All Wars Are Civil: Rethinking International Relations Through the Lens of Shared Humanity

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

“All wars are civil, because all men are brothers.”
— François Fénelon, Dialogues des morts

 

Abstract

The persistence of armed conflict raises fundamental questions about the adequacy of state-centred approaches to international peace and security. This article reconsiders warfare through the philosophical proposition that all wars are ultimately human conflicts. While international law distinguishes between interstate and intrastate armed conflicts, their consequences increasingly transcend national borders. Drawing on realism, constructivism, human security, and collective security, the article examines shared humanity as a normative foundation for international cooperation. Historical and contemporary cases, including Rwanda, Srebrenica, Libya, Ukraine, and Sudan, illustrate the consequences of international inaction, contested intervention, and inadequate civilian protection. The article argues that human security should complement state security and that collective responsibility should strengthen conflict prevention and peacebuilding. It concludes that recognizing shared humanity can contribute to a more inclusive, preventive, and effective approach to international peace and security.

Keywords: international relations; shared humanity; human security; collective security; global governance; United Nations; peacebuilding

Introduction

The proposition that “all wars are civil, because all men are brothers” offers a powerful philosophical challenge to the conventional boundaries of international politics. Although international law distinguishes between interstate and intrastate armed conflicts, the human consequences of warfare rarely remain confined within national borders. Refugee flows, humanitarian crises, economic disruption, terrorism, and regional instability demonstrate the increasingly interconnected character of contemporary conflict.

International relations has traditionally placed the sovereign state at the centre of international security. Realist approaches emphasize power, national interest, sovereignty, and the structural constraints imposed by an anarchic international system (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). Yet the growing recognition of human security, international norms, and collective responsibility suggests that security cannot be understood solely through the protection of states. The United Nations Charter places international peace and security, international cooperation, and respect for human rights among the foundations of international order (United Nations, 1945).

The experiences of Rwanda and Srebrenica demonstrate the devastating consequences of treating mass violence as a localized problem. More recent conflicts in Ukraine and Sudan similarly show how war can generate consequences extending far beyond the immediate battlefield. This article asks whether the idea that all wars are ultimately “civil” can provide a useful conceptual foundation for rethinking international peace, security, and global governance. It argues that shared humanity provides a normative complement to state-centred international relations by connecting human security with collective security, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and more responsive global governance.

From International War to Human Conflict

The distinction between international and non-international armed conflict remains important within international humanitarian law. International armed conflicts generally involve states as opposing parties, while non-international armed conflicts involve sustained hostilities meeting relevant legal criteria between states and organized non-state armed groups, or between such groups (International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], 2024). These classifications determine important legal obligations and the applicable humanitarian framework.

Legal classification, however, does not fully capture the wider political and humanitarian consequences of contemporary warfare. The civil war in Syria, for example, developed into a conflict involving numerous domestic and foreign actors and produced consequences extending across the Middle East and into Europe. Similarly, the war in Ukraine, although fundamentally an interstate conflict involving Russia and Ukraine, has generated wider humanitarian, economic, security, and geopolitical consequences. United Nations reporting continues to document substantial civilian casualties from missile, drone, artillery, and other attacks in Ukraine (United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, 2026).

The war in Sudan provides another illustration from the opposite direction. What began as an internal power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has developed into a massive humanitarian crisis with consequences for neighbouring countries and the wider international community. By 2026, the United Nations reported that nearly 34 million people in Sudan required humanitarian assistance, demonstrating how a conflict within a sovereign state can become a matter of profound international concern (United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 2026).

The proposition that all wars are “civil” should therefore be understood not as a legal classification but as a normative conception of human interconnectedness. It challenges the moral distance created by political borders between those who experience violence and those who observe it elsewhere. If humanity constitutes a broader community, the suffering produced by war cannot simply be regarded as an external event affecting unrelated populations.

This perspective corresponds with the recognition that contemporary security threats are interconnected. The United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) emphasized the interconnected character of contemporary threats and the need for collective responses. War may remain politically localized, but its human consequences can become internationalized. Shared humanity thus provides a conceptual bridge between the legal reality of sovereign states and the transnational reality of human insecurity.

Realism, Constructivism, and Shared Humanity

Realism provides an essential explanation for the persistence of international conflict. Classical and structural realist approaches emphasize power, national interest, survival, and the absence of a supreme authority above states (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). States cannot be certain of the intentions of others and therefore seek capabilities to protect themselves. Security competition consequently remains a persistent feature of international politics.

The Russia-Ukraine war illustrates the continuing importance of this logic. Questions of territorial sovereignty, strategic security, alliance politics, military capability, and great-power rivalry remain central to understanding the conflict. From a realist perspective, the war demonstrates why states continue to regard national security and strategic interests as fundamental.

Yet realism alone cannot fully explain the human and normative dimensions of contemporary conflict. Millions of people affected by war are not simply variables in a balance-of-power calculation. Civilian deaths, displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and disruption of education and health services raise questions concerning the responsibilities of the international community.

Constructivism offers a different understanding. Wendt (1992) argues that international structures are shaped not only by material capabilities but also by ideas, identities, and shared meanings. International relationships are therefore influenced by how states understand themselves and others.

This creates conceptual space for shared humanity. If identities and interests are partly constructed through social interaction, international politics is not necessarily condemned to permanent antagonism. States can develop norms of cooperation, peaceful dispute settlement, mutual restraint, and collective responsibility.

The evolution of international norms following the Second World War provides an important example. The Holocaust and other atrocities contributed to the development of the Genocide Convention, international human-rights law, and institutions of international criminal justice. The subsequent experiences of Rwanda and Srebrenica further demonstrated the consequences of failing to translate these norms into timely action.

Shared humanity does not require the elimination of national identity or sovereignty. Individuals and states can maintain particular identities while recognizing membership in a wider human community. The challenge is to reconcile national interests with broader human interests rather than treating them as inherently incompatible.

Human Security and Collective Security

Human security provides a particularly strong connection between shared humanity and contemporary international security. The Human Development Report 1994 broadened the security agenda beyond territorial integrity and military power by emphasizing the security of people and identifying economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political dimensions of insecurity (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 1994). The Commission on Human Security (2003) subsequently emphasized protecting and empowering individuals and communities.

The experience of Sudan demonstrates why this broader conception matters. The conflict has devastated health services, displaced populations, disrupted education, and intensified food and protection needs. The United Nations reported in 2026 that the crisis had become the world’s largest single humanitarian crisis, with millions requiring assistance (UNFPA, 2026). Such consequences cannot adequately be understood through military security alone.

Rwanda offers an even more compelling historical example. In 1994, more than 800,000 people were killed during the genocide against the Tutsi and other victims over approximately 100 days. The UN had peacekeepers in the country, but the mission was drastically reduced when the crisis intensified, while warnings of impending mass killings were not acted upon effectively (United Nations, 2004). The tragedy demonstrates the consequences of treating civilian protection as secondary to political and institutional constraints.

Collective security provides the institutional complement to human security. The United Nations Charter establishes maintaining international peace and security as a principal purpose of the Organization and provides for collective measures to prevent and remove threats to peace (United Nations, 1945).

The experience of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina further demonstrates the consequences of inadequate collective protection. In July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered after Bosnian Serb forces captured the UN-designated safe area. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia subsequently recognized the killings as genocide (United Nations, 2026). The episode remains one of the clearest examples of the gap that can emerge between international declarations of protection and the capacity or willingness to provide it.

Human security and collective security can therefore be viewed as complementary: human security identifies whom security ultimately seeks to protect, while collective security provides a framework through which states can cooperate to protect peace.

The United Nations and the Challenge of Global Governance

The United Nations represents the principal institutional expression of the aspiration to manage international peace through collective mechanisms. The Charter combines sovereign equality with commitments to peaceful dispute settlement, international cooperation, human rights, and international peace and security (United Nations, 1945).

Yet the UN faces significant structural and political limitations. Great-power rivalry, the Security Council veto, competing national interests, institutional fragmentation, and disagreements concerning sovereignty can obstruct effective collective action. Rwanda and Srebrenica are particularly important because they demonstrate that the existence of an international institution does not automatically guarantee international action.

The subsequent development of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) represents one response to these failures. In the 2005 World Summit Outcome, states affirmed that each state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. They also recognized responsibilities to assist states and to take collective action through the United Nations, consistent with the Charter and international law (United Nations General Assembly, 2005).

Libya in 2011 illustrates both the potential and the controversy surrounding collective responsibility. The Security Council authorized measures to protect civilians during the Libyan crisis, including a no-fly zone under Resolution 1973 (United Nations Security Council, 2011). The intervention helped protect civilians in the immediate context of the conflict, but the subsequent collapse of Libyan state institutions and prolonged instability generated continuing debate about the relationship between civilian protection, regime change, sovereignty, and post-conflict responsibility. Libya therefore demonstrates that protecting populations from immediate violence is only one component of sustainable peace.

The experience reinforces the argument that global governance requires not only authorization to act but also the political will, resources, legitimacy, and long-term commitment necessary to sustain peace after immediate violence has ceased.

Growing interdependence further strengthens this requirement. Keohane and Nye (2012) demonstrate how political, economic, and social relationships increasingly connect states and societies. Contemporary conflicts therefore generate consequences that cannot be addressed solely within national borders.

Toward a Human-Centred Paradigm of Peacebuilding

A human-centred approach to international peace and security should rest on four principles.

First, prevention should take precedence over reaction. Rwanda demonstrates the devastating cost of failing to act upon early warnings. International institutions should therefore strengthen early warning, preventive diplomacy, mediation, dialogue, and peace education before violence becomes entrenched.

Second, human security should complement state security. Protecting borders and institutions remains important, but these objectives should ultimately serve the security and dignity of populations. Sudan illustrates how the formal survival of a state does not guarantee the security of its people.

Third, collective responsibility should replace political indifference. States will continue to pursue national interests, but conflicts in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine demonstrate that severe violence can generate consequences far beyond the territories where it originates.

Fourth, global governance should become more representative and effective. Institutions created under earlier geopolitical conditions must adapt to changing patterns of power and interdependence. UN reform should therefore address legitimacy, representation, accountability, and institutional capacity alongside efficiency.

Peacebuilding must also extend beyond ending armed hostilities. Sustainable peace requires transforming relationships and structures that sustain conflict (Lederach, 1997). Rwanda’s post-genocide reconstruction and its subsequent participation in UN peacekeeping demonstrate that societies emerging from devastating conflicts can contribute to international peace efforts. Yet such progress requires sustained national ownership and international support.

Conclusion

The proposition that “all wars are civil, because all men are brothers” provides a powerful normative lens through which to reconsider international relations. It does not erase the legal distinction between interstate and intrastate armed conflicts, nor does it deny the continuing importance of sovereignty, national interest, and state security. Instead, it challenges the assumption that the consequences and responsibilities associated with warfare can remain confined within national boundaries.

Rwanda and Srebrenica demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of international inaction and inadequate civilian protection. Libya illustrates the complexities of collective intervention and the necessity of post-conflict responsibility. Ukraine demonstrates how interstate war can generate wider humanitarian and geopolitical consequences, while Sudan shows how an internal conflict can develop into a humanitarian crisis of international significance.

These experiences reinforce the central proposition that all wars are ultimately human conflicts. Their victims belong to a common humanity, their consequences frequently cross borders, and their prevention increasingly requires collective action. Realism remains essential for understanding power and national interest, but constructivism, human security, and collective security demonstrate that international order can also be shaped by norms, identities, institutions, and shared responsibilities.

The future of international peace and security will therefore depend not only on managing relations among states but also on the international community’s capacity to translate shared humanity into effective institutions, responsible governance, preventive diplomacy, civilian protection, and sustainable peacebuilding. Recognizing humanity as a community of shared interests does not eliminate political differences; it provides a normative basis for managing those differences without resorting to violence.

 

References

Commission on Human Security. (2003). Human security now: Protecting and empowering people. Commission on Human Security.

International Committee of the Red Cross. (2024). How is the term “armed conflict” defined in international humanitarian law? International Committee of the Red Cross.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Longman.

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations.

United Nations. (2004). The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies (S/2004/616). United Nations.

United Nations General Assembly. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome (A/RES/60/1). United Nations.

United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. (2004). A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. United Nations.

United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. (2026). Protection of civilians in armed conflict—June 2026. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations Population Fund. (2026). Three years of conflict in Sudan. United Nations Population Fund.

United Nations Security Council. (2011). Resolution 1973 (2011) (S/RES/1973). United Nations.

United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human development report 1994: New dimensions of human security. Oxford University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764