Global Peace in 2024: Analyzing Positive Peace and the Factors Undermining Stability

Understanding the state of international affairs at any point in history is inherently linked to the level of global peacefulness. There are currently 56 active conflicts worldwide involving at least one state, the highest number since the end of World War II.[1] Over the past five years, global peace and stability have steadily deteriorated with the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine being major contributors to this decline.[2]  It is important to consider whether peace is a relative concept and how individual cultures and states with varying forms of government interpret the meaning of peace and implement conflict resolution in distinct ways.

The Democratic Peace Theory states that democratic states are less likely to go to war with one another – as compared to other forms of government.[3]  Democratic nations typically prioritize an inclusive, negotiated peace process where values such as human rights and democracy are upheld, ensuring that all stakeholders have a voice and that the resolution is fair and just. Democracies are built on core values that foster peaceful conflict resolution: political equality and representation, respect for the rule of law, accountability and transparency, and free and fair elections. By upholding these principles, democracies foster an environment that not only promotes peace, but actively deters aggression, terrorism, and crime.[4]

In his 1795 book Perpetual Peace, German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that requiring citizen consent for war declarations would make governments more cautious and restrained in declaring war. His reasoning was straightforward: citizens bear the brunt of war’s dangers, so they’d likely be more hesitant to embark on such a perilous undertaking compared to leaders who wouldn’t face the consequences directly.[5] In contrast, authoritarian states consistently prioritize stability and development over inclusive processes and individual rights. The conflict management style of these regimes often promotes illiberal, repressive, and violent methods intended to restore peace, effectively turning them into mechanisms for conflict resolution.[6]

The escalating divisions between today’s superpowers—primarily the United States, Russia, and China—are reshaping the global order in profound ways. Unlike the rigid alignments of the Cold War era, we are witnessing the emergence of a new class of middle powers that are more neutral and less bound by traditional alliances.  The growing neutrality of middle powers has also contributed to the perpetuation of protracted conflicts – such as those in Gaza and Ukraine, as these nations often opt for non-intervention or limited engagement. This shift is challenging the existing world order, as these rising powers assert greater independence and influence on the global stage. The result is a pivot towards a multipolar era, where power is more distributed and global dynamics are increasingly complex, exposed to intensified competition and unpredictable, prolonged conflicts.

The 2024 Global Peace Index

Measuring peace is critical for states to evaluate whether actions and policies are promoting or obstructing peace efforts. Understanding the implications of peace for humanity, the economy, and also the planet, is crucial for this assessment as well.  In order to measure global peacefulness, it is necessary to define what peace means – only with a well-defined concept can peace be effectively assessed and quantified.  To broadly understand and categorize peace, the late Norwegian sociologist and founder of the discipline of peace studies, Johan Galtung distinguished two different types of peace: negative peace, the ‘absence of war and violence,’ and positive peace, the ‘lasting peace, built on sustainable investments in economic development and institutions as well as the societal attitudes that foster peace.’[7]

These classifications’ aid policymakers, peacebuilders, and researchers to analyse the concept and consequences of peace outside the confines of merely halting war or conflict.  The framework can help decisionmakers and those who influence them, to instead prioritize conflict resolution, dialogue, and co-operation to promote the diplomatic, social, and economic structures which can create the conditions necessary for lasting peace.

The recently published 2024 Global Peace Index (GPI) utilizes qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure the relative position of nations’ and regions’ peacefulness.  The index serves as a barometer for governments, NGOs, IGOs (such as the World Bank and the United Nations), think tanks, and academic institutions to gauge the economic impact of violence and assess the current levels of positive peace or risk in specific countries or regions.

The 2024 GPI painted a dire outlook on the trending direction of global peacefulness, highlighting that global militarization has increased, with at least 108 countries becoming more heavily militarized. Militarization refers to various efforts by a state to prepare for war or conflict. At one end, it can include obvious actions such as strategically positioning military forces or militarizing local police forces—equipping, training, and organizing them in ways that resemble military operations. This also involves increased budgetary funding for defense and security measures. The militarization of foreign policy often prioritizes military strategies over diplomatic solutions, raising the likelihood of war and resulting in less effective conflict resolution strategies.[8]

At the other end of the spectrum is ‘everyday militarization,’ where military values, practices, and imagery penetrate the daily life and culture of society. Examples include the glorification of war and militarism in movies, television, and social media. While some militarized content targets consumers and civilians—such as marketing war-related video games and military recruitment—much of it aims to promote “national security as military security,” normalizing the military’s presence and ideals in everyday life.[9]

This article aims to analyse how the 2024 Global Peace Index (GPI) enhances our understanding of current global peace and conflict dynamics, and what insights its findings provide for addressing ongoing and potential conflicts through practical applications in policymaking and conflict resolution?  It is also essential to analyse global challenges that extend beyond war and conflict, such as climate change and economic insecurity, which can also undermine peacebuilding efforts. Additionally, examining the factors that weaken the effectiveness of intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations in addressing global peace and conflict issues is crucial.

Beyond War: The Impact of Climate Change on Peacebuilding and Stability

In 2014, former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel was one of the first officials to dub climate change as a “threat multiplier,” stating the physical impacts of global warming have the potential to intensify existing challenges, from infectious disease to armed insurgencies.[16]  Higher temperatures, resource scarcity, and rising sea levels can exacerbate existing security risks, leading to increased instability and potential conflict. Seventy percent of the world’s most climate-vulnerable states also suffer from weak governance and economic instability, making them particularly fragile.[17]  Further underscoring this point, according to the United Nations Environmental Programme, 8 out of 15 global UN peacekeeping missions are being hosted in nations susceptible to climate-related risks.[18]

The physical and environmental impacts of climate change are particularly severe in regions that rely heavily on the agricultural sector for sustaining livelihoods. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, along with increased frequency of extreme weather events, can drastically reduce crop yields and water availability. These disruptions threaten food security and undermine economic prosperity in affected communities.  As farmers and agricultural workers struggle to adapt to these changes along with the repercussions of resource scarcity propelling food costs, local grievances and social unrest can emerge.[19]

The relationship between conflict and environmental vulnerability is often aggravated by the physical impacts of climate change, which can lead to grievances and civil unrest. Climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable and underserved populations, further exacerbating political and social instability. Additionally, war-related greenhouse gas emissions can have devastating consequences for humans, wildlife, and ecosystems. Likewise, damages to industrial or oil facilities can severely pollute air quality, soil, and groundwater sources.[20]

Military emissions are in a unique category when it comes to accountability and reporting. The lack of international guidelines and loose regulations regarding military-related emissions mean they are typically not accounted for within international reporting frameworks. Moreover, countries are only required to report emissions produced within their own territories.  A recent peer reviewed study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, found that throughout the first 18 months of war in Ukraine, unaccounted CO2 war-related emissions ‘exceeded the annual emissions of some European countries, such as Austria, Hungary, and Portugal.’[21]

During a recent UN Security Council open debate on climate change and food insecurity, a delegate from South Sudan highlighted that climate change could “fuel conflicts by increasing competition for essential resources,” making populations vulnerable to “radicalization and recruitment by armed groups.” A permanent observer from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) present at the debate also noted the significant challenges in implementing proactive or reactive climate actions in conflict zones, where “unstable environments” pose obstacles to effective climate adaptation efforts.[22]

Global Conflict and the Failure of International Governance

Bureaucratic inefficiencies, political gridlock, and self-serving national interests pose significant challenges that undermine the effectiveness of intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations in addressing global peace and conflict. Such institutions were purpose-built following WWII to prevent future conflicts by fostering international cooperation and dialogue among nations, with the primary goal of not only preventing war, but also maintaining international peace and security.[23]  Because differences are inevitable, the UN aims to ensure nations resolve their disputes peacefully. To do so effectively, the UN utilizes organizational synergy, linking diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and peacekeeping mechanisms.

The Security Council, the most powerful organ of the UN, was created to maintain peace and security and is entrusted with the authority to impose sanctions, deploy UN peacekeeping missions, and approve legally binding resolutions.  The five permanent members – United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – all maintain veto powers, allowing them to block resolutions of other members of the UN General Assembly, irrespective of the number of nations who support it, undercutting the notion of equal representation and collective decision-making within the organization.

The world is experiencing a growing trend of increased geopolitical polarization, driven by intensified geo-strategic, technological, economic, and military competition, particularly between the U.S., Russia, and China – all permanent security council members. Additionally, ideological divides are widening with the rise of authoritarian leaders and far-right ideologies – including in Western democracies. As a result, nations are increasingly prioritizing national interests and opposing agendas over global peace and stability.

From the outset of the conflict in Ukraine, the UN General Assembly has consistently voted to denounce Russia’s actions, which have tragically resulted in the loss of 11,520 civilian lives.[24] In February 2023, the General Assembly passed a significant resolution with 141 votes in favor of an immediate end to hostilities and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine.[25]  Despite this strong support for ending the conflict, Russia continued to ignore the Assembly’s demands by vetoing two UNSC draft resolutions aimed at resolving the crisis.  In response, many U.S. policymakers have called for Russia to be expelled from its seat on the UNSC.[26]

Nonetheless, the U.S. has since mirrored Russia’s actions with regards to its stance on the brutal war in Gaza which has so far taken the lives of more than 40,000 Palestinians[27] – by also vetoing three resolutions on ending Israeli aggression.  Following the most recent veto this past February, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, claimed the resolution which called for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire without forcing Hamas to release all remaining hostages would not ‘bring endurable peace.’[28]

The continued use of veto power by two sitting permanent members of the UN Security Council, both directly and indirectly involved in ongoing conflicts, underscores the failure of the international security architecture. This lack of consensus on collective action reveals the UN’s growing ineffectiveness in fostering solutions for global peace and stability, leading countries to become increasingly reluctant to defer to the United Nations on matters of national security.[29]

The international paralysis in bringing an end to the crises in Ukraine and Gaza have further created global condemnation of the international body, with members calling for long-needed reforms.  In 2008, the UN voted in favour of intergovernmental negotiations on increasing the size of the UNSC to ensure equitable representation.  However nearly 16 years later, members continue to spar over the process, with some preferring a formal method of text-based negotiation while others felt such a process was too premature and that such a move might disrupt the existing agreement or consensus.[30]

The Security Council’s capacity to address global crises is increasingly hampered by escalating geopolitical tensions among its permanent members. This discord not only hinders the Council’s effectiveness but also erodes its credibility. As a result, many nations, particularly those in the Global South, are turning to regional organizations for crisis management. Given the Council’s inability to resolve pressing conflicts, it seems unlikely that the permanent members will agree to reforms that would diminish their power and influence. Without these reforms, the UN’s relevance will continue to decline, allowing emboldened leaders to act unilaterally, thereby exacerbating global instability and human suffering.

Conclusion

The nature and resolution of war has changed drastically in the last half-century. Conflicts that seem to have no foreseeable end and deliver a decisive win to either side, have decreased over the years from 50% in the 1970s to 9% in the 2010s, signalling a shift towards stalemates and negotiated settlements.[31] This shift has resulted in an increase in international mediation and peacekeeping efforts, and more recently, changes to warfare tactics. The rise of asymmetrical warfare and the involvement of multiple actors, including non-state actors, creates dynamic challenges for governments in successfully restoring peace and stability in conflict regions.  Further compounding the economic challenges that arise from conflict, the GPI estimated that the global economic impact of violence in 2023 was equivalent to $19.1trillion – equal to 13.5% of the global GDP.[32]

Concerns regarding the conflict in Ukraine reaching a devastating stalemate, with the potential to become a prolonged ‘forever’ war with no significant gains for either side, have been reinforced by the grim reality that nearly 2,000 lives have been lost each month since the conflict began in February 2022.[33]  This continuous cycle of violence has been attributed to a transition in the world order, shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar world with increasing great-power competition creating repetitive conflict.  Rivalries between the world’s leading superpowers often result in significant external military assistance to opposing factions, escalating the risk of severe and perpetual violence as they vie for influence and power on the global stage.[34]

Positive peace – the method of relying on ‘the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies,’ remains central in developing lasting peacebuilding efforts – both in times of crisis and uncertainty, and in times of relative calm.  Conflict will always exist in some form, although it will adapt and evolve in response to technology and growing geopolitical competition, especially as we shift towards a multipolar international order.  Key for decisionmakers however, is how conflict can be transformed in a way that it can be resolved without the introduction of violence.