Introduction
This essay explores the concept of entropy as a metaphorical and analytical framework for understanding contemporary international relations (IR). Entropy, originating from thermodynamics as a measure of disorder or unpredictability, offers a lens to analyse the increasing complexity and unpredictability in global politics. The purpose of this essay is to assess how entropy manifests in international systems through the erosion of traditional power structures, the rise of non-state actors, and the challenges of global governance. By examining these dimensions, this piece aims to illustrate the relevance of entropy in explaining the chaotic and often fragmented nature of today’s geopolitical landscape. The discussion will proceed in three main sections: first, conceptualising entropy in IR; second, exploring its implications through the decline of state-centric order; and finally, evaluating its impact on global governance. The essay concludes by considering the broader implications of this framework for policymakers and scholars.
Conceptualising Entropy in International Relations
Entropy, in its scientific origin, describes the tendency of systems to move towards disorder unless energy is applied to maintain structure (Clausius, 1865). Applied metaphorically to IR, it represents the inherent unpredictability and fragmentation within the international system. Scholars such as Kavalski (2015) have suggested that the post-Cold War era reflects a state of increasing entropy, as the bipolar stability of the twentieth century has given way to a multipolar, or even non-polar, world. This shift is marked by the diffusion of power and the inability of any single state or institution to impose order. The concept of entropy allows us to frame international relations not as a neatly ordered system but as a complex, dynamic web of interactions prone to unexpected disruptions.
Moreover, entropy in IR can be linked to information theory, where it signifies uncertainty in communication or decision-making processes (Shannon, 1948). In global politics, this translates to the difficulty of predicting state behaviour or the outcomes of international crises. For instance, the Arab Spring of 2011 demonstrated how rapidly internal discontent could destabilise entire regions, defying traditional diplomatic forecasts. Thus, entropy serves as a useful heuristic for understanding why international systems resist tidy categorisation and why linear models of power and influence often fall short.
The Decline of State-Centric Order and Rising Disorder
One prominent manifestation of entropy in today’s international relations is the erosion of the state-centric order that dominated much of the twentieth century. The Westphalian system, premised on sovereign states as the primary actors in IR, is increasingly challenged by non-state entities such as multinational corporations, terrorist organisations, and transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). This diffusion of power creates a disordered environment where traditional mechanisms of control—such as treaties or military alliances—struggle to address new threats. For example, the rise of cyber warfare, orchestrated by both state and non-state actors, illustrates how technological advancements can exacerbate systemic unpredictability. The 2016 interference in the US presidential election, widely attributed to Russian state-backed hackers, underscores the difficulty of maintaining order in a digital age (Rid, 2020).
Furthermore, the relative decline of hegemonic powers contributes to this entropic trend. The United States, once a stabilising force in global politics, faces internal divisions and a reduced willingness to act as the world’s policeman, as evidenced by its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 (UK Government, 2021). Meanwhile, rising powers like China and India pursue agendas that often conflict with established norms, creating friction in international forums such as the United Nations. This power vacuum, or diffusion, generates a sense of disorder, as no single entity can effectively steer the global system. Arguably, this scenario reflects entropy’s core principle: without a central organising force, chaos becomes inevitable.
Entropy and the Challenges of Global Governance
Global governance, designed to mitigate disorder through institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, also struggles under conditions of entropy. These bodies were constructed in an era of relative stability, with assumptions of state cooperation and shared goals (Weiss, 2016). However, contemporary challenges—such as climate change, pandemics, and mass migration—reveal the limitations of these frameworks. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, while a landmark accord, lacks enforceable mechanisms to ensure compliance, resulting in inconsistent national responses (UNFCCC, 2015). This inability to coordinate action exemplifies how entropy undermines collective problem-solving.
Additionally, the proliferation of veto power in the UN Security Council illustrates systemic dysfunction. The frequent deadlock between permanent members, particularly during crises like the Syrian Civil War, highlights how structural rigidity can exacerbate global disorder (Bosco, 2014). Indeed, such stagnation in decision-making mirrors entropy’s implication that systems, left unchecked, tend towards inefficiency and breakdown. The rise of populism and nationalism further complicates governance, as states prioritise domestic interests over international cooperation—a trend evident in the Brexit referendum of 2016, which disrupted European unity (Hobolt, 2016). Therefore, entropy not only describes the current state of global governance but also warns of its potential trajectory towards greater fragmentation.
Conclusion
In summary, the concept of entropy provides a compelling framework for understanding the complexities and unpredictability of today’s international relations. By conceptualising IR as a system prone to disorder, this essay has highlighted how the decline of state-centric order, driven by the rise of non-state actors and the diffusion of power, reflects entropic tendencies. Similarly, the challenges faced by global governance institutions underscore the difficulty of maintaining structure in an increasingly chaotic world. The implications of these trends are significant: policymakers must adapt to uncertainty by fostering flexible, adaptive strategies rather than relying on outdated models of control. For scholars, entropy offers a lens to rethink traditional theories of IR, encouraging a focus on complexity and non-linearity. Ultimately, while entropy may suggest an inevitable slide towards disorder, it also prompts a critical reflection on how energy—in the form of innovation, diplomacy, and cooperation—might be applied to restore balance in an otherwise unpredictable global landscape.
References
- Bosco, D. (2014) Assessing the UN Security Council: A Report Card. Foreign Policy.
- Clausius, R. (1865) The Mechanical Theory of Heat. Macmillan.
- Hobolt, S. B. (2016) The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), pp. 1259-1277.
- Kavalski, E. (2015) Encounters with World Affairs: An Introduction to International Relations. Routledge.
- Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
- Rid, T. (2020) Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Shannon, C. E. (1948) A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), pp. 379-423.
- UK Government (2021) UK Statement on Afghanistan: Latest Situation. UK Government Website.
- UNFCCC (2015) The Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- Weiss, T. G. (2016) Global Governance: Why? What? Whither? Polity Press.
