Relevance:The Russia-Ukraine war has been a major topic of discussion among world leaders and global forums. The recent talks between the US and Ukrainian presidents have drawn global attention, sparking questions about whether this is the right approach for leaders to address a situation that continues to impact lives. Should leaders revisit the ethics of International Relations? UPSC Ethics Simplified draws your attention to topics related to applied ethics. UPSC recently has been focussing on contemporary issues and raising some ethical questions for the candidates. In the past, we have viewed Pollution, War, Sports and Finance from the prism of ethics. Today, Nanditesh Nilay, who writes fortnightly for UPSC Essentials, takes us through an important question — What should world leaders know about ethics in international relations?
Leaders addressing conflicts
How should global leadership address war or talk to opposing parties in conflicts? Many would argue that it should be with a combination of national interest, strategic foresight, and sharp diplomacy. After all, it is an opportunity to show that you are a ‘world leader.’ Is it? There are many aspects of ethics in international relations. We shall address the most urgent one today. When we discuss the ethics of war—jus ad bellum (when it’s just to go to war) and jus in bello (how war should be conducted)—both emerge as perennial issues. In practice, we often focus on international diplomacy in these discussions, but perhaps we should begin by asking global leaders a more fundamental question: what is the moral ground for war?
This question becomes even more urgent for global leadership as they witness the world, possibly (though we hope not), edging toward a third world war. With leaders around the globe continuing to navigate their own ways—fighting, mediating, compromising, winning, and losing—the most pressing question remains: How can war be avoided? What must the world leaders do to uphold the values of peace?
It’s time for the heads of the states to revisit the basics of ethics in international relations. How can we shift the conversation of world leaders toward emphasizing peace over conflict in the context of ethics in international relations by reevaluating the fundamental principles that guide diplomatic interactions?
Amid Conflicts, Leaders Under Scrutiny
Many conflicts are unfolding today in front of the eyes of these powerful leaders, including drone-controlled warfare, cyberattacks, and more. Every continent is either in a state of war or witnessing internal conflicts. These leaders are either directly or indirectly involved or feeling the heat. Recently, America’s attitude has loomed large, with actions like insulting a country’s leader by questioning his attire and suit availability. Tariffs themselves have become an immediate cause of war. Is it right to pressure countries through threats of financial sanctions and military force? Is it ethical to use drones that kill civilians as ‘collateral damage’ or to employ derogatory language as the world’s most powerful nation? Ethics asks for answers from the leaders – both in actions and spirit.
Wise leaders know that war does not require values, ethics, or morality to define its identity. Only the values of peace can challenge the world of war. Peace breathes through togetherness and sensitivity, and promoting this on the international stage requires the spirit of ethics in all forms of leadership consciousness.
The leaders lead countries whose national status is defined by their constitutional values, particularly their sovereignty and the understanding of the limits of intervention. According to the UN Charter, the principle of sovereignty asserts a nation’s right to govern itself without external interference. But does this principle hold the same meaning in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict or the Ukraine-Russia war? Or about the terror attacks on America and the subsequent responses from various nations? Moreover, do these values reflect in the personalities of the leaders who either cause or solve the crisis?
Consider the actions taken by leaders and their impacts, say nuclear tests on climate change—who bears the responsibility for these consequences? Thousands of lives, including those of youth, children, women, and men, have been lost in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as in the Russia-Ukraine war. What about the physical, mental, and emotional toll on the survivors? Leaders of the developed nations, who lead economies often contributing maximum to greenhouse gas emissions, stand in stark contrast to the leaders of developing countries, who have been raising their concerns for their people who have been suffering disproportionately from the resulting climate crises.
How great is a leader?
When answering questions on international ethics, one should ask these leaders: Should powerful states bear the burden of mitigating the loss of millions of lives and addressing the environmental consequences? How will leaders’ today’s actions create obligations for the future? Cooperation is emphasized by international agreements like the Paris Accord. However, these agreements reveal deep disputes over fairness and enforcement.
Ethics in international relations largely depends on the ethical framework under which leaders lead by example. How great is a leader? History may record their accomplishments, but not necessarily based on ethics. But let’s focus on the present. Do leaders pursuing war today truly view the future of humanity through the lens of peace? Do figures like Putin, Zelensky, and others trying to solve problems ever consider that personal ego, arrogance, and stubbornness can pull millions toward doom?
An obvious question
What is the role of the United Nations? Does silence suit it? The role of an international peacekeeper should be to advocate for leadership rooted in values at the national level, rather than relying on the whims of a single individual. Ultimately, the national arrogance of leaders, cloaked in the guise of nationalism, crosses borders and turns the world into a war chamber. Wars must be avoided—for the sake of mankind. If war is necessary, it should only be fought to protect humanity. This should be the universal ethical framework guiding nations worldwide, and the United Nations must embody this humanitarian obligation as well. And the world leaders should walk on the path of human values.
Post Read Question:
How can world leaders employ ethical principles to resolve global conflicts and prevent wars?
Edited by Manas Srivastava
(The writer is the author of ‘Being Good and Aaiye, Insaan Banaen’, ‘Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness’ and ‘Kyon’. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) fortnightly.)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com.
How can we shift the conversation of world leaders toward emphasizing peace over conflict in the context of ethics in international relations by reevaluating the fundamental principles that guide diplomatic interactions? 
Share
