Abstract
This paper examines the future of the international system through a philosophical lens, tracing its foundations to post-World War II ideals shaped predominantly by Western values and the United States’ influence. It explores three core pillars underpinning this system: the ancient Greek ideal of ‘kalokagathos’, which integrates moral virtue and aesthetic excellence; the Roman legacy of international law and rule of law, emphasising justice, procedural regularity, and human-centred legal philosophy; and Christian morality, particularly the concepts of human dignity as the basis of human rights and the just war tradition.
The paper argues that contemporary international relations, exemplified by scandals like the Epstein List and conflicts such as the war on Iran, reflect a departure from these foundational principles, favouring power politics over ethical and legal norms. This trend suggests an imminent fragmentation of the international system, marking a shift away from the post-war order grounded in moral and legal universality towards a more fragmented, power-driven global order.
Key Words: International System, Rule of Law, Human Dignity, Just War
Introduction
The current international system, founded on the idealistic principles embodied by international regimes and institutions such as the United Nations System, appears to be disintegrating before our eyes. The question posed in the title of this paper necessitates examination from a philosophical standpoint to thoroughly investigate the transformations occurring in our midst. To achieve this, it is essential to first delineate the outgoing international system established in the aftermath of World War II.
The atrocities of World War II engendered a profound conviction among prominent intellectuals and political leaders in the West that future peace, security, and prosperity must be founded on international cooperation, ideally through an institution endowed with extensive powers, particularly in matters of international peace and security. Immanuel Kant’s ideas significantly influenced the formation of the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations. However, in terms of influential actors, it was indisputably the United States that shaped the parameters of the post-war international system. This framework afforded the United States a privileged position across various domains, notably political, military, and financial, as well as in international trade.
The United States is a nation rooted in Western civilisation, and regardless of global perspectives (the UN Charter was signed by 51 states), the international system has been significantly shaped by Western values. It is crucial to examine these values to comprehend the foundational concepts underpinning the international system thus established.
‘Kalokagathos’
The ancient Greek concept of ‘kalokagathos’ (καλὸς κἀγαθός), meaning “beautiful and good,” represents one of the most influential philosophical ideals to emerge from classical antiquity. This unified vision of moral virtue and aesthetic excellence shaped Western civilisation’s philosophical, educational, and cultural traditions. Kalokagathos established foundational principles that continue to inform Western ethics, aesthetics, and educational philosophy.
The Greek ideal of ‘kalokagathos’ embodied a holistic vision of human excellence that refused to separate moral goodness from physical beauty and aesthetic refinement. This concept, fundamental to Greek competitive culture, combined moral goodness, righteousness of spirit, beauty, and vigour of the body.[1] The impact of ‘kalokagathos’ on Western civilisation proved profound and enduring. The typically Greek identification of “good” with “beautiful” became so foundational that, without this attitude, the history of Greek and, subsequently, European philosophy, theology, and the arts would be unimaginable.[2] This unified vision influenced how subsequent Western thinkers approached questions of virtue, excellence, and human flourishing. The concept established that virtues naturally made good people prosper and created a fair society, embedding an optimistic view of the relationship between individual excellence and collective wellbeing.[3]
The educational implications of ‘kalokagathos’ resonated throughout Western civilisation’s development. The ideal promoted integral human education aimed at achieving happiness through political engagement, philosophical contemplation, and balanced pleasure-seeking, as articulated in Aristotelian thought. [4] This holistic approach to human development influenced Western educational philosophy for centuries, establishing the principle that true education must cultivate both moral character and aesthetic sensibility. The concept’s emphasis on physical culture alongside intellectual and moral development found expression in various Western educational movements, including the nineteenth-century English education system’s incorporation of sport and fair play principles.[5]
The legacy of ‘kalokagathos’ extends into contemporary discourse, with scholars recognizing its continued relevance for understanding the relationship between aesthetics and ethics. Modern philosophical discussions have revisited this ancient ideal, exploring how the intertwinement of aesthetics and ethics might address ethical responsibilities that contemporary art and culture have neglected while privileging formal aspects.[6] The concept’s enduring influence demonstrates how ancient Greek thought established paradigms that continue to shape Western civilisation’s approach to human excellence, education, and the integration of moral and aesthetic values.
Classical political theory treated the ‘kalokagathos’ as the model leader whose personal excellence legitimates political authority and whose character helps orient the polis toward the common good. This shaped arguments that political life and constitutions should aim at forming citizens and leaders who embody moral and practical wisdom. [7] A virtuous leader is expected to instantiate the unity of virtues — courage, justice, temperance — tied to practical judgment or phronêsis in decision making.[8] Consequently, political legitimacy is linked to the ruler’s cultivation and demonstration of character, making civic education and moral formation core public tasks.[9] The leader’s practical wisdom is treated as the mechanism by which the ‘kalokagathos’ governs rightly for common benefit rather than private advantage.[10]
One can easily identify some of these elements in the early post-war period, when the fundamentals of the new international system were laid. Indeed, both Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (presidents of the United States) publicly declared that their visions and policies shaping the post-war international system were aligned with the public good, justice, and the preservation of human rights, especially given the threats posed by the rise of Soviet communism. The founding fathers of European integration also paid special attention to the moral aspects of the post-war cooperation and its institutional form in Europe.
Ancient Roman-derived “International Law” and the “Rule of Law”
Ancient Rome established foundational principles that continue to shape Western legal systems. Roman domestic public law — including constitutional principles and legal codification — and Roman international public law—encompassing ‘jus gentium’ and ‘jus fetiale’ — have been transmitted into modern Western legal frameworks.
The Roman concept of ‘res publica’ established the foundational idea that the state exists as an organized community with constitutional order guaranteeing justice and equality.[11] Articulated in Cicero’s phrase ‘Res publica est res populi’, this principle recognized that legal norms serve both private and public interests.[12] The Roman understanding of ‘res publica’ has profoundly influenced modern Western constitutionalism, establishing continuity in concepts of government, freedom, and property.[13] Romans developed constitutional mechanisms including ‘constitutio principis’ and ‘lex regia’, which shaped modern understandings of sovereign authority.[14]
Roman legal codification represents one of antiquity’s most significant contributions to modern law. The Twelve Tables established principles of written law, while Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis (533-534 CE) synthesised centuries of Roman legal development.[15] The Corpus Juris Civilis preserved fundamental legal concepts, including Ulpian’s definition of law as “the art of applying what is good and just”.[16] This codification tradition directly influenced modern civil law systems. The division between public and private law, formalized based on Ulpian’s distinctions, remains fundamental for continental legal systems.
‘Roman jus fetiale’ governed public treaties and declarations of war, establishing formal procedures for international relations.[17] These practices influenced Western legal thought on the “law of nations”. ‘Jus fetiale’ constituted a distinctive body of Roman public law governing international relations and the conduct of war. The ‘fetiales’ were priests responsible for administering the laws of war in the Roman Republic, performing both religious and juridical functions.[18] This legal institution, adopted from other nations and integrated into Roman practice, functioned at the international level for approximately eight centuries.[19] The ‘fetiales’ regulated Rome’s external relations through formalised procedures, establishing normative requirements for declaring just wars and concluding treaties. These procedural mechanisms ensured that Roman military and diplomatic actions conformed to established legal standards, embedding rule-of-law principles into interstate conduct through prescribed legal rituals.
Roman legal principles embedded procedural regularity and normative constraints into state conduct. The Roman ‘maxim hominum causa omne jus constitutum est’ (all law is created for the benefit of human beings) reflected a human-centred legal philosophy that gained prominence in contemporary international law, as noted by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Tadić case.[20] This principle represented a fundamental shift from state-sovereignty-oriented approaches toward human-being-oriented legal frameworks. Cicero’s assertion that law ‘jus’ should prevail over force ‘vis’ exemplified Roman commitment to legal ordering in international relations, establishing normative hierarchy between legal authority and coercive power.[21] These principles constrained discretionary state action through legal norms, prefiguring modern rule-of-law concepts.
The rediscovery of Roman legal concepts significantly shaped the post-1945 international order. Leading Roman law scholars displaced by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s reintroduced jus gentium as foundational to modern international law, responding to totalitarian rejection of universalist legal principles.[22] Scholars, including Lauterpacht, Nussbaum, and Radin, linked Roman jus gentium to individualist human rights conceptions, providing intellectual foundations for international legal institutions emphasising effective individual claims beyond state control. This scholarly movement directly influenced the development of human rights doctrines and crimes against humanity concepts in post-war international law. The Roman legal tradition thus contributed substantive principles — universalism, individualism, and procedural justice — that underpin contemporary international rule-of-law frameworks, demonstrating historical continuity between ancient legal institutions and modern international legal order.[23]
Christian morality – human dignity and the just war
Christian morality has been a defining force in shaping Western civilisation for nearly two millennia. From the fall of the Roman Empire to the emergence of modern democratic institutions, Christian ethical principles have profoundly influenced Western legal systems, social structures, cultural values, and intellectual traditions.[24] Understanding this influence is essential for comprehending the moral foundations of contemporary Western society.
The rise of Christianity marked a fundamental shift in Western moral consciousness. Scholars demonstrate how Christianity transformed sexual morality in Late Antiquity by replacing the Roman concept of shame — a social construct enforced through public condemnation — with the theological notion of sin, which emphasized divine judgment and individual accountability before God.[25] This transition introduced the concept of free will into Western moral thought, making all human actions, including sexual behavior, accountable to spiritual rather than merely physical standards. The Christian emphasis on personal moral responsibility and the inherent dignity of every individual, regardless of social status, represented a radical departure from classical Roman ethics.
Christian moral principles profoundly shaped Western institutional development. Scholars argue that biblical teachings created the very soul of Western civilisation by establishing moral frameworks that influenced education, law, governance, and social welfare systems.[26] The Catholic Church specifically contributed to building Western civilisation through its preservation of classical knowledge, establishment of universities, and development of legal and ethical frameworks.[27] Christianity’s commitment to rational theology and faith in reason enabled the development of Western freedom, capitalism, and technological progress.[28] Moreover, the Christian understanding of human freedom and dignity provided the moral foundation for economic initiative and creative innovation that distinguished Western development.[29]
Two concepts warrant deeper exploration here: human dignity as the source of human rights, and the notion of just war.
– Human dignity as the source of human rights
Christianity’s contribution to human rights in Western civilisation centres on human dignity rooted in the belief that all persons are created in the image of God (‘imago Dei’). This theological foundation established the inherent worth and equality of every human being, transcending social status, ethnicity, or gender.
The doctrine of ‘imago Dei’ provided the realist metaphysical foundation for the rights of persons and peoples. This Christian anthropology asserted that human dignity derives not from state authority or social utility but from divine creation, making it inalienable and universal. Early Christian communities articulated this principle when defending their rights and formulating universal norms grounded in belief in a single Creator.[30]
Christianity’s influence extended through medieval canon law and protestant reformation thought into Enlightenment philosophy. Thinkers such as John Locke drew heavily on Christian natural law traditions.[31] Biblical doctrines developed through the English Revolution “laid a permanent foundation upon which these later writers would construct the freedoms that are incorporated into the human rights regime”.[32] The three pillars of modern human rights — human dignity, rule of law, and universality — are “just as easily supported by religious thought as philosophical thought”.[33]
Contemporary scholarship recognises that mid-twentieth-century human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reflect Christian personalist philosophy emphasising human dignity.[34] Christianity shaped not only philosophical foundations but also legal structures that anchor Western legal systems. While secular Enlightenment thought is often credited with human rights development, historical analysis reveals that Christianity provided the essential conceptual architecture — particularly inherent human dignity — upon which modern rights discourse was built.
– Just War tradition
Christianity fundamentally shaped the concept of just war in Western civilisation by providing the theological and philosophical framework that transformed ancient Roman military ethics into a coherent moral doctrine. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) pioneered this synthesis, reconciling Christian pacifist tendencies with the practical necessity of defending the Roman Empire. Augustine established that war could be morally permissible when waged by legitimate authority, for a just cause, and with right intention — principles that became foundational to Western political thought.[35] His integration of Christian theology with Ciceronian philosophy created a distinctively Christian approach to warfare that emphasised moral restraint and divine justice.[36]
Thomas Aquinas further systematised just war doctrine in the thirteenth century, embedding Augustine’s principles within natural law theory and Aristotelian ethics. Aquinas’s threefold criteria — legitimate authority, just cause, and right intention —provided a framework that influenced subsequent European legal traditions and modern international law.[37] This Christian intellectual tradition established that warfare must serve higher moral purposes beyond mere political expediency, introducing concepts of proportionality and discrimination that remain central to contemporary humanitarian law.[38]
The Christian just war tradition thus laid essential foundations for Western civilisation’s approach to armed conflict by insisting that warfare be subject to moral scrutiny and divine law. This theological framework transformed war from a purely political instrument into an ethical problem requiring careful justification, profoundly shaping Western legal, political, and military institutions.[39]
Epstein List and the War on Iran
The Epstein List scandal and the conflict with Iran exemplify the contemporary international system’s deviation from the three foundational principles of Western civilisation: the Greek ideal of ‘Kalokagathos’, the Roman principle of the rule of law, and the Christian morality of human rights and just war. It can be argued that the current international system operates in direct opposition to these principles. Both the Epstein scandal and the war on Iran represent further instances in a series of unethical and immoral actions by the collective West, suggesting that international relations have, for some time, been predicated on raw power, disregarding moral considerations and international legal frameworks. In summary, it appears we have returned to Thucydides’ observation: “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
The Epstein List, which suggests that political elites, particularly in Western nations, exhibit significant moral corruption, and the War on Iran, which demonstrates a blatant disregard for international law by the United States and several Western powers that support the US and Israel (with Spain being a notable exception) both indicate that the current international system is being redefined primarily by the criterion of military power. The implications of this shift will be examined in greater detail in the second part of this paper. For the purposes of this discussion, the most logical conclusion is that the international system will become fragmented.
Conclusion
The current international system, largely shaped by Western values after World War II, is undergoing significant transformation and apparent disintegration. This system was historically grounded in three foundational principles derived from Western civilisation: the Greek ideal of ‘kalokagathos’, the Roman principle of the rule of law, and Christian morality emphasising human dignity and just war. ‘Kalokagathos’ unified moral virtue and aesthetic excellence, promoting a vision of leadership and political legitimacy based on virtue and the common good. Roman legal traditions contributed essential concepts of constitutional order, legal codification, and procedural justice, embedding rule-of-law principles into both domestic and international arenas. Christian morality introduced the concept of inherent human dignity as the basis for universal human rights and developed the just war tradition, which imposes moral constraints on warfare and legitimises war only under strict ethical conditions.
However, recent events such as the Epstein List scandal and the war on Iran suggest a departure from these principles, with raw power and moral corruption increasingly defining international relations. This shift indicates a return to a power-centric system reminiscent of Thucydides’ realist view, undermining moral and legal frameworks that once underpinned global order. Consequently, it is likely that the international system will fragment, moving away from the idealistic post-war order toward a more divided and power-driven world. The implications of this trend warrant further analysis.
References
