The world has changed a lot over the last three decades. Technological advancement, space travel, advanced military weapons, the arms race, economic ventures, and luxury provide us with comfort, but at the same time cost us peace, environmental sustainability, and human security. The current ongoing wars, climate crisis, and food insecurity have made one thing clear: the existing international order is failing, and this is not only a strategic failing but also a moral decline. There have been changes in global politics after the Russia–Ukraine and Iran–United States/Israel wars. These wars have turned Europe and the Middle East into zones of conflict and triggered hostility across the regions.
However, there is an important thing that we must look into. These are not just wars that bring civilian suffering, food insecurity, energy crises, and military escalation. They represent a broader global governance and justice crisis that, if not controlled, could have a greater impact globally. It has caused trade disruptions and price shocks, deepened food insecurity, affected energy markets and shipping routes, increased inflation, and ultimately affected global financial stability. At the same time, this vulnerability shows a sad reality: the existing order is no longer reliable, and global institutions no longer protect human rights and dignity or encourage cooperation.
The most frightening aspect of today’s wars is that they are closely associated with climate change. Global hunger, climate change, and drought are no longer separate humanitarian issues; they are amplifying these crises. The World Food Programme warns that hundreds of millions of people are at risk of facing acute hunger in 2026 due to these crises. Research on the climate–food–conflict nexus indicates that heatwaves, floods, and droughts have negative impacts on livelihoods and food prices. Wars are not the only sign that the existing geopolitical order is not working. It is also the same system that is failing to prevent climate insecurity.
Is the world ready to adopt a new social contract to build an integrated framework, or will it wait until a catastrophic event hits us hard?
This situation demands our attention to the core of this conflict and also highlights the need for a new social contract based on equality and justice. This contract should go beyond elite security, limited nationalism, the monopoly of major powers, and unequal economic distribution. It should ensure human rights for all, the fair distribution of resources, and focus on the connection between social welfare, ecological survival, peace, and human values.
At the very least, a new social contract would involve reforming the United Nations Security Council according to 21st-century power politics by including all states and reforming the veto structure; creating an integrated environmental framework to hold major emitters accountable for damages and monitor their activities; establishing an international food security framework that makes hunger a collective responsibility rather than merely a humanitarian challenge; and, most importantly, establishing and investing in infrastructure for pre-conflict prevention. This could be useful in addressing the root causes of conflict, such as inequality, resource scarcity, and governance failures, rather than just responding to conflict once it has occurred. The basic principle has to be global solidarity.
Critics will argue that major powers are unlikely to sign something like this because they still operate according to a zero-sum game. However, continuing to respond to crises without a coordinated plan is both economically damaging and morally unacceptable. This is not idealism but a global survival strategy. Without a new social contract based on solidarity and justice, climate change, food insecurity, and drought will continue to drive humanitarian crises. But here arises an important question: is the world ready to adopt a new social contract to build an integrated framework, or will it wait until a catastrophic event hits us hard?