Is the World Truly at Peace?

Photograph by Sunguk Kim

By Sofia Rendon Zuloaga

Mexico City, Northeastern University

---

We like to think the world is more peaceful now than it was a century ago. There is no longer  trench warfare, no Cold War standoffs (at least not overtly), and plenty of people waving the flag of human rights. But let’s not get too comfortable.

There’s a dangerous myth that peace just happens. Mainly because of the existence of international organizations like the United Nations, the rise of social movements and NGOs automatically translating peace as a global order. As someone who spends too much time in the world of international relations theory and UN reports, let me tell you: peace is not a default setting, and international society, as it stands, isn’t delivering on its promise.

Civil society has done some heavy lifting. Consider Black Lives Matter, the Arab Spring, climate justice movements, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and Indigenous rights campaigns, all pushing against structural violence, all showing up where governments have failed. These movements challenge dominant global narratives and call out systems of inequality. They are not perfect, but they’ve redefined how political legitimacy works in an interconnected world.

NGOs, too, have become critical players in the pursuit of peace. Organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, and the Red Cross are on the front lines, responding to crises that states ignore or mishandle. Through direct action, they embody what Mary Kaldor calls the “global civil society”: a space where activists, national groups, and transnational actors collaborate and contest the arrangements that shape global development. These organizations aren’t just about charity; they’re about political agency, solidarity, and resistance.

But here’s the problem: Civil society cannot carry the burden alone. For every victory achieved by a movement, there’s a vacuum where international institutions were supposed to lead. The organizations that were designed to keep global order, especially the United Nations, are increasingly ineffective, sometimes catastrophically so.

The United Nations Security Council, a body tasked with maintaining international peace and security, has an alarming track record of failure. It was silent during the Rwandan Genocide. It hesitated in Syria. It was divided over Iraq. It botched its intervention in Libya. It’s been sluggish and inconsistent in Yemen, Sudan, and Palestine. These aren’t isolated missteps; they are symptoms of a deeper institutional dysfunction.

This isn’t just about bad decisions or slow diplomacy, the problem is structural. The UN is in many ways, an exclusive club of sovereign states, many of whom are more concerned with protecting their geopolitical interests than preventing mass violence. Its foundational structure, built on post-World War II power dynamics, no longer reflects the realities of global politics as of now. Five permanent members with veto power, the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China, essentially hold peace hostage when it suits their interests. Where is the accountability in that?

Even when the UN acts, it often fails to deliver. Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s 'An Agenda for Peace' outlined a bold plan for the UN to lead in preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, and post-conflict peacebuilding. In practice, most of these goals have fallen flat. Peace missions drag on for decades, mandates are unclear, funding is patchy and local populations are disillusioned. Still, there is “no other organization with the legitimacy of universal membership,” which makes reform feel both essential and impossible.

This paradox, the need for international governance but the failure of its institutions, has created a global trust crisis.

People no longer believe that peace comes from New York conference rooms or Geneva panels.

And perhaps they shouldn’t. As the English School of International Relations reminds us, ‘international society is shaped by both shared norms and bitter power struggles’. Without a shared commitment to justice, sovereignty alone will not build peace.

So, here’s my take. Peace needs more than goodwill. It needs a rethink. We need to move beyond the idea that peace can be managed solely by a few elite institutions or top-down processes. The future lies in a multi-layered approach where civil society and international organizations are not isolated, but in cooperation.

Social movements offer new forms of legitimacy built on public participation and moral clarity. International organizations have infrastructure and reach. If these two spheres, the grassroots and the institutional, can coordinate rather than compete, we might see real progress.

Of course, even civil society has its limits. These movements flourish best in democratic contexts, where public protest and NGO activity are protected. Democratic Peace Theory suggests that democracies are more peaceful because they share norms and act more rationally. But what about regions where democracy is under threat or has never existed? Civil society must reckon with this reality and adapt; not every protest can be protected, and not every cause is welcomed.

Still, there is hope. The path to peace will not be a straight line, nor will it be decided by diplomats alone. It will be contested, bottom-up, and constantly in flux. That’s not a weakness; it’s the nature of society itself.

---

Sources

Alagappa, M., ‘Regional Institutions, the UN and International Security: A Framework for

Analysis’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, (1997) pp. 421–41. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993261. 

Baylis, J., ‘International and global security’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P.,  The

Globalization of World Politics, an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press Eighth ed., 2020), pp.240-255.

Castells, M., ‘The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and

Global Governance’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, vol. 616, JSTOR (2008),pp. 78–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097995.

Cox, M., ‘From the end of the cold war to a new world dis-order?’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S., and

Owens, P.,  The Globalization of World Politics, an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press Eighth ed., 2020), pp.70-83.

Curtis, A., Devon, Taylor, P,., ‘The United Nations’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P., The

Globalization of World Politics, an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford:

Oxford University Press Eighth ed., 2020), pp.334-348.

Daddow, O., International Relations Theory (London: Sage Third ed., 2017), pp.63-129.

Galtung, J., ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3,

JSTOR (1969), pp. 167–91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/422690

Hough, P., ‘Security and securitization’, Understanding Global Security (New York: Routledge

Fifth ed., 2023), pp.1-24.

Hough, P., ‘Towards global security?’,  Understanding Global Security (New York: Routledge

Fifth ed., 2023), pp.259-275.

Kaldor, M., ‘The Idea of Global Civil Society’, Human Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007),

pp.134-153. 

Nolan, C., ‘Great powers and international security’ in Bain, W., The Empire of Security and the

Safety of the People (Oxon: Routledge, 2006), pp.71-93.

Park, S., ‘International organizations in world politics ’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P.,

The Globalization of World Politics, an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford:

Oxford University Press Eighth ed., 2020), pp.319-333.