International relations – not just the wars, but the study of discipline – are at a critical juncture, demanding urgent action. The modern nation-state emerged from the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which established sovereignty as the core principle of global politics, granting states exclusive authority over their own affairs. From a realist perspective, this system institutionalized self-interest and power politics in an anarchic world, where states prioritize security and survival over moral concerns like justice or human rights. For now, at least, the modern state continues to dictate the boundaries within which rights are recognized and enforced. But for how much longer?
Three forces – artificial intelligence, social justice movements, and generational shifts – are reshaping the world order, exposing the limitations of traditional paradigms. Yet, IR remains tethered to outdated frameworks of realism and liberalism, prioritizing state power while failing to address emerging realities. The growing dissonance between the way power operates and how it is studied signals an urgent need for intellectual and institutional reinvention.
Artificial intelligence – a pivotal force
Artificial intelligence is no longer just a tool – it has emerged as a pivotal force that not only disrupts economic and technological structures but also poses a significant challenge to democratic governance and international stability. The rapid expansion of AI-driven surveillance, misinformation, and cyber warfare has fundamentally altered the nature of security and global power competition. The Cambridge Analytica scandal was not an anomaly but a symptom of systemic fragility – an example of AI’s potential to manipulate electorates, deepen polarization, and undermine the legitimacy of democratic governance. It not only exposed the chilling potential of AI-powered manipulation – data harvesting weaponized for psychological warfare – but also laid bare a deeper vulnerability: the systemic fragility of liberal democracy in the face of such technological power. The threat to liberal democracies in the age of AI isn’t just about scandals like Cambridge Analytica; it’s a systemic vulnerability that demands immediate and sustained attention.
Last Fall, experts gathered at the Graduate Institute, convened by the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Albert Hirschman Centre, to dissect the thorny relationship between AI, democracy, and global governance. Their roundtable, part of a broader exploration of multilateralism and democracy, zeroed in on four key challenges: AI’s entrenchment within existing power structures, exacerbating global inequalities; the dominance of Big Tech in AI governance, sidelining civil society and marginalized voices; the precarious balance between AI innovation and democratic values, often sacrificed at the altar of profit; and the looming threat to human rights posed by unaccountable tech giants. The resulting outcome document, a testament to the potential of international cooperation, calls for rights-based approaches, inclusive governance, ethical frameworks, and enforceable global standards to safeguard democracy in the age of algorithms.
Canada’s recent history underscores the urgency of algorithmic transparency. The release of the seven-volume report of the Canadian inquiry into foreign interference, led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, highlights Canada’s democratic flaws, yet neglects AI’s rising threat. While Germany and the EU lead with AI transparency laws, Canada remains dangerously behind, leaving a critical blind spot in its defence against foreign interference. The report admits current measures fail but offers no AI-focused solutions.
The geopolitical race for AI supremacy has also relegated ethical concerns – bias, privacy, algorithmic governance – to the sidelines. Authoritarian states leverage AI for precision control over populations, while regulatory frameworks in democracies remain weak and reactionary. This technological imbalance risks further entrenching global inequalities, with AI’s governance dominated by Big Tech rather than inclusive, rights-based frameworks. Unless the international community establishes enforceable ethical standards, AI will not serve humanity, it will serve power.
The rise of social justice movements
Equally transformative is the rise of social justice movements that challenge entrenched power structures and advocate for a redefinition of global justice. Social justice movements have transcended borders, forcing states and institutions to confront histories of colonialism, systemic oppression, and economic exploitation. From climate activism to ‘Black Lives Matter’ and Indigenous rights advocacy, these movements are no longer confined to domestic politics – they are reshaping the global discourse on justice. Their significance is undeniable, and they have the potential to reshape the core concerns of international relations, not just remain relegated to the domain of domestic policy.
Nonetheless, the marginalization of social justice in global discourse remains and reflects a longstanding resistance within international relations to engage with racial and social justice as fundamental to global order. The discipline of international relations, however, must confront its intellectual history and acknowledge how Eurocentrism continues to shape its theoretical foundations and policy prescriptions. This acknowledgement is not just a formality, but a crucial step towards a more inclusive and diverse approach to international relations, one that centers issues of justice, race, and technological transformation. The reluctance to acknowledge social justice as a fundamental pillar of global order is not just an intellectual failure – it is a political choice that sustains the status quo.
Gen Z and Generation Alpha
A generational shift is further upending traditional power structures, exacerbating these tensions. Digital-native and globally connected, Gen Z and Generation Alpha, the latter born between 2010 and 2025, demand accountability on climate, economic justice, and human rights. Their political consciousness is fundamentally different from previous generations, rejecting hierarchical models of governance in favour of decentralized, participatory activism. Social media has become their megaphone, amplifying dissent and exposing the failures of institutions unwilling to adapt, reshaping political discourse. This shift presents a challenge to conventional diplomacy and governance, which still assumes legitimacy resides in states, not people. As younger generations dismantle traditional hierarchies, institutions will either evolve – or collapse under their own obsolescence
At the heart of these disruptions is the question of human rights. Once a bold declaration against tyranny, human rights were the moral foundation upon which the postwar international order was built. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights symbolized a commitment to universal justice, resonating across nations. Yet, over time, this ideal has become a rhetorical tool, invoked when convenient and discarded when it conflicts with national interests. Even within the European Union – a body once heralded as the embodiment of post-World War II reconciliation and human rights – there is a growing reluctance to address issues that might disturb the fragile balance between member states. The EU increasingly treats them as negotiable, particularly on migration and refugee rights. Economic austerity, national security, and political expediency now dictate the fate of those seeking justice.
This erosion of commitment extends beyond policy – it is embedded in historical memory. In many nations, the past has or is being rewritten, not to acknowledge the full spectrum of human rights abuses but to support a narrative of progress that conveniently omits the darker chapters of their respective national histories. There is a crucial need to acknowledge past injustices to foster a culture of learning and growth, a culture that values human rights and social justice. When school curricula are sanitized and monuments erected that commemorate victories without alluding to the struggles that preceded them human rights become a footnote – acknowledged in theory but rarely invoked when inconvenient truths emerge. As nations craft their identities based on curated narratives, the universal claim of human rights is weakened by the pervasive need to avoid shame and to celebrate progress, however incomplete. This approach not only distorts the lessons of history but also undermines the capacity of societies to confront and learn from past injustices.
Realists argue States rarely intervene for purely moral reasons; beneath the rhetoric of democracy promotion and humanitarian aid lies deeper geopolitical and economic motives. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, framed as liberating Iraqis and eliminating WMDs, secured American influence in an oil-rich region while destabilizing the country for decades. NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya, justified as preventing mass atrocities, quickly turned into a regime change operation that left the country in chaos. In Kosovo, NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999 – ostensibly to stop ethnic cleansing – also expanded its influence in the Balkans, weakened Russia’s ally Serbia, and led to the establishment of a key U.S. military base. Similarly, France’s 2013 intervention in Mali, presented as counterterrorism, protected its access to uranium resources while failing to stabilize the region. These cases expose the enduring reality of power politics: national interests dictate action, while moral justifications serve as convenient cover.
The post-Cold War push to universalize human rights was swiftly derailed by economic globalization, which prioritizes market efficiency over moral imperatives. Institutions like the UN struggle to enforce rights-based norms because state power remains paramount. The sidelining of human rights is not, however, a monolithic process. It is marked by constant tension and contestation – a dynamic interplay between global moral aspirations and the relentless demands of political power. There remain voices in every corner of the globe that challenge the retreat of rights into the domestic arena. Activists, intellectuals, and grassroots movements demand that human rights be upheld not as a secondary concern but as the foundation of international order. Their struggle is a reminder that the narrative of human rights is not one of resignation but of resistance – a call to reassert the primacy of human dignity in a world increasingly dominated by narrow interests.
In this contest, intertextual echoes resonate. The struggle for rights, as captured by the luminous words of figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Hannah Arendt, and Amartya Sen, insists that human dignity cannot be compartmentalized into domestic or international spheres. Their works remind us that rights are universal aspirations – a collective heritage that binds all human beings, regardless of borders. Yet, even as these voices remind us of our shared humanity, the geopolitical reality remains unyielding: the modern state, emphasizing sovereignty and self-interest, continues to demarcate the boundaries within which rights are recognized and enforced.
Racial justice and anti-colonial struggles, though global in their very essence, are conveniently boxed as domestic issues, a textbook case of human rights’ structural retreat. This is most evident in discussions on race, social justice, and civil liberties. Similarly, international institutions rarely take decisive action on racial justice, choosing instead to offer vague condemnations rather than tangible interventions. Even the anti-apartheid struggle, which revealed how race and international power intersect, remains an outlier in IR’s theoretical canon. The refusal to recognize social justice as a core element of global politics perpetuates a system where injustice is managed rather than dismantled.
A commitment to human dignity
Today, a global awakening that renews the commitment to human dignity beyond the limitations of state interest is required. IR must no longer be confined to a power-driven chessboard but should be re-envisioned as a collective effort to safeguard the inalienable rights of all people. This is no easy task. It demands institutional reforms, a redefinition of global solidarity, and a willingness to challenge the entrenched structures of power that dictate international governance. Whether in the streets of New York, the corridors of Brussels, or the world’s conflict zones, the fight for human rights remains part of a shared struggle – one that cannot be dismissed or deferred.
Ultimately, the sidelining of human rights in international relations is a choice – a deliberate prioritization of power over justice. Yet even as this tension deepens, the possibility of change endures. The ideals enshrined in human rights declarations can still find a renewed voice. The interplay of memory, history, and power offers an opportunity for transformation – a chance for the human spirit to reclaim its place at the centre of global discourse.
This is not merely an intellectual exercise – it is an existential necessity. If IR continues to sideline these emerging forces, it will not just fail as a discipline – it will fail to explain the world we now inhabit.