Editorial The Swiftly Shifting Terrain of CIE/ÉCI

We all watch as the rules-based global order changes before our eyes. This metamorphosis has been frequently voiced over the past 6 months. “The world order is changing, much like it did after 1918, 1945 and 1989,” synthesized Alexander Stubb, Finland’s president, on a panel at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January this year. Across sub-Saharan Africa, nations such as Kenya, Nigeria, and Zambia are recognizing “a new era of African strength and self-reliance” (Gavin, 2025). Non-Alignment countries such as Brazil, India, and China are revisiting strategic, multipolar policies to inform their positions on sovereignty and external relationships. And, in his now famous take-down-our-signs speech at the WEF, Canada’s prime minister made clear that these changes are much more than just a transition: this “rupture” will see disparate, issue-oriented, values-based coalitions replacing the long-established system of global integration. As we witness these dramatic, even disorienting changes, the field of comparative and international education (CIE) finds itself compelled to respond, not just through relevant research, but through its foci, lenses, and methodologies. The educational implications of this world-order shift are sweeping. For one, the weakening of international compacts, largely as a result of the 2025 American withdrawal from UNESCO, WHO, and 64 other international organizations, is hardly inconsequential. The ramifications on education are particularly alarming, especially in aid to education, global citizenship education (GCE), and multilateral work in education. Concerning the latter, the weakening of UNESCO will not only affect efforts towards global standards from preschool to higher education, but it will also compromise the quality education agenda of Sustainable Development Goal 4 that this multilateral organization orchestrates. Beyond UNESCO, dozens of smaller organizations were similarly affected by the U.S. renunciation last year. Education Cannot Wait, the UN’s global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, lost its funding among the group of 64. As for GCE, the rise of nationalism has aligned with a waning of global citizenship perspectives, reinforcing an ongoing need for critical GCE approaches amongst educators. And regarding aid to education, widespread decreases in foreign aid (such as the January 2026 dismantling of USAID) have dramatically affected international assistance to education. In one example, the four Central and East African countries forming a corridor between the Congo and Nile Rivers (DRC, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia) now receive over $1 billion less in USAID funding than previously. Looking towards opportunities, our editorial counterparts at the Comparative Education Review wonder whether this inauspicious moment in CIE might finally enable reform in global education (Salajan & Jules, 2025). Indeed, CIE issues are at the confluence of these impacts of the changing order. In equal part is the growing concern for the peace education element of CIE. The confluence of nationalism, weakened democracies, increased wealth accumulation and gaps, and growing adversarialism brings about increasingly aggressive foreign policy positions among world leaders. In April, Germany pledged to create the “strongest conventional army in Europe” by 2039 (Pistorius & Breuer, 2026). China, North Korea, Russia, India, and Pakistan are forthcoming in their intent to rebuild their nuclear weapons stockpiles, while even countries like Japan and South Korea are considering the atomic bomb, due to rising instability. Now at 85 seconds to midnight, the Doomsday Clock is closer than it’s ever been, inclusive of previous crises such as the Cold War, Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board, 2026). Clearly, these threats to world, regional, and domestic peace warrant the sustenance of peace education research, curriculum, and pedagogy within CIE. The Canadian landscape is not …