Beyond national interest: role of ethics and emotions in world politics
An opinion article argues that international relations cannot be explained only through “national interest” and power; ethics and emotions shape political judgment and public response.
- Realism is an approach that explains state actions mainly through power, interests, and security needs under uncertainty between states.
- “Anarchy” in IR often means no world government enforces rules above states.
- Emotions and moral concerns can shape how leaders read threats and how societies respond during crises, not only military calculations.
- The Non-Aligned Movement promotes sovereign equality and a more just international order, without formally aligning with Cold War power blocs.
What happened: IR debate gets narrowed to power and “national interest”
Background and earlier position: realism and a post–Second World War “default language”
Relevant for GS2: International relations and foreign policy (core concepts and debates), GS3: Global order, liberal internationalism and legitimacy debates. The Hindu opinion article argues that international relations discourse is often limited to “national interest” and power, making foreign policy appear emotionless and morally empty. It claims that emotions and ethics influence how leaders interpret threats and how societies respond to crises, and that moral legitimacy can erode even when military power changes battlefield realities. UPSC relevance lies in GS2–GS3 debates on realism, legitimacy, and global order.