutional funding and perceived legitimacy; transnational civil society coalitions that adopt IJG principles would mitigate these declines; and middle-power states that legislate IJG norms could, at least partially, restore institutional authority.

From a methodological standpoint, the report combines a historical-legal analysis (of the US elections of 1800, 1932, 2012, and 2024), comparative policy analysis, and paradigmatic intersectionality to reveal how overlapping structures of race, class, gender, and nationality mediate transformations in global governance. Sectoral analyses map specific trajectories through which Trumpism is already weakening multilateralism, spreading ethnonationalist rhetoric, and accelerating the politics of post-truth.

Based on these diagnoses, the article formulates the Intersectional Justice Index (IJG) as a synergy between justice-centered economics, social justice normativity, and intersectional analytics. It specifies three operational levers: intersectional justice budgeting, community co-governance councils, and global solidarity pacts. From this operational framework, it demonstrates its applicability to crises arising from climate change and security dilemmas related to NATO.

The final sections condense an action agenda into ten points: constitutionally enshrining social rights, regulating disinformation, reallocating defense spending to social security, and activating international tribunals against abuses of power. The conclusion argues that Trump's re-election is catalyzing a broader pattern of democratic erosion. It further argues that only a rigorously intersectional and materially grounded IJG approach can optimally defend and expand global justice in an unstable world.