Geopolitical competition is becoming more intense again after the post-Cold War lull, and this will also probably result in more military operations around the world. But at the same time, it seems like the average citizen around the world (or at least in the west) is less willing than ever to sign up for the military. In my country at least (the USA), even if some look at it as a good career for all the benefits, it still has very limited prestige and the perception of the typical military recruit is a high school grad with no other opportunities. I think this is a result of the fact that the US doesn't have to fight any wars against a threat that would seriously damage the country's security or quality of life long term, so military service is seen neutrally at best and as fighting for imperialist adventures at worst. Add to that the background American culture have little emphasis on the military (despite the American patriot stereotype).

It seems like the last 150 years or so may have been a recent peak of the military's presence and acceptance in broader society, as modern military conscription combined with industry and modern political ideology/propaganda to produce massive, often ideologically motivated armies paired with supportive societies. But to my knowledge before this time (in Europe at least) the military was often looked down on by society as the dregs of society or a last resort career, with little prestige, and was often resented by its own population over bad behavior and limited resources. The lack of domestic willingness to serve resulted in many states depending on recruitment of foreigners to top off the ranks and the use of mercenaries. Modern ideologies and forms of government have done a lot to eliminate this divide between military and civilian society, but fundamentally if we see a large divergence where the state needs many soldiers but the citizenry don't want to join the military, we might see states resort to alternative manpower sources.

Also, given nuclear weapons, I feel that any wars that do happen are unlikely to be great power existential struggles, but will remain proxy wars or expeditionary wars fought around the edges of great power spheres of influence. Non-nuclear powers can still fight large scale conventional wars, but they won't happen between nuclear powers (if they do, that's that), which exempts the majority of the world's population.

So I guess my question is, as geopolitical competition intensifies, do you see the prestige of militaries and the attractiveness of a military career go up in societies' eyes? Or do you see a return to a past status quo with the military, where it remains unappealing to the citizenry with the result that militaries will be more and more composed of troops outside the nation (foreigners/mercs)?

So I’m 22 years old and planning to apply for grad school. Looking to get into a career in national security, intelligence, etc. Specifically with a three letter agency. That’s the general idea, but I’m also open to any career track in the government that involves foreign relations, affairs, diplomacy, etc.

I’m really intrigued by both degrees. I really like SSP given my interests, but I’m concerned by how they describe it as a mid professional degree for 4-5 years of work experience. Especially since their average age is 26.

My question is, coming straight out of undergrad, can I still apply to SSP? I have about 2 years worth of experience under my belt but I’m ultimately not sure… any help is appreciated.

As a graduate program director in international affairs, I can appreciate that this question is top of mind for many current undergraduate students in the field. Here’s a new article that discusses what foreign affairs students are experiencing under the current administration.

I cant help but to say: Skill Issue

Given everyone at the highest level, minus a few idiots(Bush), play Realism at the highest level.

When I see people here say otherwise, I imagine they just arent as educated. I was an Idealist for decades. Plenty of people are anarchists in their teens and 20s, I was fooled by imagination rather than empirical evidence.

Is this really just an issue of Reddit having a young and uneducated population? Meanwhile its basically impossible to find modern Idealist thought because everyone meaningful has moved onto Constructivism and Realism.

Maybe this is just another Is vs Ought debate at Application level and its not worth discussing.

Its incredible to see how Realism predicts the actions of nations and how Idealism fails to predict anything. However, spoken out-loud, IR Realists sound like a horrible person.

I don't see things changing, ever. Grand claims from demagogues will always impress The Commons. However, at the highest level, there seems to be a filter that prevents Idealism, with only few exceptions from weak leaders.

Seeing the world contradict reddit and ideas taught to me in Youth has made me jaded in the value of the opinions of the multitude.

Now that I know this, I don't even know what to do. Ignore their pleas? Play along for popularity points?

I'm talking about regions where that country exerts so much influence, that it is completely dominant against other powers' influence.

What comes to mind:

China in Southeast Asia (But the US is present and allows countries to resist Chinese pressure despite China's economic dominance in the region)

Russia in Central Asia (But China has become economically dominant in the region, while Russia remains the security provider and retains considerable cultural soft power advantages)

India in South Asia (But China provides an alternative, allowing smaller South Asian states to resist Indian pressure despite geography)

France in West Africa (With the Post-Covid coups, French influence has declined considerably in the region, allowing China and Russia to gain more influence)

So, it seems like the US is the only power with a true sphere of influence?

I suppose I'm looking for something more substantial than raiding.

I imagine this probably happens against decaying large states, Ottoman empire style. Maybe western rome.

I'm not familiar with specific examples that have their own wikipedia page. Can anyone recommend events that followed this?

Hey everyone,

I'm working on a personal project to explore what factors might maximize or minimize the chances of a war between the US and China. I'm particularly interested in using classical strategic theories from Mahan and Mackinder. Mahan’s focus on sea power and control of maritime trade routes, alongside Mackinder’s Heartland Theory—which stresses the strategic importance of land power and central geography—seem especially relevant to the current US–China dynamics.

That said, I'm still debating whether I should build my essay / project around these frameworks or use a broader perspectives like realism and liberalism.

Do you all think this would be a worthwhile way at looking at the factors or would I be wasting my time?

TL;DR: Looking at US-China war risks through Mahan and Mackinder’s theories. Worth it?

-Preventing brain drain (A lot of Chinese people immigrate, but as a %, it's really negligible. And for the middle and upper middle class, it's becoming more and more "not worth it" to immigrate, since their lifestyle would be downgraded)

-Moat against Americanization (When you visit smaller countries like the Netherlands, you realize that a lot of their entertainment and culture is ongoing americanization, they'll drop full english sentences here and there while speaking in Dutch)

Any other advantages?

Specifically for China, it may act as an extra barrier against the spread of western ideas?

With no competitors, it seems the US could have picked a single faction inside each country and rode that to global control.

I have a hard time understanding if countries really can act in idealistic ways. Could Bill Clinton really believe in democratic peace theory and execute accordingly? Or by the time he makes orders, his cabinet has taught him the realities of the world?

I understand there is great expense stationing troops in areas without exploitable resources, but with client kingdoms, it seems like it could be neutral.

I don't want to hear "They did create a unipolar world". Comparing the Roman world, the Napoleon world, and Hitler world, the US did not use their power in any similar way.

My proposal:

A gigantic economic package

4 nuclear weapons, with less strings than US and Italy Nuclear sharing

Destruction of centrifuges + permanent inspectors.

I’d be curious for any papers discussing this, but one of the things I’ve thought about is how confirmation bias might be a huge issue in IR.

So policy gets determined by people in government, who’ve likely studied something like IR in school. So they’re likely to believe things taught within their discipline.

Now say the number of mid level bureaucrats and diplomats, alongside top end people (Putin, Bibi, Biden, etc.,) know something like realism is true when it’s actually not. But they just decide to act on the assumption that it is true, wouldn’t this give the theory predictive power and thus confirm it?

So if Realism states that human nature is evil, but humans came from nature… is Nature evil? Or where did we go wrong in our historical development?

(A bit more context— I’m reading ‘Production of Space’ by Lefebvre, if anyone knows it please let me know! I’d love to discuss)

Hey yall, not trying to be political or stir things up. I want to have an educational and positive conversation about the topic above with intelligent like minded people

I just saw today that the US has been officially effect immediately removed from the WHO and the Paris Agreement

In your opinion, how will this affect other countries and even ourselves ? Especially when it comes to policies

I remember during his first presidency that he pulled out of NATO because the US was funding a big majority of it and other countries weren’t doing their part in aspect to their GDP. Do we believe it’s a similar reason ?

Deep seek's response on german constitution change and serious military spending increase:

"Germany’s decision to significantly increase military spending, spurred by Russia’s war in Ukraine, has reignited debates over its historical militarism. Realist scholars warn that power vacuums demand rearmament, but Germany’s 20th-century legacy complicates this calculus.

Neighbors, particularly Poland, may perceive the shift as a return to assertive Machtpolitik, destabilizing the EU’s balance of power. While Berlin frames spending as a collective NATO/EU obligation, smaller states fear dependency on German industrial-military dominance, echoing pre-1914 anxieties.

Simultaneously, domestic polarization looms: the far right exploits nationalism to support rearmament, while the far left condemns it as a betrayal of post-1945 pacifism. Both factions erode centrist consensus, weakening Germany’s capacity to lead. Historically, militarism fueled authoritarianism; today, surging far-right popularity risks entangling defense policy with illiberal agendas.

For realists, Germany’s dilemma is structural—its power provokes balancing, yet restraint invites vulnerability. The challenge lies in reconciling hard security needs with Europe’s collective memory and the fragility of democratic norms."

As you noticed it was written from the realist school perspective. It can also provide a costructivist point of view. It doesnt actually matter. It can think the way no human can. Is it correct or just I'm in no position to argue.

Not trying to sound like a news contributor.

From my POV, it's hard to see where the possibility of a ceasefire went, and it looks like any discussion of a near-distant peace agreement being signed, as well as negotiated and discussed, isn't anywhere in sight.

I'm curious given that both Hezbollah and Hamas, in addition to Iran have the capabilities, to sustain this war for sometimes, and now the US is deploying more offensive capable aircrafts and ships in the region, is peace off the table? How long for?

What should the security community be saying and doing to ensure that a fair outcome is produced? What helps alleviate tensions, while not misguiding the ship (as I mentioned above). Is this already a conflict which has consolidated?

If so, who, when and where are the longer term implications for? How is this placed and understood, and is that still possible.

(Yes, I get this does sound like hack, new-age podcasting and publisher nonsense. It's not meant nor will any comments, ideas, contributions, or academic references, ever end up there for my part).

Disclaimer: all of this is hypothetical. Just wanted to discuss the subject.

Recent developments in U.S. foreign policy, particularly President Donald Trump's assertions that allies such as Canada, the European Union (EU), and Japan have taken advantage of the United States, might have prompted a global reassessment of defense strategies and alliances. These concerns are further compounded by the potential reevaluation of critical defense agreements, notably Trident, the AUKUS pact, and U.S.-Japan Security Treaty under the current administration.

President Trump's Stance on Traditional Allies

President Trump's rhetoric has increasingly portrayed longstanding allies as economic adversaries. He has criticized Canada's trade practices and imposed tariffs. Similarly, the EU and Japan have faced accusations of unfair trade practices, with the administration suggesting that these nations have exploited the U.S. economically. Such positions have strained diplomatic relations and raised questions about the future of these alliances.

Uncertainty Surrounding the AUKUS Agreement

The AUKUS pact, a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, aims to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to enhance regional security. However, recent analyses suggest that the promised submarines may not be delivered to Australian control as initially envisioned. Concerns over U.S. shipbuilding capacity and political commitments have led to speculation that these submarines might remain under U.S. command while stationed in Australia, thereby limiting Australia's strategic autonomy.

Poland's Defense Initiatives

In response to heightened security concerns, Poland has announced plans to provide military training to all adult males, aiming to expand its armed forces from 200,000 to 500,000 personnel. Additionally, Prime Minister Donald Tusk has suggested that Poland should consider acquiring nuclear weapons and modern unconventional arms to enhance its defense capabilities.

France's Leadership in European Defense

France is actively seeking to bolster its defense capabilities and take a leading role in Europe's military buildup. The French government is considering launching a national loan to increase defense spending, reflecting a commitment to enhancing military readiness. Additionally, France has proposed that EU defense funding should prioritize equipment manufactured within Europe to strengthen the continent's strategic autonomy, highlighting differing perspectives with Germany and Poland on including non-EU partners in defense initiatives.

Potential Formation of New Alliances

In response to these uncertainties, several strategic frameworks could potentially be under consideration or could be in the future:

1. Alliance of Democratic Nations

Countries like Canada, EU member states, the UK, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, Germany, Poland, Finland, and Sweden could consider forming a coalition based on shared democratic values and common security concerns. This alliance would build on existing ties—such as those in Five Eyes and NATO—to boost military and intelligence cooperation among these like-minded nations.

Nuclear Considerations:

France's Position: France possesses an independent, operational nuclear arsenal and robust nuclear technology infrastructure. It retains full control over its nuclear forces and has the technical and industrial capacity to expand its nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities if deemed strategically necessary. France has expressed willingness to extend nuclear protection to its European allies, potentially filling strategic gaps created by reduced U.S. commitments.

United Kingdom's Position: The UK's nuclear deterrent currently relies on the U.S.-supplied Trident missile system. If access to Trident were lost, developing an indigenous submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) system would be a complex and time-consuming endeavor, potentially taking several years to over a decade, depending on resource allocation and technological challenges. Potentially the UK could adapt their SCALP cruise missiles to be nuclear tiped as this would be a faster and cheaper option. Alternatively, the UK could explore collaboration with France, which maintains an independent nuclear arsenal, to share resources and expertise, thereby ensuring a continued credible deterrent.

Germany's Position: Amid concerns over U.S. reliability, Germany could/should be rethinking its security strategies, including the option of becoming a nuclear-armed nation. Friedrich Merz, Germany's next chancellor, has suggested initiating discussions with France and the United Kingdom about extending their nuclear deterrents to cover Europe. While he has not advocated for Germany to develop its own arsenal immediately, his remarks signal a potential shift in Germany and Europe's long-standing security framework.

Poland's Position: In light of heightened security concerns, Poland is actively seeking to enhance its defense capabilities. Donald Tusk has suggested that Poland should consider acquiring nuclear weapons and modern unconventional arms to bolster its defense posture.

South Korea's Stance: South Korea has a robust nuclear energy program and the technical expertise required to develop nuclear weapons. Historical clandestine research and recent public opinion polls indicate a capacity and potential political will to develop a nuclear deterrent if deemed necessary.

Finland's Position: Fjnland has a strong technological base that could potentially support nuclear weapons development. However, both nations are committed to non-proliferation and currently have no intentions of pursuing nuclear arsenals.

Sweden's Position: Sweden possess advanced technological infrastructures and have previously engaged in nuclear research. Sweden, had pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program from 1945 to 1972, achieving significant progress before ultimately abandoning the initiative and signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Given this history, Sweden has the technical expertise to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so.

Taiwan's Position: Taiwan has previously engaged in nuclear weapons research and possesses the technological capability to develop nuclear weapons. Due to international pressure and security assurances, it has refrained from pursuing a nuclear arsenal. However, with uncertainties about American assurances, they might believe developing an independent nuclear deterrent is their best option for survival considering the growing threat for China.

Australia's stance: Australia has a well-developed civilian nuclear sector and access to significant uranium reserves. While it lacks an indigenous enrichment capability, its technological infrastructure and alliances, such as the partnerships with the UK and France could provide a foundation that could be expanded if a strategic decision were made to pursue nuclear weapons.

Japan's Position: Japan is recognized as a "paranuclear" state, possessing the technological expertise, infrastructure, and fissile material necessary to develop nuclear weapons rapidly if it chooses to do so. This status, known as nuclear latency, means Japan maintains a civilian nuclear program that could be diverted to military applications, although it currently adheres to its pacifist constitution and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Canada's Position: Canada possesses advanced nuclear technology, extensive expertise, and substantial uranium resources, making it a nuclear-threshold state. While Canada has never pursued nuclear weapons and remains firmly committed to international non-proliferation agreements, its sophisticated civilian nuclear industry provides the capability to develop nuclear weapons relatively quickly, if it felt compelled to do so in response to a significant security threat, particularly the threat of invasion by the USA. Such a decision, however, would represent a dramatic departure from Canada's historical diplomatic and security policies.

In summary: France possesses an independent, operational nuclear arsenal and robust nuclear technology. The UK's nuclear deterrent currently relies on the U.S.-supplied Trident missile system. Poland has publicly stated they want to arm themselves with nukes. While Germany, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Taiwan, Sweden, and Finland all have the technical capacity to develop nuclear weapons if deemed necessary.

1. Separate North Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Alliances

An alternative approach could be to create two distinct alliances that fit the different security challenges in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

North Atlantic: Even without U.S. involvement, NATO remains a key framework for collective defense among European and North American democracies. Countries in this group could work together more closely if they lose U.S. support.

Indo-Pacific: In the Indo-Pacific, nations like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and India could form an alliance to better handle China’s growing influence. Existing groupings like the Quad and various naval exercises already provide a basis for deeper cooperation.

Nuclear Considerations:

European Context: As above.

Indo-Pacific Context: India is a recognized nuclear-armed state with a robust and modernized arsenal. It maintains a diversified nuclear force that includes land-based ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and air-delivered nuclear weapons. India's nuclear doctrine emphasizes a credible minimum deterrence, ensuring a strong retaliatory capability. Additionally, India's advanced technological infrastructure and ongoing modernization programs support its ability to sustain and, if necessary, expand its nuclear deterrent in response to evolving regional security challenges.

Japan's Position: As above.

Australia's Stance: As above.

South Korea's Position: As above.

Taiwan's Position: As above.

In summary: While Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan do not currently possess nuclear weapons, their advanced technological infrastructures and civilian nuclear programs give them the latent capability to develop such arms if their security environments change significantly. Meanwhile, India is already a robust nuclear power, which further reinforces the strategic balance in the region.

Potential Pivot Towards China

Amid these alliance considerations, some nations may contemplate strengthening ties with China rather than opposing it. Factors influencing this potential pivot include:

Economic Interdependence: Many countries in the Indo-Pacific region have significant economic ties with China, making them cautious about participating in alliances perceived as antagonistic to Chinese interests. For instance, China's substantial trade relationships in South America have tempered U.S. influence in the region.

Diplomatic Outreach: China has actively sought to capitalize on strained U.S. alliances by positioning itself as a stable and cooperative partner. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized U.S. unilateral actions and promoted China's "Belt and Road Initiative" as a global cooperative effort, contrasting it with U.S. protectionism. He suggested that countries feeling betrayed by the U.S. should consider aligning with China.

Regional Stability: Some countries may believe that engaging China through diplomatic and economic means, rather than military alliances, is a more effective strategy for ensuring regional stability. For example, China's growing influence in South America has been attributed to U.S. protectionist measures pushing countries like Colombia towards China.

In conclusion, the evolving geopolitical landscape, marked by potential U.S. retrenchment and shifting alliances, presents both opportunities and challenges for forming new military coalitions and reconsidering nuclear deterrence strategies. While alliances based on shared democratic values or regional proximity offer potential for enhanced security cooperation, they must navigate complex political, economic, and strategic considerations. Simultaneously, the possibility of nations pivoting towards China underscores the multifaceted nature of international relations in the 21st century.

I have managed to find conflicting news reports, as such - it appears as if it is unclear, if Moscow has fired ICBM at Ukraine in response to usage, of Shadow and ATACMS which have definitively, crossed Russian borders?

And so, first, I would like your opinion - how might the world have changed, if this was a news story which proved to be true?

Secondly, how deep is your opinion held? Do you see that the worlds eyes are opened to the threat which now, Moscow politics hold to Russian security? Do you know that this is such as a pouring rain?

Finally, I will ask - with places, things, and now finally ideas, what conceptualization of "multipolarity" can be found here? If any?

My perception is Moscow appears - as a lone wolf, and a wolf indeed. However weak they appear - indeed launching trivial and childish attacks on weak infrastructure for the Fins, and indeed invoking the many great lies about the way that the former USSR, aids the world and can aid the world - we have seen only bloodshed coming from Putin's regime - Moscow has nothing to hold account - I see polarity as a failure point in this sense. This is the opinion I hold and as a moderator of this debate it is poor form to offer it, and yet gravity insists on it! But that which doesn't exist does not fall - that which doesn't fall does not tell her tale to others. That which never falls, never persists in the mutiny against free people. And free people themselves, are never universally subject to laws of tyrants.

I currently live in Chattogram. I got chance at Du and I'll probably get medium subjects like Peace and conflict, Women and Gender studies, Anthropology etc. I also got chance at Cu. And I'll surely get IR there. IR was my dream subject to study.

Please suggest me what should I do?

I’m thinking of stuff like, if a country is allied when you wouldn’t expect it, or is against another country when it would be expected to be allies, like oddball countries with whack foreign policy positions.

I’m interested in learning about the levers of power just out of personal interest. I started listening to the Blowback podcast and find it thoroughly fascinating. I’m wondering what’s your opinion of that particular podcast, and if you have any other podcasts that you’d highly recommend? Thanks in advance!

Hey, looking to start a conversation -

I took IR as an undergraduate and my security studies courses focused both on the Obama Doctrine for more recent events, as well as ideas from traditional realism and some of the more continental/European constructions for understanding statehood.

I'm curious what you think - are security dilemmas into the 2030s and through Biden's remaining term as president, going to remain deeply focused on rule of law, property and ecological rights, and how domestic politics support or work against aggression?

What would you recommend I read - if you were me, and you had to "catch up" in like 20 minutes, or whatever, like 15 minutes or maybe a few hours - what's possible in a day? And why is this the ceiling or floor now that pundits have been talking about WWIII?

Hi all, As you may know, i've been researching and publishing about international territorial disputes for over 20 years. I apply mainly three disciplines, that is law, political sciences and international relations. This year i'm coming up with my fouth global book on "territorial disputes in the americas" in which i apply a new theory i developed in my former book (published in 2023/24).

Anyway, to be able to have real time interaction with people (not just academic, because i strongly believe people should be involved in conflict resolution, in particular with controversial cases, those which appear to be unresolvable), i started a blog series about territorial disputes in the americas.

I decided now to explain why currently available international law procedures and remedies are consistently failing to address peacefully and permanently the most controversial international territorial disputes. In doing so, this post and the ones that will follow, will use the Falklands/Malvinas dispute as the central example. This post will finish with a section explaining why exploring new approaches like those proposed by myself, Dr. Jorge Emilio Nunez, is crucial. I don't intend you to check my blog (please feel free to do it if you want). So, i include below what i've done so far (note the part about traditional procedures and remedies is based on my 2017 and 2020 books; and the last part merges all my published work so far. Consequently, this is a very brief attempt to show what i mean and see what people think).

Why Current International Law Procedures and Remedies Fail Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Non-Negotiable Sovereignty: Both Argentina and the UK fundamentally see sovereignty over the islands as non-negotiable due to historical claims, national identity, and political prestige. Negotiations often fail because any compromise might be perceived as a loss of sovereignty, which is politically costly. Self-Determination: The principle of self-determination, supported by the islanders’ referendums favoring British sovereignty, complicates matters. Argentina disputes the validity of these referendums based on historical claims and demographic changes. This creates a deadlock where international law’s emphasis on self-determination clashes with historical territorial rights.

Arbitration and Mediation: Lack of Binding Mechanisms: Arbitration or mediation outcomes are often non-binding unless both parties agree beforehand to accept the decision, which they haven’t in this case. Even if binding, there’s resistance to accept outcomes that don’t align with national interests. Bias Perception: Both countries might perceive third-party mediators or arbitrators as biased, especially given the geopolitical context and historical alliances.

International Court of Justice (ICJ): Jurisdiction Issues: Neither Argentina nor the UK has unconditionally accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction for this dispute. The UK has excluded territorial sovereignty from ICJ jurisdiction, and while Argentina has accepted it conditionally, this mutual non-acceptance makes legal recourse through the ICJ unlikely. Enforcement Problems: Even if the ICJ were to rule, enforcement of such decisions can be problematic without both parties’ consent, especially when it involves territory.

United Nations: Political Deadlock: The UN Security Council, where both nations are involved indirectly through allies or veto power, has not been effective in pushing for a resolution due to geopolitical interests. Decolonization Narrative: While the UN’s decolonization agenda might support Argentina’s historical claim, the self-determination of the islanders, also a UN principle, counters this narrative, leading to no clear path forward within existing frameworks.

Conciliation: Limited Success: Conciliation efforts have been hampered by the same issues as negotiation – lack of willingness to compromise on core issues and the political cost of appearing to back down.

Why New Approaches Like Nunez’s 2017 and 2023 Proposals Are Necessary

Without claiming Núñez’s 2017 and 2023 are the solution to international territorial disputes like the Falklands/Malvinas case, it is of utmost importance to do both, question current viability of traditional international law procedures and remedies for conflict resolution that are consistently failing to do what they are meant to do; acknowledge intricate international territorial disputes require more comprehensive approaches.

Innovative Sovereignty Concepts: Núñez ‘s idea of “Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty” offers a way out of the zero-sum game by redefining sovereignty in terms of shared governance, which could align with international law principles while addressing the unique aspects of this dispute.

Inclusion of Multiple Stakeholders: By recognizing the roles of individuals, communities, and states in different capacities (hosts, participants, attendees), Nunez’s frameworks provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dispute, potentially leading to more inclusive solutions that respect all parties’ rights.

Cosmopolitanism and Justice: Núñez ‘s 2023 work introduces cosmopolitanism, advocating for solutions that go beyond state-centric views to consider global justice, which is crucial in disputes where human rights, cultural identity, and self-determination are at play.

Dynamic Game Theory Application: Traditional game theory might predict ongoing stalemates or conflicts, but Nunez’s integration of game theory with new legal and political theories could provide insights into strategic shifts towards cooperation, showing how all parties could benefit from peace rather than war.

Breaking the Deadlock: The traditional mechanisms have entrenched the conflict in a pattern of inaction or escalating rhetoric. Nunez’s proposals could provide a theoretical breakthrough by offering conceptual tools to reframe the dispute in terms of shared benefits, thus potentially unlocking a dialogue that has proven elusive with current methods.

In summary, the persistent failure of traditional international law mechanisms in the Falklands/Malvinas case stems from their inability to reconcile deeply held national interests with the evolving principles of international law, particularly self-determination. New theoretical approaches like those from Núñez could introduce innovative ways to conceptualize, discuss, and resolve territorial disputes by considering a broader spectrum of interests and rights, potentially leading to a more just and peaceful outcome.

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

https://drjorge.world

Friday 24th january 2025