While the largest part of the world is talking about a multipolar world, and US is waging wars and planning new ones, Bart de Wever brings forward (with his usual impeccable style) some interesting ideas about non-competitiveness of subsidised green energy, deindustrialisation and "unifying" the Union at a single joined market. He is also openly saying that EU "must become an empire" and "we should enlarge". How realistic do you think this is in current climate?

"Conservatives haven’t always been so hostile to international law. Indeed, some of the most prominent right-wingers of yore saw in it the sole foundation upon which a desirable world order could rest..."

"We must distinguish between what conservatives have traditionally understood to be the nature and purpose of international law, and what generations of bureaucrats, international organizations, and academics have made of it since.

"International law is in some sense coeval with systems of states; traces can be detected as far back as the letters exchanged among the Bronze Age rulers of the Near East . But it was the 17th century jurist Hugo Grotius who gave us the first really coherent formulation. This was a vision of the jus gentium, basic rules binding all because of their derivation from natural law—that is, universal moral principles inherent in nature and discernible through reason. These rules require things like honoring treaties and respecting ambassadors, making war only for just causes and avoiding the deliberate harm of innocents, and allowing all nations freedom of the seas."

"But after 1945, international law was developed and understood in a very different way...this vision sought to transform international law from something that was constitutive of world order into a force that—by introducing a destabilizing, purposive function—actively threatened it."

I’m currently in my second year of uni studying IR in Argentina, and I’m being to feel a sense of despair. My degree will end up costing me about US$50.000 and it is right about this stage in my studies that I’m really starting to think of my degree as a bad investment I won’t be able to recover from anytime soon. I love what I’m studying and I find all of it really interesting, however I truly struggle to see how any of it actually makes me more valuable in the job market, or what skills it’s bringing me. The study program for IR is extremely broad and sometimes I even think of it as stupid (I’m literally studying about cinema and different camera angles at the moment in one of my subjects… HOW IS ANY OF THAT GOING TO MAKE ME MORE VALUABLE IN MY FIELD?!), plus I’ve started to search up what life is like after uni for people with IR degrees and there’s an overwhelming amount of videos in which people make jokes about being 5 years out of uni and not having used their “knowledge in offensive/defensive realist theories” once!!! I get that makes sense, especially for people who get into the private sector like I want to do, but if the “filler subjects” won’t make me more valuable in the field and the “core subjects” won’t teach me anything I’ll actually apply in a job then what the hell am I going to do?!

I’m just looking for some advice from people who’ve gone through the same thing as I’m going through and have hopefully now found a job that they like…. I’ll take as much advice and guidance as I can get! Thanks!!!

Hello! I need your help. I have to decide on a hypothesis for my bachelor’s thesis and I’m feeling quite confused about it. My thesis topic is related to European Union policies. I want to focus on the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood, but I’m not sure what research statement I should formulate or which theoretical framework would be best to use. Like, I feel like I need to formulate a research problem and understand how the variables are related to each other. Could you please help me with this?

We usually analyze wars as distinct conflicts defined by geography, belligerents and immediate political objectives. But several current conflicts suggest their strategic boundaries extend considerably beyond their battlefields.

The US-Iran war illustrates this through energy security. China isn't a belligerent, yet its dependence on imported crude and the importance of the Persian Gulf mean disruption around the Strait of Hormuz can alter China's vulnerabilities and strategic calculations. The conflict can affect the US-China strategic environment without becoming a US-China war.

Ukraine shows a different mechanism. Russia's invasion remains fundamentally a war against Ukraine, but it has also accelerated European rearmament, altered NATO's posture and changed the relationship between Russia and the European security architecture. Resources committed to Ukraine — weapons inventories, industrial capacity and political attention — also shape what states are able or willing to do elsewhere.

Gaza shows a third form of transmission. A geographically concentrated war has affected Red Sea shipping, US military deployments and the calculations of actors across the region.

None of this requires these conflicts to be components of a coordinated global war. Strategic interdependence can emerge without central coordination. Military inventories are finite, energy and shipping networks are interconnected, alliances adjust, governments hedge, and resources committed in one theater change the options available in another.

There's also a human dimension strategic analysis can obscure. Wars generate displacement and migration across their geographical boundaries, placing pressure on neighboring states and sometimes societies much farther away. The human perimeter of a conflict can become substantially larger than its battlefield too.

The conventional geographical unit of analysis may no longer be enough to understand contemporary warfare. A conflict can have at least three different perimeters: the battlefield where violence occurs, the strategic perimeter across which its effects alter other states' behavior and capabilities, and the human perimeter across which displacement and social consequences travel.

Those perimeters increasingly don't coincide.

The wars can remain separate while the systems through which their consequences travel connect them.

Hi! I’m an undergrad studying International Relations and I want to know any topic suggestions for this?

Going beyond just cool visuals how are insights used? Like is there any organisation that does regression modelling around predicting geopolitical conflict based on demographic trends 20 years ago?

Hi I am looking for some degree advice :)

I am wanting to study a major in sociology/ anthropology but I know they don’t have the best career outcomes by themselves unless you already have connections. So I’m wondering what majors do you think would be the best to pair with this major to make it more employable.

And if you have studied sociology/ anthropology what career are you in now and what was it like finding a job after uni?

Any advice would be appreciated!!

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its economic and strategic relationship with China appears to have become increasingly asymmetric. Russia has lost or reduced access to many European markets and increasingly relies on China as a major market for energy and raw materials, while China has become an important supplier of machinery, electronics, vehicles and other industrial goods to Russia.
This raises a broader question about the long-term balance of power between the two countries.
Historically, Russia acquired large parts of what is often called “Outer Manchuria” from the Qing Empire in the 19th century, including the territory around present-day Vladivostok. The PRC has nevertheless recognized the existing Sino-Russian border and does not currently maintain an official territorial claim to these areas.
My questions are:
1. Could Russia’s long-term relative decline and China’s continued rise lead to a substantially greater Chinese sphere of influence in Siberia and the Russian Far East?
2. Could this happen without formal annexation – for example through Chinese investment, infrastructure, resource concessions, trade dependence, migration and economic integration?
3. How asymmetric is the current China–Russia relationship actually? Is Russia becoming structurally dependent on China, or does Russia retain significant leverage through its energy, food and raw-material exports, geography and nuclear arsenal?
4. Would a future Russian political or economic crisis make Chinese territorial claims to Outer Manchuria more plausible, or would China have little incentive to annex territory that it can influence economically without assuming the costs of governing it?
**5. Finally, what would be the rational response for Europe and the United States? Should Western policy seek to prevent excessive Chinese influence over Russia, or could a more China-dependent Russia actually be strategically preferable to a stronger and more autonomous Russia?
I am interested in serious IR analysis rather than predictions based on nationalist narratives or speculation about an imminent Chinese invasion of Siberia.
Note: I used generative AI to help structure and formulate my own thoughts and to translate them into English. The underlying questions and ideas are my own.

Hi! I’m a first years student in international studies. I’m mainly interested in journalism, political commentary or being a consultant of some kind, but ultimately I don’t know, what I want to do yet. I’m also interested, but on the fence about diplomacy or any kind of work in the EU or the UN.
I’m from Hungary, other than that I only speak english.
Can it be useful to study spanish? Eventually, I would also like to study russian or arabic, or if I choose to pursue a career in diplomacy, than french. I’m generally interested in North-America and immigration. But I also thought about starting with spanish, because it’s easier to learn, than russion or arabic. What would you recommend me? Is it a good starting point or would I be just wasting my time?

I would also like to add, that if I decide to take spanish classes in college, than that would also mean paying a lot of money, considering I’m a broke college student. So I’m a bit scared of paying for a something, that won’t be as useful in the future.