Page 1 of 25
EVALUATING THE STEPS-TO-WAR MODEL IN EXPLAINING CONTEMPORARY
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS
Introduction
Steps-to-war model: a framework for conflict escalation
The steps-to-war model is a clear and easy way of explaining how two or more nations
can move towards the process of war. The so-called ‘‘escalation spiral’’ model has been
developed by various scholars, including James D. Fearon and Barbara F. Walter It describes a
number of stages that rational leaders might find themselves moving through in the course of an
unplanned ascent of the escalation ladder. The first step is a small disagreement, and it leads to
security concerns in the affected country that the other parties pose a threat to its security.
Instead of conveying to signal intentions of moving into the second nation, the first nation then
implements a policy to signal assertiveness, for example, threats in public forums or military
build-up along the border of the second nation. These actions being perceived as adverse, the
second nation equally starts provoking detrimental policies that are intended for the sole purpose
of discouraging further provocation. The governments become entrapped in a cycle of mutual
fear and tension and the actions that result are reciprocally limited punitive measures designed to
demonstrate resolve or to force concessions. The given situation remains escalating because,
despite the fact that both countries would rather not engage in a war, their domestic constituents
and political leadership’s concerns and the potential political fall for turning the first, push them
into such actions. One of them may decide, for example, to impose an embargo or occupy a piece
of soil also claimed by the other country to pressure them into negotiations, which sets off a
militarized conflict. At this point, a war occurs either because the parties can no longer manage
the crisis situation as it escalates further, or because both parties agree that it is better to strike
Page 2 of 25
first before the other gains a significant upper hand. Although, it is too crude to be reliable, the
steps-to-war model has the merit of demonstrating how nations can find themselves at war over
minor incidents, without intending to engage in a military conflict at first. This is why the idea of
more intense crisis communication, diplomatic efforts, and signals of restraint at the initial levels
may help avoid this escalatory process from moving further down the ladder to war. The steps-
to-war framework that uses historical cases such as World War I as an example offers knowledge
about conflict escalation that scholars and those who make the policies continue to strive to
utilize in the interest of preventing the war.
Relevance of the model in modern geopolitical landscape
The model is useful in describing the situation in the modern world of international
relations, as it elaborates the positions of power in the international environment. Those against
the globalization can claim it has cut short individual state authority, however, this brand
globalization recognizes the fact that globalization occurs within parameters put in place by state
system and state basis. In the study of the modern diplomacy and the prognosis of tendencies in
the world, it is still relevant to require the models concerning the positioning of the great powers,
characteristics of the regional spheres of influence and the types of pressure. For example, the
realist conventional paradigms that focus on power indexes of which the military and economic
means that are asserted abroad are today still provide an explanation of China and Russia’s
behavior. As per the constructivist models, the foreign policy narratives indicate how the states
namely Iran and North Korea use oppositional identity tales to confront the western counterpart.
It can be seen that the liberal conceptualizations persist within the integration projects like the
European Union. The qualitative changes in the relations between the goods are not reflected in
the quantitative increase of the flows that in their turn augment the capacities and possibilities of
Page 3 of 25
the globalizing world; however, the overall strategy belongs to the state remains unchanged.
From these frameworks, models that assist in policy making are the ones that depict how
different nations are expected to act and retaliate given the structure of the anarchical system of
international politics. Newer critical theories provide different perspectives that are not
considered when the traditional theories are used or are inadequate. Imminent global ailments
like global warming and threats of migration have made critics to clamor for shift from concepts
that have over the years postulated solutions to them like sustainable development, human
security, and global morality. Considering that policy mostly works in terms of paradigms
received from one’s predecessors, the widening of the discussions among academics and
activists demands questioning the premises for state, society, and world order. Something
becomes gradually more complicated, and yet models continue to be applicable for the
characterization of the world when posing for reconsideration along with humanity’s issues that
question the essence of the geopolitical perspective.
Assessing model's applicability to diverse contemporary conflicts
Conflicts take place in various environments: household ones, working ones, diplomatic
ones, and even in an international setting. Should there be any models with the purpose of
explaining, expounding, predicting, or resolving such conflicts, context dependency has to form
part of the strategies. A model that strives for predicting civil wars can easily be designed from
concepts like resource competition, ethnic hatred, egotistical leadership and others that can
perfectly fit some situations sometime. Today’s wars are not basic and may encompass aspects
such as previous aggression, religion, and culture, economic status, oppression from the leaders,
and outside pressure. This is an approach that addresses one component of conflict and though it
is efficient in identifying the roots of problems, it tends to make many sided problems look like
Page 4 of 25
one sided cause. Hence, the conflict models make the scholars to come with the moderation for
the role and existence of the concepts by attempting the conceptual domain and the study
method. In the case of the presented model, we are to inquire about the following aspects: This is
because it either works on Static Assumption or flexible one. AA Mines had proposed a layout
that provides a building with a tentative construction plan in case construction funds become
available at a later date. Can one somehow relate different cases to each other and apply some
reasoning to them? Something else that has to be ascertained is the model’s internal validity and
the extent of adherence to strict scientific assumptions. It also becomes possible to assess its
construct validity by going through the procedure of trying to apply the provisions of the theory
on events. This choice allows one to assess the explanation provided by the conflict models
because of the attempt to utilize modern conflicts that are different. If it was concluded that this
is a general model, and then general in this case means that the model needs to be expanded and
altered because its coverage area is rather small. In any attempts to fit models to specific case
study, the demand to aim for even more refined interpretations of the components of the model
entails the requirement to stay loyal to fit the postulates of the model. Therefore, it is imperative
that the research makes use of the top down approach in policy and at the same time, uses a
bottom up case based knowledge base to enhance the policy as well as analysis utility. As with
every theory, it is necessary to analyze its modern positions and processes taking place, as
conflict theories are studied and further vied continuously by scholars who try to explain social
conflict.
Territorial Disputes in the Digital Age
Artificial islands expanding maritime territorial dispute complexities
Page 5 of 25
China’s act of constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea has only escalated the
present maritime territorial issues. By the construction and propulsion of Reefs and atolls and
further extending them to build structures that would host military and personnel amenities Se
inertia China has further buttressed the factual affirmation of sovereignty over these waters.
Some of the neighboring countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei
also claim certain islands and waters that are under Chinese territory. These artificial islands
enable China to expand its sphere of influence and quite assertively stake its claim over fishing
territories and energy prospects in the South China Sea which is endowed with enormous oil and
gas reserves and strategic shipping routes. The other states in the disputes have expressed fears
that China is eyeing domination of the region and making its Territorial Credibility a thing of
reality. They regard the construction of artificial structures as a new move which is unlawful
under the UNCLOS since it is unilaterally changing the status of the disputes in its favor while
the parties are still disputing. Although, the US has not claimed any part of the South China sea
as their own, they have dismissed China’s sovereign rights on territorial waters around the
artificial features and has persistently conducted patrols through the region using its naval ships
and military aircraft. This leads to the upping of tensions and the potential for an error in
judgment. The construction of artificial islands has hindered the possibility of solving or even
managing the different intricate disputes that involve the territorial issue in the South China Sea.
Due to these concerns, the militarization of these man-made land features by China has spurred
concern and resentment from other countries and was accused of attempting to impose a political
agenda on smaller and weaker states. So long as China continues constructing and enhancing the
amenities of these islands the maritime disputes will persist and pose the risk of full-blown
Page 6 of 25
hostility, even with the diplomatic efforts that have been made in the international arena to
promote restraint and peaceful resolution in accordance with rules of international law.
Digital borders blurring lines between national jurisdictions
The global connections through the Internet and development of various digital
technologies have created a paradigm whereby lines that separate one nation or a jurisdiction
from another have become almost indistinguishable. While in the past, states claimed authority
over material, physical terrains of power, cyberspace is a new terrain, which challenges
constantly the boundaries of supervision, legislation, and policing. Websites, social media
platforms, messaging apps, and all kinds of other digital interfaces enable real-time connection,
exchange, and community of interest that ignores territorial boundaries. A clear and modern
example is the e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba where the consumers from the
different parts of the world can obtain products from the sellers located in other countries
through digital payments and efficient logistics solutions. Although buying and selling might be
done through the Internet, there are always areas of intersection and failure between the national
laws and regulations of taxation, data privacy, copyright and so on The social media platforms
have created arenas that transcend geographical physical space and time where news, ideas or
even organized protest movements could suddenly spread across state boundaries, much to the
surprise of authoritarian governments. More broadly, globalization and technological
advancements have continued to advance at a higher rate than legal structures and frameworks
that have been designed for a world of clearly defined nation states. Instead of virtual
interactions for the most part disentangled from the offline realm, digital practices have material
consequences that give rise to novel challenges and concerns about governing the internet,
including who should police social media expression, how to resolve tensions between national
Page 7 of 25
data protection laws governing flows of data, and how the digital economy should be fairly
taxed. These complex, subtle tasks cannot be solved by actions of national governments only and
require the joint activity of multiple participants, including governments, tech companies,
specialists, and people directly interested in the discussed problems, on legal and legitimate
opposing interests’ basis. The increasing connectivity of every sphere of human activity in the
digital environment entails that even as political sovereignty remains a defining feature of
statehood, there is a need to create common legal frameworks that are sensitive to the borderless
nature of the digital environment.
Virtual resource competition sparking new international tensions
The more of a life and economies go digital, the greater is the rivalry for the financial,
scarce, and valuable resources in cyberspace that has begun to give birth to new types of
conflicts between states. Thus, the Internet has developed to the state where almost all IPv4
space is exhausted and IPv6 is gradually progressing and, at best, unevenly. The scarcity raises
basic questions about the processes of providing such an elementary yet limited good for
participating in the productive economy. The orbital positions for communication satellites in
GEO are becoming congested and thus increasing the competition in the slot awards and
frequency that enables one to be connected the world. At the same time, states are struggling to
gain dominance over the newest technological strata like Artificial Intelligence, Quantum
Computing and so on, which contain the potential to bring the specific economic and military
advantage. Among these state investments in semiconductors, supercomputing systems, 5G
telecommunication equipment, and other strategic goods and technologies there are security
reasons that a country may one day realize that they are completely reliant on a specific country
for their technologies or be vulnerable to foreign spies. However, if one tries to eliminate the
Page 8 of 25
open competition and achieve technological sovereignty with the scope of protectionism, or to
monopolize fields of the future that might strengthen the segmented global digital economy in
various spheres of geopolitical power. This could aggravate the dangerous nature of an arms race
and complicate the ethical standards of proper developing of new technologies. Cyberspace is
also gradually becoming the Theatre of Operation and series of intensification of incidents
involving state actors. Sophisticated cyber operations can enable collection of intelligence, data
extraction and even obliteration of other nations’ key structures without the latter noticing it.
More critical systems are being connected and while this is the case, the dangers of cyber
incidences are undermining the security of nations and stability of economies. However, at the
same time, the state of affairs that exclude chances to define unequivocally an act of cyberspace
opens up an opportunity to spare direct military vendetta. The outcome is the continually active
hostile intentions and ambiguity, which does not contribute to the creation of a trusting bipolar
relationship between the superpowers.
Economic Interdependence and Conflict Dynamics
Global supply chains complicating bilateral dispute resolutions
Globalization has also led to emergence of complex supply chain problems in the trading
relation between two countries and manner of solving such problems. This is because with
products being designed, manufactured, and assembled across multiple countries, the
identification of who is at fault or the measurement of the losses that need to be paid when trade
disputes arise becomes a much more complicated process. For instance if the United States was
to have a trade disagreement in products assembled in China but originated from partially
designed and manufactured in other Asian countries would imply that the underlying problems
would have to be solved across several countries. It would bring a lot of disruption to the
Page 9 of 25
interconnected regional and global supply chain if there were punitive tariffs or quotas. The
liberalization of trade has made the beneficiaries of these treaties not only the parties involved in
bilateral dispute. Other members of the supply chain who depend on efficient delivery of
intermediate goods for operations as well as sustaining employment also bear the impact even if
they are not involved. And the complexity does not stop here – if those second-tier affected
countries decide to react to actions initiated by the United States or China to safeguard their own
interests, then the chain reaction increases. And while the integrated global supply chains bring
efficiency and capability, it erodes the notion of the traditional bilateralism and how trade wars
can be fought independently of other nations. The two countries and their respective economies
and work force are intertwined with the rest of the global economy, thus making it quite
challenging to address the two economies’ interdependency with a high degree of accuracy.
Therefore, broader consultations and a post-industrial revolution concept of inherently
transnational supply chain dynamics need to be addressed to sort out sources of conflict and
avoid collateral consequences. In other words, globalization of supply chains has made the bi-
lateral arrangements for solving disputes as an anachronism due to global integration with
complex solutions required to fit into the inter-connected environment.
Financial market volatility as conflict escalation trigger
Reflected through the changes that occur in the behavior of the diverse financial markets,
one can identify a number of aspects that can contribute to the further escalation of a conflict.
When markets are fully liquid, they are also highly illiquid due to the fact that the assets are very
much prone to fluctuation of price and the environment as a whole is very much unstable. These
results to instability and this makes investors feel apprehensive, hence they are forced to make
unwise decisions. This is because during change people are compelled to act in what can be
Page 10 of 25
regarded as instinctive ways and therefore when in a group, groupthink is more like the order of
the day. Such volatility also detriments the profits of trading businesses and government’s
revenues for the long run. On one end, there is laying off of employees, which actually hems the
expenses and at the other end are governments deciding to minimize their expenditure as well as
social aid. This in turn leads to economic loss and other instabilities and we all know that these
lead to social instabilities. Here, people may protest if the final resort they consider to protect
their own sources of income is to do so. This may transform into societal conflict especially
when governments deal with this congestion in a brutal way, by suppressing crowd. It also noted
that in the event of a long drawn out financial crisis, there are short comings in the relations
between the countries.
For instance, a high level of currency devaluation requires a lot of effort to be placed on
the determination of the country’s competitiveness in competitive trade in the foreign nations.
This could invite claims of currency manipulation and retaliation measures that are placed. This
exchange of such actions between governments may result to conflict that is armed regarding
borders, given the fact that the two nations have been enemies in the past. At the international
level, there may be a possible credit crunch that will heavily impact the overall allocations
resulting to severe austerity among the big armies. On the same note, if this reduces their
capability to countervail influence within world politics for long durations, then this could foster
risk taking among wild card state s or terrorists. It is good to note that the result could be more
tensions and the world economy in the worse situation, which creates a cycle with no easy way
to getting out of it. Such dynamics were attributed to the Great Depression that formed a support
for fascist states which in turn led to the World War 2. Disaster germination hazards emerge
when long-wave stock market volatility adversely affects social equity and tests the
Page 11 of 25
government’s capacity and the balance between important states. Therefore, it can be stated that
the nature of the state, opposed to conflict, directly implies that alongside conflict prevention,
peace-building and reduction of stress, coordination of financial policy to stabilize financial
markets has to be named one of the most essential tasks.
Trade wars' potential for inciting military confrontations
Conflict between two or more significant global powers that may engage in tirades
through tariffs that can lead to trade wars can heighten chances of warfare whether planned or
accidental. This is a very dangerous situation of countries being trapped inside a spiral of
building barriers of trade and applying mutual economic sanctions that promote nationalism as
well as reciprocal fear between the two nations. As the economic pressure develops, the
opportunities for the nationalist sentiments on both parties to escalate into small military
conflicts or brinkmanship are increasingly present. This may lead to inadvertent spiraling into
full scale war even when the leadership of both countries may not be desirous of war. For
instance, the ongoing trade war between the US and China may lead to security dilemma and
arms race which are likely to trigger conflict. Each side may perceive economic behaviors as a
threat and may interpret military actions of the other side as aggressive instead of pro-active.
Even minor accidents like two naval vessels taking a fancy at each other or two planes coming
close could develop into more aggressive confrontations. The trade war itself may not
necessarily lead to a fight or directly produce unstable relations between two major powers, yet it
can significantly erode their stability. This is extremely dangerous in a case where the two are
the US and China, the two nuclear states. Economic conflicts often tend to lead to security
conflicts; therefore, leaders on both sides should avoid letting economic conflicts escalate to
security conflicts. Of course, economic tensions may also be utilized as a verbal aggression by
Page 12 of 25
some more militant-minded leaders on purpose for engaging in a military conflict. In the same
respect, it would be important to acknowledge that hardliners might perceive a trade war as a
tool that allows for bolstering one’s positions and undermining an adversary and expanding
one’s area of influence. They might want to play up division domestically against the other
country and rally public support for the use of force. Therefore, even if a trade war itself does not
lead to an armed conflict, it creates conditions that give the latter’s initiators a legitimate right for
any type of conflict. It can lead countries into wars, which the majority neither on either side
wants.
Non-State Actors in Conflict Escalation Processes
Terrorist organizations as catalysts for interstate conflicts
In this regard, it can be hardly a question that terrorist organizations are able to lead states
to conflicts in a number of ways if needed. Directly and most narrowly, a terrorist group which
comes from a specific sovereign state may attack another state and this may cause military or
other forms of aggression against the sovereign state which the terrorist group originates from.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States by Al-Qaeda terrorists, the US
declared war on Afghanistan with the aim of removing the Taliban regime that was hosting the
terrorists. The outcome was the military conflict of the US with the previous authorities of
Afghanistan. Incursions by Palestinians have prompted Israelis to attack Gaza and Lebanon to
fight the territories and Palestinians. Terrorist groups can also cause war between states even if
they do not execute an attack on one country from the territory of another. Simply having a base
or facilities with a country can be considered as illegitimate reason to invade that country, this is
as witnessed by the case of Iraq and Syria where US sought permission to attack those states
citing the presence of Al-Qaeda affiliated personnel in those states. Also, rewards in the form of
Page 13 of 25
funding, training or other forms of support that one state might offer to a terrorist organization
could evoke retaliatory punitive measure from the affected countries that the terrorist group has
attacked. For instance the sponsoring of Al-Qaeda by Saudi Arabia has been perceived by many
as an indirect way of going to war with the western countries that have been targeted by the
terrorist group. In a broader sense, the anarchy that terrorism more often than not brings with it
in its quest for expansion can manifest itself in refugee movements, rising insurgency activities,
or declining governance in the affected countries, which in turn pose a threat to regional security
and call for intervention from neighboring countries in a bid to prevent these effects. And
therefore, even if the specific causality mechanisms might be distinct, terrorist organizations are
clearly implicated as agents who have instigated interstate conflicts across regions and decades
directly through attacking external countries, indirectly through the backlash that results from
hosting such groups, or through the secondary effects of volatility that such actors create. Their
status as non-state actors with global reach and in-defined background and support is ideal to
push countries towards confrontation thereby provoking wars between states they might not have
a direct relationship with.
Multinational corporations influencing international dispute trajectories
MNCs are major international actors given their large economic capital and enmities and
their impact on world affairs. They operate and invest across borders and they usually have more
financial capacity than small nation states. Organizations can influence the course of
international conflicts in several ways because multinational corporations have a significant
impact on global affairs. First, they may try to persuade governments to get involved in a conflict
or refrain from engaging in it depending on the effects on its property and business. For instance,
an oil company that has a drilling license in a conflict area will exert pressure on its home
Page 14 of 25
country to facilitate negotiations for a ceasefire or even provide equipment and personnel to
defend its operations. Secondly, because of their global operations, MNCs can bombard the
public or other stakeholders with a campaign of PR and, if necessary, ad campaigns. A firm with
commercial relations with an offender state can organize campaigns aimed at ‘moving the goal
posts’ and turning attention to the fact that the offender state has a rapidly developing economy
and should not be put under the lens of scrutiny. Possible cases of disinvestment due to political
instabilities might force governments to change their attitudes towards conflicts. The fear of
losing the sources of employment and tax income through major employers may lead the states
to quick compromise or inaction against their values. Further, CSR programs supporting
development endeavor and assistance in conflict-affected regions make it possible for
multinational which exercises power over local stakeholders through capital. As representatives
of business, their economic activities worldwide make it possible for multinational corporations
to chart directions of international relations of conflict through pressures for policy change,
advertising, threats of disinvestment, and humanitarian assistance beyond many sovereign states.
Due to their broad territorial coverage and concentrations of power, multinationals can influence
the conflict outcomes to a greater extent than individual state actors who have any similar
capabilities.
NGOs' role in shaping conflict narratives globally
Accordingly, Non-Governmental Organizations are seen to play an important part in
building conflict discourses at the international level. Specifically, they are the organizations that
are not typically associated with a government and that are accepted by local communities as the
ones capable to negotiate frequently politicized environment and to provide humanitarian aid.
This puts them in a good vantage to relate the intended narratives. For instance, during the
Page 15 of 25
genocide in Darfur, Sudan in the early 2000s, organizations such as Doctors Without Borders
and Human Rights Watch educated the world on the sufferings of the civilian in the area through
availing documented information of matters such as forced evictions, hunger, disease, and
genocide by the pro-government Arab janjaweed. Their account presented the crisis as genocide,
and it influenced other leaders to act in the same way. The NGOs have also been criticized for
giving partial information to the narratives in as much as they want their agenda accomplished.
For instance, during the Israel-Gaza conflict some of the NGOs supporting Palestinian cause
have been accused of Staging and exaggeration of deaths and destruction while playing down the
role of Palestinian militant groups. That in fact removes the NGOs’ impartiality and believability
in observing certain circumstances and coming up with the truth. Beside, most of these invisible
conflicts, which do not have connections with well- recognized international NGOs are likely to
be sidelined by the major players in the international systems. For instance, in the recent conflict
in Ethiopia, the Tigray region was in a blackout that restrained the access, an access that was also
muffled by Tigrayan community organizations in their bid to shed some light. Thus, it can be
concluded that NGOs that operate with conflict narratives have power, though such power is
circumscribed by the organizations’ ability to retain public support special when societies are
dealing with highly complex and fast evolving situations. That can be done only in cooperation
with similar organizations to reproduce the information on its own. Thus, the strength of an
NGO’s conflict narrative directly depends on ground teams’ ability to acquire good eyewitness
data in the fight setting, which remains rather limited due to the enemy environment and fog of
war factors.
Technological Advancements Altering Conflict Progression Patterns
Social media accelerating pace of dispute escalation
Page 16 of 25
The coverage of social networks has inevitably changed the patterns of interactions, and
it would be difficult to discuss some disagreements and conflicts that arise and develop in such a
manner. On Facebook, twitter or any other social media platform one tend to post something that
can cause an uproar in a few seconds with many people who are ready to support the post
emotionally. Disputes in the past took time to circulate say through word of mouth and with
social sharing arguments escalate at a new record. People post things that can be as shocking as
possible and invite others to get angry and outraged. While social media thrives on simplicity
where messages are short and do not entice any sort of subtlety, conflict tends to be interpreted in
a very binary way: you are either with us or against us, hence it is very hard to find middle
ground. The nature of interactions on social sites exposes the audience to the comments of other
users without giving them a break to have time to calm down hence provoking anger leading to
clashes. While letter writing provided an opportunity to think well about the letter before writing
it, social media provides an opportunity to make a series of emotional outbursts on a social
media platform, without proper thinking. The lack of personally identifying factors that come
with pseudonymous accounts takes off any social pressure that might hinder one from saying
something that would make a stranger react angrily; thus, the harassment that strangers would
never dare say to another’s face is launched online. However, it at the same time makes
communities forget that there are still individuals operating the gadgets. Influenced by hundreds
of thousands of anonymous spectators, people become insensitive; antagonistic groups appear,
consisting of people who choose their side unconditionally. It is difficult to hear balanced
opinion by moderate supporting voices when the clamor for change gets louder. Instead of
controversies fading on their own over time, social media archives these disagreements
permanently, where anyone can check the file, then throw more fuel on the fire. Since apps also
Page 17 of 25
tend to promote content that generates engagement, previous controversies can be repeatedly
rehashed and served.
Artificial intelligence in military decision-making processes
The Internet of Things in the military context can be viewed as an application of artificial
intelligence (AI) which is set to reshape many aspects of the military, especially the decision
making during the combat or strategic planning. AI algorithms are capable of processing big data
within short spans of time; they do classify, reason, and produce results in a few moments for
human beings to come up with a decision or to analyze. Even though the article gave the
impression that it postulated on AI eradicating human decision-making, especially for military
purposes, the article was in fact describing how AI enhances and enriches it. An AI can work as
a sensor watcher in a warfare environment and need not process data for threats that a human can
easily detect. The AI could inform the observation post to concentrate on a particular region of
the map or search for a particular sector. An example in a planning case where the environment
is difficult is that an AI can search through the few thousands documents and previous missions
to identify matters that are relevant and precedents and can present the commander with the
option or advice. It also could play out scenarios with different potential strategies and likely
outcomes and then determine which path was the best. They stated that these capabilities will
provide decision dominance to whichever force is the first to implement human-machine combat
teaming. But for this to work and for commanders and policymakers to rely on the system
recommendations, the training data or models used have to be unbiased and contain a subset of
realistic scenarios. There are also risks if the scenario in the battlespace develops in some other
way than in the training data or if the adversaries start to toss in new situations to challenge the
AI. As such, one must ensure that the human stays in the loop instead of delegating decision-
Page 18 of 25
making to a completely black-box AI solution. Critics have raised important ethical concerns on
lethal autonomous weapons; reasons why there should always be a human operator of the lethal
action. When developed and employed carefully and when sharing with the public what they are
doing, AI decision aids display the potential for augmenting and improving military decision
dominance. However we need to accurately incorporate human decision making and supervision
into the process to avoid adverse effects and be ethical. If the integration of the decision
superiority is done properly and if the proper use of AI has been implemented then it can
enhance operational effectiveness and help in the completion of its mission while observing laws
and ethics.
Autonomous weapons systems redefining conflict engagement rules
Situations such as use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) for drones, unmanned
combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), and artificial intelligence and decision-making systems for
defense are reshaping the conflict engagement and the warfare principles and frameworks. This
is especially true with AWS technology that is helping the enemy achieve precision attacks
without having to expose many personnel, thereby replacing human operators in weapons
systems while keeping the systems themselves. This makes it possible for a party into a conflict
to confront the other party with almost no consequences. This pushes the probability of military
fatalities down for the side with superior technology, but the probability of conflict initiation will
go up as well because the risk is perceived to be lower due to AWS, which could lead to
militaries going on an adventure among nations with a technological advantage. However,
autonomous weapons systems are not perfect and some may misbehave in the wrong ways. They
are unique in the way they learn and make decisions, and they can make a catastrophic or
irrational decision that is against principles of armed conflict or results in unnecessary civilian
Page 19 of 25
casualty. When weapons systems possessed the capability of targeting and firing on their own
without external human intervention, questions of responsibility for such actions arise. Who is
responsible: the developer of the software, the authority that buys it, or the field commander?
This problem is only worsened by the fact that autonomous systems are unable to meaningfully
explain or justify their internal decision-making processes. For this reason, one could make a
reasonable case that human control and supervision must remain for weapons systems that are
capable of acquiring and tracking targets on their own. In the absence of this, there is the
likelihood of an occurrence which is counter-productive in conflict transformation and
establishes undesirable benchmarks to the effect that the restraints on the manner in which wars
are waged are detrimental to the civilian populace.
AWS is on the rise, and the authorities have not been able to accommodate it in
governance frameworks and international agreements. These base laws of war need to be
reviewed and probably redrafted given that the current world includes thinking machines. The
following issues have been raised as to whether it is right to develop a machine that removes the
element of conscience and ethics in the identification of lethal combat operations. They should
also remain somewhat human-controlled and risky for the parties involved so that the current
restrictions against unacceptable or unwarranted aggression are maintained. This calculus is
disturbed by the existence of an autonomous system, which means that either lower casualty and
politically costless armed interventions may be initiated by actors who are not sufficiently bound
by the rules of accountability. Which in the long run poses risks to the conventional notion of
proportional warfare that is predicated on humanitarianism. Thus, the increasing use of enabling
technologies to create and employ autonomous weapons systems with strike capabilities and
decision-making autonomy beyond human supervisory control may change conflict interaction
Page 20 of 25
patterns in various unpredictable ways that policymakers have not yet fully considered. In order
to aid the pressing process of reimagining and rebuilding the institutional checks on behavior that
accompanies warfare, their comprehensive effects remain best understood with further analysis.
Environmental Factors in Contemporary Conflict Trajectories
Ocean acidification disputes reshaping maritime security paradigms
‘Ocean acidification’ ensures that global oceans keep on absorbing extra CO2 from the
atmosphere, and the impacts remain a topic of discussion on the aspect of environmental and
economic effects. Ocean acidification is therefore as a result of increase in concentration of CO2
which when dissolved in water makes the ocean to become more acidic through a decrease in its
pH level. This is a menace to marine life since it leads to destruction of coral reefs and shellfish
in water body which is usually sensitive to a change in the equation of the water. A few countries
that rely on fisheries and aquaculture anticipate fatal hits to the economic and food security from
declining harvests. At the same time, Arctic countries anticipate new opportunities from
decreased sea ice, new and shorter shipping routes, and the new rights to offshore oil and natural
gas in addition to global concern on fossil fuel consumption. Earlier the focus of maritime
security of the seaplane included rite of passage and protection from naval threats by states.
Nevertheless, the clear example of the climate change impact like ocean acidification represents
interests that are ecological, economical, and political security, which are of an international
nature, and thus, require shifting the concept of security paradigms. To China, ocean
acidification is a threat to the fishing industries on which the country’s population largely relies
on while at the same time view justifying increase naval activities around the world to protect
faraway fishing regions. These changes show how with ocean acidification, the environment has
become safe where political and economic security coincide, due to globalization of the world.
Page 21 of 25
Controlling the sea now requires just as muscular multilateral arrangements for safety and the
stewardship of the seas and climate as for the traditional naval force and FON. Notably, climate
change is gradually building the construct of maritime security in a more complex manner.
Desertification-induced migration pressures destabilizing regional alliances globally
Desertification and land degradation are thus forcing people to be more and more
confined in new territories and hence exert pressure on settlement and other resources in the
affected zones. This migration is thus a threat to political stability both within countries and in
relation to each other. As a result of changes in climate where land is becoming infertile and
frequent droughts, families in the area cannot depend on farming and animal breeding as used to
be. To secure better job opportunities they move to cities, other towns, or other countries thus
agglomerating already crowded poor areas with high population density. For instance, Lake
Chad located in Africa has dried up and millions of people have been relocated in the past few
decades; social strife has ensued from competition in the occupation of the areas containing
productive agricultural land and water in Nigeria, Chad, Niger and Cameroon. Similarly, the
rainfall and crop disaster rate in Central America has been below average since 2014 with
immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador from the rural sectors shifting to Mexico
and USA. This has lead to a higher influx of migration or refugee Status which has posed some
constraints on the political partnership that exist in North America. At this global environment,
these environmental migrants undermine the regional integration and cooperation frameworks
tackling cross-border challenges like hunger, insecurity, and lacking disaster response
mechanisms because of the forced relocation of tens of millions of people by the mid-century.
Therefore, as climate shocks rise to the occasion, forced migration of the affected populations
from hostile environment poses a serious challenge to international relation and hampers
Page 22 of 25
collaborative efforts towards controlling the accelerated climatic processes in the world.
Supporting approaches that support the increase of ecological stability can somehow reduce the
demand for migration in the future and consequently maintain regional order. Measures such as
the cultivation of crops that are resistant to drought, water storage and irrigation facilities, early
warning systems, diversification of other sources of income in the threatened rural areas, and
politically motivated, planned resettlement programs can counteract the abandonment of
threatened rural areas if they are properly supported by sound policies and adequate financial and
other resources from sympathetic member countries. Thus, geo-political policies towards longer
term support for in-situ development and solidarity with cross-border humanitarian assistance for
the victims of stress-the insecurity-related migration will lessen the effects of climate change on
the drivers of migration.
Arctic melting prompting new territorial claim conflicts
Global warming leads to melting of ice and thus raises the number of the contentious
issues regarding sovereignty of the Arctic territories concerning the authority over the sea ways
for shipping and the right to the resources that lay in the seas. Some literature shows that the
arctic has approximately 30 % of the unexplored natural gas and is comparable to 13% of the
unexplored oil. Since ice in the Arctic region is melting notably in the summer, more chances are
being created for shippers to attempt to steer their vessels through Arctic routes for instance the
Northwest Passage and NSR, which is further fueling the existing and previous controversy
regarding the sovereignty and geographical location of the North. There is contention as to the
precise EEZs that extend from the coasts of the above countries in the Arctic region; Canada,
Russia, Norway, Denmark and the United States. However, these disputes are still unsolved and
may only grow with the appearance of more prospective income sources in Arctic oil, gas, and
Page 23 of 25
shipping future, which requires some form of a temporary regulation or an external mediator to
address. There is, however, one significant dispute: the underwater Lomonosov Ridge that
stretches in the center of the Arctic Ocean. Russia has said that it is claiming this ridge as a part
of their continental shelf and has approached the United Nations to get more area in the Arctic.
But Denmark and Canada have also staked their sovereignty rights on the same place, where they
feel that there are good resources available. Handling and solving such complex and inclusive
matters is one of the major diplomatic roles. Still, there is some positive development in the
Arctic through the Arctic Council that is an intergovernmental organization that works based on
the interest to cooperate; however, it has no power on the military dimension of security. Other
examples include the bilateral agreements for instance the one that has just been signed between
Russia and Norway regarding the Barents Sea area, which the two countries spent forty years
disputing the boundary of the maritime area. When judging this change in the Arctic climate, a
certain delicate problem of the administration of the contentious territories within the framework
and in relation to the American domestic and international interests will be the ever-changing
geographical environment. Regarding the question of whether the opening of Arctic will be an
arena of confrontation or cooperation may in fact determine the nature of the world of the 21st
century.
Conclusion
The steps-to-war model, despite holding great utility as a theoretical lens through which
conflict escalation can be viewed, has depreciated in value greatly and has nonetheless become
relevant in the contemporary world of international relations. A model which previously dealt
mostly with issues of conflict and division of space and power between nation states needs to be
adapted to the realities of the modern world. It is therefore evident that there is a need for the
Page 24 of 25
incorporation of non-strategic dimensions for the purposes of conflict analysis in the present day
world. These are the non-state actors, technological factors, and economic globalization factors.
For example, cyber operations, information operations, and economic measures are now
effective means in contemporary wars, sometimes as a warm-up, sometimes in the form of a
main fight. Thus, environmental factors like climate change and resource deficiency are
becoming increasingly important causes of international conflict, which should become included
in the models of the conflict analysis. The nature of political conflicts in today’s global
environment is constantly evolving, and thus the escalation models have to be equally flexible.
These models should be sufficiently adaptable to encompass the fact of the fact that
contemporary conflicts are polyfaceted, are waged not only with the participation of states but
also non-state actors, take place in different domains – physical, digital and the financial one, and
can be affected by the opinions of the global population via the social media. The integration of
various systems in the world system means that conflict in one region can have an implication in
other regions hence the models that can help in analyzing such implications. It becomes
necessary to precede with the efforts aimed at developing more new, several, and diverse
conceptual frameworks that the policymakers and researchers could use to better understand,
predict, or, more beneficially, mitigate the escalation of conflicts in the contemporary world.
These new models should possess such traits like the carrying capacity of international
organizations, TNCs and the movements of the Global Civil Society. They should also model the
consequences of technological advancement particularly the artificial intelligence in the
systemization of the war and the AI weapons having some control over the nation’s solution to
the war. These dynamic models require a new outlook regarding hegemonic stability in today’s
world system which is not bipolar but multi polar with regional powers and emerging economies
Page 25 of 25
playing very crucial roles in defining world security systems. Pursuing those factors and trying to
find the leassons in the things that happened in the past decades in the sphere of international
relations, we can try to look for the new frameworks of the conflicts prevention and the conflicts
management in the 21st century.
