Fractured world map symbolizing geopolitical instability

Beyond Order vs. Anarchy: Finding Stability in Today's Geopolitical Chaos

Soraya Malik in Global Affairs June 2025 • 4 min read.

"A Deep Dive into Global Conflict and the Search for International Law"

The world often feels like it’s teetering on the edge of chaos. Conflicts erupt, alliances shift, and international norms seem to crumble under pressure. Understanding the roots of this instability is crucial, not just for policymakers, but for anyone trying to make sense of our complex global landscape. Many theories have tried to explain why chaos seems to be perpetual, but how useful are they today?

This article analyzes current global conflicts, drawing insights from classic political thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. By comparing their perspectives, we can gain a clearer understanding of the forces driving conflict and the challenges of establishing a stable international order. What makes these older philosophical works still very relevant today?

Using contemporary examples like the war in Iraq and the Russia-Georgia conflict, we’ll explore the strengths and limitations of international law as a tool for maintaining peace. We will raise tough questions about the role of state power, the impact of morality, and the potential for a more orderly world.

The Inescapable State of War: Is Hobbes Right for Today's World?

Fractured world map symbolizing geopolitical instability

Hobbes argued that, without a strong central authority, life becomes a "war of all against all." This isn't just about physical battles; it's a constant state of competition and fear, where individuals (or, in the international arena, states) prioritize their own survival above all else. Consider today's global landscape. Are nations primarily driven by a desire for security and self-preservation?

Hobbes’s view emphasizes the importance of power. Nations act in their own self-interest, often at the expense of others. Morality takes a backseat to survival. Consider the invasion of Iraq. The U.S., acting in its perceived self-interest, disregarded international objections. Does this align with Hobbes’s theory? He would say that in the international state of nature that this is expected.

Self-Interest Reigns: States prioritize their own security and needs.
Morality is Secondary: Ethical considerations are often overshadowed by strategic advantage.
Power is Key: A strong state is essential for survival in a chaotic world.

The concept of proximity further complicates things, as pointed out by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. When consequences seem distant, our sense of responsibility diminishes. The further removed a nation is from the impact of its actions, the easier it becomes to prioritize self-interest over ethical considerations. How does this distance play out in modern conflicts?

Beyond Idealism: Can We Find a Path to Stability?

The pursuit of a stable international order remains a complex and ongoing challenge. While Locke's vision of inherent reason and cooperation offers an appealing ideal, Hobbes's emphasis on power and self-interest often seems more aligned with the realities of global politics. Finding a balance between these perspectives is essential for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world and fostering a more peaceful future.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is the core argument of Thomas Hobbes regarding international relations and how does it apply to contemporary conflicts?

Thomas Hobbes posited that without a strong central authority, the world devolves into a 'war of all against all.' In the international arena, this translates to a constant state of competition and fear where states prioritize self-preservation. This theory suggests that nations are primarily driven by self-interest and security concerns. The invasion of Iraq serves as a contemporary example. The U.S., in its pursuit of perceived self-interest, disregarded international objections, aligning with Hobbes's view that morality often takes a backseat to strategic advantage. Hobbes emphasizes that a strong state is essential for survival in a chaotic world, where power dynamics dictate interactions and ethical considerations are secondary to self-preservation.

How does the concept of proximity, as described by Zygmunt Bauman, affect a nation's actions in global conflicts?

Zygmunt Bauman's concept of proximity suggests that when the consequences of actions seem distant, the sense of responsibility diminishes. In modern conflicts, this implies that nations may find it easier to prioritize self-interest over ethical considerations when the impact of their actions is geographically or temporally removed. For instance, a nation might be more inclined to engage in actions with negative consequences for another country if those consequences do not directly affect its own population or immediate interests. This distance allows self-interest to reign and highlights the complexities of maintaining ethical behavior in international relations.

What are the key differences between Hobbes' and Locke's views on international relations, and how do they shape the search for stability?

While the provided text primarily focuses on Hobbes, it mentions John Locke's perspective. Hobbes argues for a world driven by power and self-interest, where a strong state is necessary for survival. Locke, on the other hand, leans towards inherent reason and cooperation as key elements. The search for stability becomes a balancing act between these viewpoints. Hobbes' perspective highlights the need for strong enforcement mechanisms and the importance of state power to prevent chaos, while Locke’s perspective stresses the potential of international cooperation and shared values to foster peace. Navigating global complexities and fostering a more peaceful future involves finding a balance between these opposing viewpoints.

What specific contemporary examples, such as the war in Iraq or the Russia-Georgia conflict, illustrate the relevance of Hobbes' ideas today?

The invasion of Iraq exemplifies Hobbes's ideas because it demonstrates a state prioritizing its perceived self-interest, even when facing international opposition. This action illustrates Hobbes's argument that self-interest and security often outweigh ethical considerations. The Russia-Georgia conflict could also be analyzed through a Hobbesian lens, as it highlights the role of state power and the pursuit of national interests in a world without a strong central authority to enforce rules. Both conflicts demonstrate the reality of states acting in their own self-interest, a core tenet of Hobbes’s theory. These examples highlight the ongoing relevance of Hobbes’s theories in understanding and analyzing current global conflicts.

How do the core tenets of Hobbes's view – self-interest, the secondary nature of morality, and the importance of power – play out in the context of international relations?

Hobbes's perspective emphasizes that states prioritize their own security and needs, with self-interest reigning supreme. Ethical considerations often take a backseat to strategic advantage. The key element is power; a strong state is considered essential for survival in a chaotic world. In international relations, this translates to nations acting in ways they perceive as beneficial, even if it means disregarding the interests or concerns of others. Morality is often subordinated to the pursuit of strategic goals, and power dynamics become the primary driver of interactions. The absence of a global central authority reinforces this dynamic, leading to a system where states must constantly compete and prioritize their own survival.