World political science regards world politics as an integrated whole, aiming to study the evolution of the nature and basic order of world politics. Its research approach is to examine the common factors and forces that shape the world political landscape and world order, as well as trigger their major changes. World political theories attempt to explain the main factors and mechanisms of order transformation from three dimensions: fundamental driving forces, direct driving forces, and operational mechanisms.
The fundamental driving forces of world politics include technological revolutions, struggles for recognition, capital and the world market, etc. These fundamental driving forces give rise to the direct driving forces of world politics—the ebb and flow of world political thoughts and the changes in the landscape of world political forces. The world political landscape shapes the world political order through such operational mechanisms as power coercion, learning and internalization, and political compromise. Eventually, through domestic and international political struggles, diverse concrete forms of basic international order and national institutions come into being.
To promote the research and academic exchanges of world political science, World Politics Research Center of Chenghai Institute of Global Development and Security has launched a series of publications titled World Politics Briefing. The Briefing is intended to present readers with academic masterpieces closely related to the research agenda of world political science, including monographs and papers published by scholars both at home and abroad in recent years. It is issued on a monthly basis, with each issue introducing the main contents of three academic achievements. The Briefing is for academic research purposes only, and the contents of the compiled works do not represent the views of this Center.
Three papers are selected in this issue for studies:
"Ecological Institutionalism in Political Science: A Theoretical Framework for World Politics" by Zhao Kejin. Proposed by Professor Professor Zhao Kejin, Ecological Institutionalism in Political Science is a new theoretical framework for world politics, which aims to answer the fundamental question: How is world order possible? Drawing on the achievements of new institutionalism and introducing the perspective of political ecology, this theory regards institutions and ecosystems as core variables determining political order. It emphasizes that institutions are not arbitrarily shaped by power or ideas, but are deeply constrained by the ecological chain composed of human beings, nature, resources, and technology.
Through two indicators—ecological openness and resource scarcity—ecosystems determine whether a society adopts an individual-based or a collectivist-based institutional type, thereby shaping hierarchical order or rule-based order. Only when institutions maintain a dynamic balance with the ecosystem can political order be most stable and release positive energy for economic and social development.
This paper systematically criticizes three major traditions: realism, liberalism, and reflectivism. Realism reduces order to a balance of power but fails to explain the persistent influence of weak actors. Liberalism views order as an exogenous outcome of international institutions, ignoring the interaction between domestic institutions and power. Reflectivism emphasizes ideas and identity but lacks causal mechanisms and predictive power.
In contrast, ecological institutionalism argues that the root of order differences lies in the combinatorial variation between ecosystems and institutional attributes, and puts forward three laws: Institutional choices depend on ecological openness and resource scarcity; Order forms are jointly shaped by networked power determined by the ecological chain and institutional types; Paths of order change present revolution, reform, or resilient adaptation according to the systemic, structural, or functional changes of ecosystems.
On this basis, the paper interprets the historical cycle of "flourishing ages, declining ages, chaotic ages, and transformative ages" as a process of imbalance and rebalancing in the ecology–institution combination. Empirically, it uses the ecological institutional framework to reinterpret the rise and fall of great powers. Open institutions (Athens, modern Britain, China after reform and opening-up) are more innovative and dynamic due to continuous exchanges of material, energy, and information with the outside world. Closed institutions (Sparta, the Stalinist model) eventually decline due to ecological isolation.
Regional comparisons also show that different ecological chains—such as grassland, dry farming, and marine ecosystems—have nurtured diverse institutions including nomadic tribal alliances, oriental centralization, and commercial republics. Faced with the great changes unseen in a century and Sino‑US strategic competition, the author suggests that the two sides avoid simplistic institutional confrontation. Instead, they should carry out cooperation at the ecological level—such as technological innovation, alleviating human‑land tensions, and reshaping the global industrial chain—to reduce pressure from institutional competition and provide a sustainable ecological foundation for building a community with a shared future for mankind.
"The Future of Control / The Control of the Future: Global (Dis)order and the Weaponisation of Everywhere in 2074" by Mark Lacy. This paper poses a highly challenging question about the future: Will human society and world politics still be able to maintain order based on the logic of modernity by 2074, or will they descend into complete disorder under the dual impact of the climate crisis and technological threats? The core issue of this study centers on the tension between control and disorder. Control refers to the trend in which states and societies continuously strengthen governance and security by relying on technological capabilities. Disorder implies the collapse of ecological catastrophes and political-economic models, depriving future international relations of their existing material and institutional foundations. The analysis in this paper is not only a forecast of the prospects for international security but also an interrogation of the adaptive capacity of the discipline of international relations itself.
The basic argument of the article is that future international politics may follow a dual trajectory. On the one hand, the logic of control will continue to deepen, with states using technological governance to construct a more sophisticated social structure to ensure order and security. This trend can enhance state legitimacy, but at the same time it carries the hidden risks of restricted freedom and social alienation. On the other hand, the material foundations of modernity may collapse amid climate disasters. Rising sea levels, resource scarcity, and ecological collapse could undermine the conditions upon which sovereign states depend, leading to the dismemberment of the global order. In this context, humanity will need to develop a new kind of "liveable politics" that takes survival and sustainability as its core goals and reconstructs political communities. These dual possibilities reveal the profound uncertainty of future world politics.
Overall, this paper offers a profound insight for the study of world politics. The future international order may either maintain stability under the logic of control, or undergo rupture and reconstruction due to ecological and technological crises. This duality implies that policymakers cannot rely on traditional paradigms of international relations, but must adopt innovative actions in forward-looking strategy, technological governance, and global cooperation. Meanwhile, disciplinary research requires interdisciplinary integration, incorporating science fiction literature, futures studies, and critical theory into the academic horizon, so as to retain its explanatory and critical power toward the future world. Only in this way can the discipline of international relations and policy practice secure a sustainable future for humanity in a rapidly changing world.
"War and International Politics" by John J. Mearsheimer. The argument consists of three points: First, politics, whether domestic or international, is by nature a competitive enterprise and can turn deadly. War is a central feature of international politics and shapes how leaders perceive the world and interact among states. Second, it is difficult to erect legal and moral barriers to prevent great powers from waging war, since survival is their primary concern. Third, limited wars tend to escalate into absolute wars. In the nuclear age, should war break out between great powers, it is essential to prevent its escalation to total war and bring it to an end as soon as possible.