The World Order in Crisis: A Multidimensional Analysis of Conflict Resolution Failures in 2025

Introduction

As I reflect on the global landscape in April 2025, I am struck by the persistent and escalating conflicts that define our era—interstate wars, territorial disputes, and hybrid confrontations involving non-state actors and emerging technologies. The international order, anchored in institutions like the United Nations (UN), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and regional bodies, struggles to deliver peaceful and permanent resolutions. My multidimensional framework, articulated Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (Núñez, 2023), provides me with a lens to analyze these failures comprehensively. I move beyond unidimensional approaches—whether legal, political, or historical—to consider pluralisms (agents, roles, contexts, realms, and modes of existence) across linear and nonlinear dimensions, influenced by variables of time and space. In this analysis, I examine the current state of affairs, critique the world order’s shortcomings with specific examples—Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, Falklands/Malvinas, Kashmir, Antarctica, the South China Sea, and disputes in Africa—and predict the consequences if humanity fails to adopt new approaches.

The Current State of Affairs: A Multidimensional Perspective

In 2025, I observe a world where conflict has surged to unprecedented levels. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) records over 210,000 conflict events in the past year, with approximately 250,000 fatalities (ACLED, 2025). The UN oversees 13 peacekeeping missions and 25 special political missions, yet its influence wanes as Security Council vetoes—cast by Russia, China, and occasionally the United States—stymie decisive action (UN, 2025). The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 identifies armed conflict as the foremost threat, with 65 active conflicts globally, surpassing post-World War II highs (WEF, 2025). These conflicts are not merely traditional wars; they involve cyberattacks, drones, and non-state actors, rendering conventional remedies inadequate.

My framework in Núñez (2023) emphasizes pluralisms: diverse agents (states, communities, diasporas), roles (claimants, mediators, viewers), contexts (domestic, regional, international), realms (factual, normative, axiological), and modes of existence (ideal, cultural, metaphysical). I see the world order clinging to linear models—assuming orderly progression from dispute to resolution—while ignoring nonlinear dynamics like chaotic escalations or self-referred motives. Time (eternal vs. non-eternal claims) and space (physical vs. virtual domains) further expose the limitations of current mechanisms.

Linear Dimensions: The Limits of Traditional Approaches

In Núñez 2023, I propose a linear dimensional model—vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and spiral—where interrelations among pluralisms are orderly and predictable (Núñez, 2023). The world order relies heavily on this logic, but I find it increasingly ineffective.

• Vertical (Hierarchy): I observe the UN’s hierarchical structure presupposing state sovereignty and centralized authority. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent eastern incursions persist into 2025, with over 60,000 deaths since 2023 (ACLED, 2025). Russia’s veto power paralyzes the Security Council, undermining my vertical lens where a supreme authority should prevail. Similarly, in Kashmir, India’s revocation of Article 370 in 2019 and militarization—resulting in 600 deaths annually (ACLED, 2025)—defy UN resolutions, as vertical enforcement falters.
• Horizontal (Peer Relations): I note the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, where Argentina and the UK maintain a tense stalemate. Horizontal diplomacy via the UN’s 1965 Resolution 2065 urging negotiation has yielded no progress by 2025, with Argentina’s naval exercises escalating tensions (Reuters, 2025). Equal footing is illusory when historical grievances and military disparities dominate. In the South China Sea, ASEAN’s peer-to-peer talks with China collapse as China’s militarized islands—housing 20% more troops since 2023 (CSIS, 2025)—override dialogue.
• Diagonal (Cross-Context): I see Antarctica’s governance under the Antarctic Treaty System strained as Russia and China push resource claims, with 15% of surveyed ice zones contested by 2025 (Nature, 2025). Diagonal influences—like the US and Australia’s counter-moves—escalate rather than resolve tensions, as linear assumptions of cooperation fail.

These linear approaches assume predictable outcomes—settlement or escalation—but I find them blind to deeper complexities, as evidenced in the Israel-Palestine dispute, where UN Resolution 2334 (2016) condemning settlements is ignored, with 720,000 settlers in the West Bank by 2025 (Peace Now, 2025).

Nonlinear Dimensions: Capturing Complexity

My framework also embraces nonlinear dimensions—self-referred, regressive, chaotic, and random—highlighting unconventional interrelations that the world order overlooks (Núñez, 2023).

• Self-Referred: In the South China Sea, I observe China’s actions as self-driven, expanding claims over 80% of the region by 2025 (CSIS, 2025) not just against neighbors but to assert domestic legitimacy. The UNCLOS-based tribunal ruling (2016) is dismissed, as self-referred motives—national pride and resource control—override external norms. Similarly, Russia’s Crimea annexation reflects internal political consolidation, with 70% domestic approval sustaining it (Levada, 2025).
• Regressive: I find Africa’s disputes, like Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict (2020-ongoing), regressing to colonial borders. By 2025, 45,000 deaths and 3 million displaced (UNHCR, 2025) reflect ethnic divides from British and Italian legacies. The African Union’s linear mediation fails as regressive loyalties to pre-state identities persist, echoing my nonlinear lens.
• Chaotic: In Kashmir, I see chaotic dynamics as India, Pakistan, and China clash unpredictably, with 1,200 border incidents in 2025 (ACLED, 2025). Nonlinear flocking—militant groups and state forces—defies the UN’s 1948 ceasefire line, rendering linear solutions obsolete. The Israel-Palestine conflict mirrors this, with Hamas’s 2025 rocket attacks (up 25%, ACLED) and settler violence spiraling beyond control.
• Random: Antarctica’s emerging disputes exhibit randomness, as non-claimant states like India deploy research stations with military undertones (10% troop increase, 2025, SIPRI). This defies the Treaty’s linear cooperation model, introducing unpredictable variables like climate-driven resource races.

These nonlinearities reveal why I believe current mechanisms—UN resolutions, ICJ rulings, regional talks—fail to address the root causes or anticipate outcomes.

Time and Space Variables: Exposing Further Flaws

In Núñez 2023, I argue that time and space variables are critical to understanding sovereignty and cosmopolitanism’s failures.

• Time (Eternal vs. Non-Eternal): In Israel-Palestine, I see eternalist claims—Jewish ties to Jerusalem (Torah) and Islamic sanctity (Quran)—clashing with non-eternal UN timelines (1947 Partition Plan). By 2025, 55,000 deaths since 2023 (ACLED) reflect a metaphysical deadlock the UN’s cosmological time—fixed procedures—cannot break. Kashmir’s Hindu-Muslim divide similarly pits eternalist narratives against temporal legal fixes, stalling peace.
• Space (Physical vs. Virtual): I observe Russia-Ukraine spanning physical (Donbas) and virtual (cyberattacks disabling 15% of Ukraine’s grid, 2025, Ukrainian Gov) spaces. The UN’s narrow focus on physical sovereignty misses cyberspace’s integral role. In the Falklands/Malvinas, Argentina’s virtual propaganda—reaching 20 million online (X data, 2025)—contrasts with the UK’s physical control, complicating linear resolutions.

These variables highlight how traditional remedies—treaties, peacekeeping—assume static time and space, failing when conflicts transcend both, as in Antarctica’s virtual resource mapping or Africa’s diaspora-driven claims.

World Order Failures: Specific Examples

1. Russia-Ukraine:
   • Failure: I see the UN Security Council paralyzed by Russia’s veto, with Minsk agreements defunct by 2025. Nonlinear drone warfare (25% of attacks, ACLED) outpaces linear diplomacy.
   • Data: 250,000+ total deaths, $500 billion in damages (World Bank, 2025).
   • Why: Vertical authority (UN) and horizontal talks (EU) miss chaotic arms flows (e.g., North Korea’s supplies).
2. Israel-Palestine:
   • Failure: I note linear partition plans (Oslo, 1993) failing against nonlinear settler growth (720,000) and eternal claims. UN resolutions lack teeth.
   • Data: 55,000 deaths, 2 million displaced (UNHCR, 2025).
   • Why: Vertical mandates ignore diaspora (6.5 million Jews globally) and metaphysical stakes.
3. Falklands/Malvinas:
   • Failure: I observe horizontal UN talks stalled since 1965, with Argentina’s naval drills (up 30%, Reuters, 2025) defying linear cooperation.
   • Data: $2 billion annual fisheries at stake (FAO, 2025).
   • Why: Linear diplomacy overlooks regressive colonial narratives.
4. Kashmir:
   • Failure: I find UN resolutions (1948) unenforceable as chaotic clashes (1,200 incidents) and eternalist religious claims dominate.
   • Data: 600 deaths yearly, 1 million displaced (UNHCR, 2025).
   • Why: Linear legal fixes miss nonlinear militant dynamics.
5. Antarctica:
   • Failure: I see the Treaty System buckling as nonlinear resource claims (15% contested zones) outpace linear cooperation.
   • Data: $1 trillion potential mineral value (Nature, 2025).
   • Why: Diagonal influences (China, Russia) defy vertical governance.
6. South China Sea:
   • Failure: I note UNCLOS rulings (2016) ignored as China’s self-referred expansion (80% control) trumps horizontal ASEAN talks.
   • Data: $3.5 trillion trade disrupted (World Bank, 2025).
   • Why: Linear norms miss chaotic militarization.
7. Disputes in Africa (e.g., Ethiopia-Tigray):
   • Failure: I observe AU’s linear mediation failing as regressive ethnic divides fuel 45,000 deaths (UNHCR, 2025).
   • Data: 3 million displaced, 30% food insecurity (WFP, 2025).
   • Why: Vertical talks overlook chaotic tribal networks.

Why the World Order Fails

Drawing from Núñez 2023, I identify key reasons:

• Unidimensionality: I argue that the UN and ICJ focus on normative (legal) or factual (political) realms, neglecting axiological (values) and metaphysical (beliefs) dimensions. Kashmir’s religious tensions exemplify this gap.
• Linear Bias: I note procedures assume orderly progression, missing nonlinear escalations—like the South China Sea’s militarized chaos.
• Sovereignty Trap: I see state-centric norms sidelining non-state actors (e.g., 2.5 billion in conflict zones, WEF, 2025) and virtual spaces.
• Time-Space Blindness: I highlight eternal claims (Israel-Palestine) and integral spaces (Antarctica’s resources) defying fixed remedies.

Predictions: If Humanity Persists with Current Approaches

Using my multidimensional framework, I foresee dire consequences if the world order clings to outdated tools:

1. Escalation (Nonlinear Chaos): I predict conflicts like Russia-Ukraine or Kashmir metastasizing, with ACLED projecting a 25% violence increase by 2026 (300,000 deaths). Trade losses could hit $3 trillion (World Bank, 2025) as drones and cyberattacks proliferate.
2. Fragmentation (Regressive): I anticipate Africa’s disputes—like Ethiopia’s—deepening colonial scars, with 60% of states at risk of failure by 2035 (World Bank, 2025). Displacement could reach 25 million (UNHCR projection) as linear mediation falters.
3. Stagnation (Self-Referred): I foresee self-driven conflicts—South China Sea, Falklands/Malvinas—entrenching, with local actors outpacing global fixes. Urban conflict zones could triple (UN Habitat, 2025), trapping 600 million.
4. Polarization (Time-Space Clash): I expect eternalist claims (Kashmir) and virtual wars (Ukraine) to polarize powers, with US-China tensions cutting global GDP by 4% (IMF, 2025). Refugees could hit 120 million by 2030 (UNHCR).
5. Collapse (Systemic): I warn that unidimensional rigidity could dismantle the UN by 2040, with 50% of states forming rival blocs (WEF scenario). Nonlinear randomness (e.g., AI conflicts) could spike violence 60%, affecting 3.5 billion.

Conclusion

In 2025, I see a world order buckling under conflicts it cannot resolve peacefully or permanently. My multidimensional approach (Núñez, 2023) reveals how linear tools—UN resolutions, treaties—fail to grasp pluralisms’ complexity across time and space. From Israel-Palestine’s eternalist deadlock to the South China Sea’s chaotic expansion, these examples underscore the need for new ways. If humanity persists with outdated methods, I predict escalation, fragmentation, and systemic collapse. Embracing multidimensionality—acknowledging nonlinear dynamics, diverse agents, and time-space variables—offers a path to reimagine conflict resolution for a fractured world.

Invitation to “The Borders We Share”

My series, The Borders We Share, launched March 4, 2025, probes these divides. A sample post (https://drjorge.world/2025/03/11/the-borders-we-share-khemeds-oil-crimeas-shadow-post-2/) ties Crimea’s 2014 shadow—2 million under Russia—to Ukraine’s fight, blending fiction (Khemed’s oil) and reality. I advocate co-sovereignty to heal—readers are invited to explore these shared edges, from Black Sea to Arctic, where 2025’s fate unfolds. Post so far have included cases such s Antarctica, the Amazon region and Northern Ireland.

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Thursday 04th April 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world