There are basically two choices countries can make when dealing with international disputes: war or diplomatic negotiations. The mix of war and negotiations logically falls into the category of war. When two countries are in a dispute, one of the following can happen:
[1] One country imposes war on the other by declaring war unilaterally
[2] One country imposes diplomatic negotiations on the other, generally by using any available methods such as threats, sanctions or manipulation
[3] Both countries make a voluntary agreement on the method to be used, which can be war or diplomatic negotiations
The last option is the best one because it does not violate freedoms of either country. Whether the chosen method is war or negotiations, both countries choose it voluntarily and will bear the consequences of their own decisions. If they wish, they can even annihilate each other. The second option is worse than the last one because negotiations are imposed on the other country; however, it is still better than the first option because war leads to very serious freedom violations and can rarely resolve a dispute.
It is also important to note that even if the method to resolve disputes is chosen by mutual agreement, many citizens in both countries may not agree with the decision of their governments, especially if the decision is war. The choice of war by a country is therefore a very dangerous one as it has the potential to violate freedoms of many civilians. It is well known from history that during wars those who suffer the most are the civilians who never wanted a war in the first place.
I believe that humans are not wild animals and have a huge capacity for resolving their disputes using their intelligence and communication skills; therefore, almost all international disputes can be resolved without wars. For sufficiently advanced civilizations, war is actually a choice and not a necessity. Wars in advanced human societies should only be fought as games with strict rules between consenting parties, without violating freedoms of those who do not want to participate in them. Wars should be similar to sports games such as boxing or soccer.
Another lesson from history makes it clear that wars actually do not resolve any disputes; they only make everything much worse. Wars lead to lose-lose outcomes and deepen the hostilities between countries. They produce many more disputes than those they were supposed to resolve in the first place. War is probably the least rational method for resolving disputes. It is actually a manifestation that the disputes could not be resolved and leaders of one or more countries lost their minds.
Unfortunately, not all human beings and societies are capable of resolving their disputes without war for many reasons, and not all countries choose diplomatic negotiations, especially when they believe they are sufficiently powerful to win if they choose war.
Can there be a solution that satisfies everyone? What can be done to protect the freedoms of those who do not want war? How can wars exist without violating freedoms of those who do not want to be part of them?
I will propose a principle that can solve this problem and divide people and countries into two groups based on whether or not they accept it.
Those who choose to resolve their disputes with war shall not impose war on those who choose diplomatic negotiations.
This principle is further based on the social contract I am proposing to everyone. The social contract simply asks that “no one violate freedoms of others.” Imposing war on those who choose diplomatic negotiations is a serious violation of this social contract and produces severe, catastrophic and irreparable freedom violations.
Implications of This Principle for the Laws of War
Those countries that accept this principle must logically revise the current international laws of war as they do not satisfy this principle and cannot protect those who do not want war. Below are some implications of this principle for the way wars are fought.
The term civilian below will mean ‘any person who does not choose to participate in a war and does not want to support it.’
[1] Wars should be fought only in designated war zones where everyone participates in the war voluntarily.
[2] War zones should not contain any civilians and any resources used or needed by civilians. That is, wars should not destroy civilian infrastructure, farmland, factories, trade routes or anything that can have a negative impact on civilians’ lifestyles.
[3] Civilians should not be forced to fight or finance wars via taxes. Forced military service that requires fighting or providing any services to the soldiers is not acceptable. Wars cannot be financed by imposing taxes on civilians.
[4] Civilians should never have to leave their homes and become refugees. There should never be a need for opening any corridors for civilians to leave their cities. Those who want to fight should open corridors for themselves, leave the cities and go to the designated war zones.
[5] Urban centers where civilians live should never be encircled, besieged or bombed to force civilians to become part of wars.
[6] Weapons used in the designated war zones should not have any effects outside of the war zones. Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or any weapons of mass destruction that can have spillover effects should not be used. Weapons that may have global impact on Earth should never be used on Earth. Those who want to use such weapons should go to other planets that do not have life. Destroying life and nature should never be permitted or tolerated.
Another promising way for those who want to make war is to use fully-immersive virtual reality environments and video games as they can provide a very good and satisfying war experience without any serious risks.
A New World Order
The principle above may be rejected by some or many countries, and wars may be inevitable. What can be done in such a situation? And what are the implications of this principle for the new world order?
Those countries that accept this principle should not depend on those that reject it and should not collaborate with them simply because it is irrational to do so. The countries that reject this principle are not reliable and can always wage unwanted wars on civilians and destroy the economic cooperation.
Russia’s unjustified aggression towards Ukraine has demonstrated that wars can undermine decades long cooperation between countries. The western nations have realized that they have become too dependent on a country that did not share or even respect western values. People and countries should form societies and alliances based on shared principles and not economic necessities. All sorts of collaboration and partnerships can be destroyed when parties do not agree on the same high level principles.
These ideas have important implications for the world order today. The structure of the United Nations Security Council is deeply flawed. The five countries that have the veto power in the council do not agree on the same principles and do not even have the same vision for the world. There is an arms race going on between these permanent members. Russia has even threatened the West with a nuclear war. How can such a council protect civilians in the future?
What I propose is simple: Those countries that accept the principle proposed in this article must come together and build a different kind of organization and invite other countries to join it. This bloc should minimize its collaboration with the countries that do not accept this principle.
The best case scenario happens if all the countries in the world come together and build a new United Nations. A worse scenario is a division in the world, in which both blocs can coexist without cooperation as long as there is no confrontation between them. The worst case scenario is a confrontation between the two blocs. Such a confrontation, if inevitable, must be won by the bloc that accepts this principle to protect the freedoms of civilians in the future.
I believe that all the people and countries in the world will understand that war is not a rational method to resolve international disputes. The concept of war must change. War as a political instrument should be a relic of the past and gradually become a form of entertainment or a controlled activity. Precious resources wasted on unnecessary wars should instead be invested in science and technology that can protect our freedoms from the adverse effects of climate change, pandemics and other potential threats.
Humanity must focus on improving political and economic systems so that we can all live the way we want to live without violating each other’s freedoms.
About Me
I have a vision: a society in which everyone can live the way they want to live without violating each other’s freedoms.
I expressed my vision with a book: Society of Freedom.
I propose a social contract to everyone: “No one shall violate freedoms of other people.”
I created an initiative called Fora Stelo to implement ideas from my book.
I will write many more articles. You can follow me on twitter to get notifications.