World Order

The world order is not a fixed structure, but a dynamic system that is constantly changing according to historical, cultural and political circumstances. In The World Order, Henry Kissinger explores how different civilizations have tried to create rules that would ensure stability and peace. Whether it is the Western system of the balance of power, the Chinese concept of harmony under heaven, or the Islamic vision of a universal caliphate, each civilization has brought its own idea of how the world should be ordered. Kissinger's analysis ranges from historical milestones such as the Peace of Westphalia to modern challenges of the 21st century, exploring the tensions between legitimacy, power, and their impact on global politics.

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked a turning point in history that shaped the foundations of the modern international order. This historic moment, ending the Thirty Years' War in Europe, became a pillar of the concept of sovereign states and the balance of power. It was a reaction to the chaos that had arisen from the religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, but its significance went beyond the context of religion itself. It created the basis for a world where states began to recognise their independence and the right to determine their own policies without interference from other powers. The Westphalian system not only ended the wars devastating the continent, but also set new rules for diplomacy. For example, the principle that no state had the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another was key to reducing tensions between the powers. This concept still shapes international law and diplomacy today, although it has not always been strictly adhered to. In the 17th century, however, it marked a significant step towards organising the world according to the principles of sovereignty and balance. The balance of power, which was part of the Westphalian system, was a pragmatic tool for maintaining peace between states. It was a mechanism where no one country could gain absolute dominance over the others. An example is England, which often acted as a balancing player between France and Spain, thus ensuring stability in Western Europe. This approach became the basis of European politics for many centuries. But the Peace of Westphalia was not just about pragmatism. It also had a profound philosophical dimension, as it stressed the importance of compromise and the coexistence of different faiths and cultures. This ethos finds parallels in today's efforts at multilateralism, where different nations seek to work together on the basis of mutual respect. Although the geopolitical situation has changed considerably since then, the principles of the Peace of Westphalia still resonate in contemporary debates about the international order. The importance of the Westphalian system goes beyond the history of Europe. Its ideas have gradually spread throughout the world, although their application in other regions has often been accompanied by conflict. For example, the decolonization movements of the 20th century reflected the desire of many nations to gain sovereignty and end the domination of foreign powers. This struggle for independence also has its roots in the Westphalian concept of self-determination. From today's perspective, the Peace of Westphalia shows that world order is not created by chance but in response to specific challenges and problems. It is a reminder that even seemingly intractable conflicts can lead to innovative solutions that shape the future. This historic moment is therefore not just a chapter from the past, but also an inspiration for current efforts towards stability and peace in the world.

The concept of world order is not universal. Each civilisation, culture or geopolitical region develops its own vision of how the world should be ordered. The Western concept, based on the principles of the Westphalian system, focuses on the balance of power and respect for the sovereignty of states. However, other civilizations offer different perspectives that are equally deeply rooted in their history, culture and values. The Chinese view of world order is shaped by the concept of "harmony under heaven" (tianxia). This principle is based on the idea that all nations are part of one big family, of which China is the centre. Historically, China did not see its relations with neighbouring countries as equal, but as a hierarchical system where tributary states recognised the supremacy of the empire of the centre in exchange for protection and trade benefits. This vision was less about state sovereignty and more about harmony based on centralized authority. The Islamic world order, on the other hand, draws inspiration from the idea of a universal caliphate that unites all Muslims under one spiritual and political authority. In the heyday of the Ottoman Empire, this vision translated into a quest for the unity of the Muslim world, where religious laws and values played a key role. However, this model does not see state boundaries as fixed, but as flexible entities subordinate to a higher spiritual order. The Indian concept of world order, influenced by Hindu philosophy, emphasises the principle of dharma - universal order and moral law. In the traditional understanding, this system emphasizes a balance between the spiritual and material worlds, with harmony achieved through right conduct and mutual respect among peoples. In modern times, these diverse approaches often lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, especially when they clash with Western values of individualism, democracy and capitalism. For example, attempts to introduce Western models of democracy in the Middle East or Asia have met with resistance because they have not taken into account local traditions and historical contexts. In Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been shown that the forced export of democracy can run into deep cultural and religious barriers. This heterogeneous world order shows that there are often no one-size-fits-all solutions. Successful diplomacy and international relations require an understanding of these differences and the ability to find common ground that respects the specificities of individual cultures. The diversity of concepts of world order is thus not an obstacle but a challenge to creating an inclusive system that reflects the plurality of today's world.

The conflict between American idealism and European realism is one of the key elements that has shaped modern diplomacy and international relations. These two paradigms, although both originating in the West, represent fundamentally different approaches to the ordering of the world and how to achieve peace and stability. American idealism is rooted in the ideals of the Enlightenment, which permeated the very foundations of the American republic. Ideas of inalienable rights, freedom and democracy have become pillars of American foreign policy throughout history. This approach is based on the belief that spreading democracy is not only a moral obligation but also a path to lasting peace. After World War II, for example, the United States initiated the Marshall Plan, which not only helped to rebuild European economies, but was also intended to support democratic institutions and prevent the spread of communism. European realism, on the other hand, shaped by centuries of military conflict and power struggles, emphasizes a pragmatic balance of power. European powers such as the United Kingdom and France have historically viewed diplomacy as a tool for balancing geopolitical forces to ensure that no one country gains dominance. This attitude was already evident during the Congress of Vienna in 1815, where the European powers worked together to restore the balance after the Napoleonic Wars. The difference between the two approaches was often manifested in concrete conflicts and international crises. During the Cold War, the United States pursued its mission of democratization, while Europe focused more on maintaining stability on the continent. In the case of the Vietnam War, the Americans conducted military intervention to stop the spread of communism, which was based on their ideological beliefs. European states, however, saw the war more as a geopolitical blunder that did not contribute to the balance of power, but instead destabilised the region. These differences persist in modern times. During the Iraq war in 2003, the US, under the leadership of George W. Bush attempted to bring democracy to the country, but this idealistic goal ran up against the harsh realities of local ethnic and religious divisions. Many European countries, particularly France and Germany, have criticised the war, pointing out that destabilising the region could have disastrous consequences for global security. American idealism and European realism thus represent two different views of the world order. While the United States often sees the world as a place where universal values can be enforced, Europe recognises the limits of ideologies and emphasises pragmatic cooperation. These approaches may seem contradictory, but in fact they are complementary. The combination of idealism and realism can create a balanced approach that takes into account moral values, but at the same time respects geopolitical realities.

The challenges of the 21st century that threaten the world order are deeply rooted in global interconnections, technological progress and climate change. The world is becoming an increasingly complex place, where the traditional tools of diplomacy and international relations are often unable to keep pace with new phenomena that are changing the balance of power and undermining stability. One of the biggest challenges is cyber threats. With the development of the Internet and digital technologies, cyber attacks have become a new tool in geopolitical warfare. States such as Russia and China use hacking attacks not only to obtain sensitive information, but also to influence electoral processes or spread disinformation. For example, the attack on the 2016 US elections showed how profoundly these operations can affect democracy and public trust in political institutions. These threats require international cooperation, but also the development of new technologies to protect critical infrastructure. Another fundamental challenge is terrorism, which is adapting to modern technologies and using globalisation to spread its influence. Groups such as the Islamic State have been able to use social networks to radicalise individuals around the world, making them unpredictable and difficult to stop. Whereas in the past terrorist attacks were largely localised, today they can strike anywhere, from metropolises like Paris to less expected locations. Climate change poses a challenge that transcends national borders. Rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events and increasing droughts are causing not only environmental damage but also political and social instability. An example is the Sahel region of Africa, where deteriorating agricultural conditions are contributing to migration and conflict. The climate crisis requires a coordinated global approach, but disagreements between major players such as the US and China are holding back progress. Demographic change and migration are also fundamentally changing social and political structures. Ageing populations in Europe and Japan are putting enormous pressure on social systems, while young populations in Africa and the Middle East are struggling with a lack of opportunities. These disparities create migration pressures that can destabilise the political systems of destination countries. The European migration crisis of 2015-2016 clearly demonstrated how mass movements of people can polarise societies and weaken regional unity. Finally, the rise of authoritarian regimes poses a challenge to democratic values and the liberal world order. Countries such as Russia, China, Hungary and Turkey are increasingly repressing freedom of expression and independent media, while at the same time strengthening their position on the international stage. This trend is weakening international institutions and undermining efforts at global cooperation. The challenges of the 21st century require a new approach that combines technological innovation, diplomatic agility and global solidarity. Without a coordinated response, the world risks losing the stability that generations have built up over centuries. Each of these threats also shows that nations must overcome their differences and work towards common solutions if they are to secure a sustainable future.

A stable world order must stand on two pillars: legitimacy and power. Their combination creates a framework in which states not only recognise the rules of the system, but also have the means to enforce them. If one of these components is missing, the order becomes unstable and prone to conflict. Henry Kissinger points out that history offers many examples where the absence of a balance between legitimacy and power has led to chaos or war. Legitimacy consists in the fact that the international system is accepted by the majority of its actors as just and fair. In this context, the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 offers a clear precedent - the powers agreed on rules that respected the sovereignty of states and established the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs. This framework legitimised the functioning of states and created an environment where conflicts could be resolved diplomatically rather than militarily. Power, in turn, ensured that these rules could be enforced. Without sufficient power to protect them, legitimacy becomes an empty concept. In the interwar period, for example, the League of Nations, which was supposed to be the guarantor of world peace, was unable to counter the expansionist ambitions of Germany and Japan. It lacked a mechanism to enforce decisions, and so its efforts to maintain order fell apart. The modern world faces a similar dilemma. The United Nations has a legitimate position as a platform for international cooperation, but it has often faced criticism for its ineffectiveness in dealing with crises such as the war in Syria or the conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. The lack of real power to push for peaceful solutions shows that legitimacy is not enough if it is not backed by sufficient resources. The importance of the balance between legitimacy and power is also evident in regional conflicts. For example, the European Union, which is built on the principle of cooperation and shared values, faces challenges in enforcing its rules against states such as Hungary and Poland. The legitimacy of European institutions is weakened if they do not have the tools to ensure compliance with democratic standards. History has shown that failure to balance legitimacy and power can have disastrous consequences. After the First World War, for example, the legitimacy of the Treaty of Versailles was questioned by many states, especially Germany, which perceived it as unjust. Although the treaty imposed severe sanctions on Germany, it lacked long-term sustainability, which contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. Current challenges, such as the climate crisis, migration and cyber threats, require not only the legitimacy of new rules, but also the collective power to enforce them. If the world powers do not agree on a common course of action, even legitimate resolutions risk having no practical impact. For a sustainable future, it is therefore essential to strike a balance that combines respect for principles with the effective exercise of power. This balance is the key to stability and peace in an increasingly complex world.

World Order offers a profound insight into the complexity of international relations and the factors that have shaped and continue to shape the world order. Kissinger emphasizes that sustainable stability requires a combination of legitimacy and power, respect for different cultural approaches, and the ability to adapt to new challenges such as cyber threats and the climate crisis. Diverse conceptions of world order, American idealism, European realism and new geopolitical threats show that world powers must work together to create an inclusive and workable framework for the future. This book is not only a historical analysis, but also a challenge to think about the kind of world we want to leave for future generations. Do you have feedback for us? We'd love it if you let us know your opinion on our content! Just send an email to feedback@rewio.app with the title of this book in the subject line and share your impressions!