No study in this set jointly models the mechanisms

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the future work of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 2 journals.

Supporting evidence — 8 representative gaps

• An Analysis of the Global Debate on COVID-19 Vaccine Intellectual Property Waivers: A Complex Geopolitical Analysis (2026) · Journal of Social Science and Humanities · doi

  (Kim, 2019). Critical geopolitics views geopolitics as not static but as something reproduced and interpreted over time. Consequently, from this critical geopolitical perspective, technical matters are deliberated within the context of national security. For example, in the early 1990s, during the United States-Japan competition, Japan’s fusion of civilian-military technology, such as missile semiconductors and silent submarine technologies, posed a substantial military and security menace. Given the direct link between high-tech development and national security, gaining a technological competitive edge has also resulted in economic and security hegemony (Yeon et al., 2020). A change in relative status begets alterations that empower not only challengers but also dominant nations to tactically leverage trade policies, inducing clashes between policies and systems implemented differently across countries. This should be comprehended within a non-geopolitical framework that centers on interdependent order. The nongeopolitical standpoint aligns with the liberal discourse that underscores ‘interdependence’ and global governance stemming from the flow of capital, information, and data across territorial boundaries. Strategic trade policies emerged during the U. S.-Japan rivalry in the 1980s and 1990s, and in today’s U. S.-China trade landscape, initiatives like “China Manufacture 2025” have brought about shifts in the U. S. system and policy. Ultimately, a shift in relative status would solidify the ties between nations and necessitate a network strategy to garner international support and establish universal standards. Kim (2019) explored the realm of space, where the rapid growth of computers, information infrastructure, the Internet, and social media during the 1990s established itself as a global political arena. Consequently, this engenders networks, alliances, and solidarity. Such attributes come into play when alliances expand into the technology domain, striving to forge a novel order. In general, pioneering sectors like the 5G mobile communication sphere are recognized as traditional domains that extend into cyberspace to formulate a fresh order. For instance, U. S. influence has burgeoned based on The debate surrounding the security implications of IPR has persisted throughout the U. S.-China trade war. President Biden has reaffirmed his commitment to counter cyberattacks and coerced technology transfer by the Chinese government. Since the outset of his presidency, the U. S. has maintained its position of vigilance against China. Responding to years of unjust trade practices, including IP theft, China’s pursuit of IP dominance triggered the imposition of tariffs by the U.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: security trade china geopolitical japan technology policies order critical geopolitics consequently within national military relative
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  infrastructures, debt regimes, and resource governance structures do not simply regulate cooperation among states; they also shape patterns of inequality and geopolitical asymmetry within the international order. From this perspective, contemporary warfare cannot be understood solely as the consequence of isolated military aggression or strategic rivalry among sovereign states. Armed conflict frequently emerges within broader institutional environments characterized by structural inequality, economic dependency, geopolitical exclusion, and competition over strategic resources. Modern wars are increasingly connected to struggles involving energy security, technological sovereignty, financial influence, digital infrastructures, global supply chains, and transnational systems of power. Critical approaches to security and political economy have further emphasized that violence often operates not only through direct military confrontation but also through institutional structures that systematically reproduce insecurity, marginalization, and unequal vulnerability (Galtung, 1969; Duffield, 2001; Mbembe, 2003). Contemporary forms of warfare therefore reflect broader tensions embedded within the organization of global political and economic systems. This article develops a structural account of war grounded in political philosophy, global justice theory, critical social analysis, and international political economy. It argues that war should not be understood merely as the result of individual moral failure, state aggression, or geopolitical rivalry. Rather, armed conflict must also be interpreted as a phenomenon shaped by institutional inequality and structural injustice embedded within the contemporary global order. The article proceeds in several stages. First, it outlines the methodological framework guiding the analysis. Second, it examines the relationship between war, political authority, and institutional power. Third, it analyzes the political economy of war and the role of structural inequality in shaping geopolitical instability. Fourth, it evaluates contemporary debates concerning individual moral responsibility in war. Fifth, it connects these ethical discussions to broader theories of global justice and institutional inequality. Sixth, it addresses several critiques and limitations of the structural account developed throughout the article. Finally, the article considers the implications of this framework for peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and global governance in the twenty-first century. Ultimately, the article argues that understanding contemporary warfare requires moving beyond narrow military or state-centered explanations toward a broader interdisciplinary framework capable of integrating ethics, political economy, institutional analysis, and global justice theory.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: global political institutional inequality contemporary structural article geopolitical within conflict broader economy warfare military armed
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  Fourth, the study adopts an interdisciplinary analytical orientation. Contemporary warfare increasingly involves interconnected forms of military, technological, economic, informational, and institutional power. As a result, no single disciplinary framework is sufficient for explaining the complexity of modern armed conflict. The article therefore integrates insights from political philosophy, ethics, international relations, global justice theory, and critical social analysis in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of war as a structural phenomenon. Importantly, this article does not claim that structural inequality functions as a deterministic or universal cause of war. Armed conflict remains a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by historical experiences, ideological tensions, political leadership, cultural dynamics, regional conditions, and strategic calculations. The structural approach developed here instead argues that institutional inequalities and asymmetrical distributions of power create conditions that intensify geopolitical competition, political instability, and social vulnerability within the global order. This methodological orientation also reflects an important distinction between direct causation and structural conditioning. The article does not argue that institutional inequality automatically produces violence. Rather, structural conditions shape the environments within which political actors operate, influencing the range of available choices, strategic pressures, and geopolitical tensions that may contribute to conflict escalation. Structural injustice therefore functions not as a singular causal mechanism, but as part of a broader institutional context shaping contemporary political violence. The methodological goal of the article is therefore explanatory, interpretive, and critical rather than predictive. The study seeks to demonstrate that prevailing approaches to war remain incomplete if they fail to account for the institutional structures and global inequalities that shape geopolitical relations in the contemporary world. By integrating conceptual analysis, normative inquiry, critical institutional interpretation, and interdisciplinary social theory, the article develops a framework capable of connecting debates concerning war ethics with broader discussions of global justice, political economy, and structural inequality. Ultimately, the methodological approach adopted in this article supports the broader argument that war should be understood not merely as an episodic military event or a consequence of isolated moral decisions, but as a phenomenon deeply connected to the institutional organization of the contemporary global order. 3.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: institutional political structural article contemporary global social power conflict theory critical order phenomenon inequality conditions
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  power increasingly operates through interconnected networks involving international organizations, financial systems, technological infrastructures, trade regimes, and security alliances (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2023). These institutional structures significantly influence how political authority is exercised. Access to global markets, technological resources, strategic supply chains, and international financial systems affects the capacity of states to maintain economic stability and geopolitical influence. Consequently, contemporary warfare cannot be adequately understood solely through military strategy or national security concerns. Armed conflict increasingly reflects tensions embedded within broader institutional arrangements of global governance and political economy. Critical scholars in security studies and political economy have increasingly emphasized the structural dimensions of contemporary warfare. Duffield (2001) argues that globalization has transformed the relationship between development, security, and political violence. According to this perspective, modern conflicts are often connected to broader systems of global governance that regulate populations through overlapping mechanisms of security, humanitarian intervention, and economic control. Similarly, Kaldor (2012) contends that contemporary “new wars” differ from traditional interstate warfare because they emerge within contexts shaped by globalization, fragmented sovereignty, transnational networks, and asymmetrical forms of violence. The institutional character of modern warfare is also closely connected to broader structures of inequality and geopolitical asymmetry. Harvey (2003) argues that global capitalism generates uneven distributions of economic and political power that contribute to geopolitical instability. Contemporary political authority is therefore deeply intertwined with processes of economic accumulation, resource competition, and institutional domination. States do not simply compete militarily; they also compete for technological superiority, financial influence, energy security, and strategic positioning within global economic systems. Mbembe’s (2003) concept of necropolitics further expands this discussion by examining how political authority increasingly operates through the management of life, death, and insecurity. From this perspective, contemporary forms of warfare are closely linked to systems of exclusion, vulnerability, and institutionalized violence embedded within global structures of power. Armed conflict becomes not merely a military phenomenon, but also a mechanism through which political authority regulates populations and maintains geopolitical hierarchies. This broader structural perspective is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary geopolitical tensions.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: political security global contemporary systems economic geopolitical warfare increasingly technological institutional authority within broader power
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  international order, warfare increasingly reflects tensions embedded within systems of global political economy characterized by inequality, interdependence, technological competition, and institutional asymmetry. Economic globalization has transformed the nature of political power and international conflict. Contemporary states are deeply interconnected through trade systems, financial institutions, technological infrastructures, energy networks, transportation corridors, and global supply chains. These forms of interdependence have expanded economic integration across national borders, yet they have not produced equal distributions of power or opportunity. Instead, globalization has frequently reinforced structural disparities between economically dominant states and politically vulnerable societies (Fraser, 2009). One of the most significant dimensions of the political economy of war is the unequal distribution of economic and technological capacity among states. Economically powerful societies generally possess greater access to advanced technologies, financial infrastructures, strategic resources, and global institutional influence. By contrast, economically marginalized states often remain dependent upon external markets, debt structures, foreign investment systems, technological imports, and resource extraction economies. These asymmetries influence not only patterns of economic development but also forms of geopolitical vulnerability and institutional insecurity. The relationship between political economy, property relations, and conflict has long occupied an important position within critical social theory. Critical approaches increasingly argue that legal and economic institutions are not politically neutral arrangements, but mechanisms shaping distributions of power, exclusion, and geopolitical vulnerability within the global order (Quoc & Y, 2026). Marx (1976) argued that political struggles are deeply connected to systems of economic power and material organization. Contemporary political economy scholars have further emphasized that global capitalism generates uneven forms of accumulation, dependency, and geopolitical competition (Harvey, 2003; Piketty, 2020). From this perspective, warfare cannot be understood solely as a strategic or military phenomenon; it is also shaped by institutional struggles over economic influence, resource control, and geopolitical positioning within the global order. Competition over strategic resources has become particularly significant in the twenty-first century. Access to energy reserves, rare earth minerals, digital infrastructures, trade routes, semiconductor technologies, and global communication systems increasingly shapes international relations and geopolitical rivalry.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: global economic systems political within geopolitical economy technological institutional power states international order increasingly competition
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  Mbembe’s (2003) concept of necropolitics further expands this discussion by emphasizing how contemporary political authority increasingly operates through the management of insecurity, vulnerability, and exposure to harm. In contexts of geopolitical competition, populations may become subject to forms of economic insecurity, infrastructural instability, technological exclusion, and institutional marginalization shaped by broader systems of global power. Contemporary warfare therefore involves not only direct military violence but also institutional arrangements that regulate access to security, mobility, resources, and political recognition. Similarly, Galtung’s (1969) concept of structural violence remains highly relevant for understanding the relationship between inequality and conflict. Violence may operate not only through direct physical coercion but also through institutional systems that systematically reproduce deprivation, exclusion, and unequal life conditions. Structural inequalities embedded within global political and economic systems may therefore contribute indirectly to the conditions under which geopolitical tensions intensify and armed conflict becomes more likely. Importantly, the structural perspective developed in this article does not claim that economic inequality automatically or mechanically causes war. Armed conflict remains a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by historical experiences, ideological struggles, political leadership, strategic calculations, cultural dynamics, and regional conditions. However, structural inequalities function as critical background conditions that intensify geopolitical competition, institutional fragility, and political insecurity within the contemporary international order. This distinction is essential for avoiding simplistic forms of economic determinism. Contemporary warfare cannot be reduced solely to struggles over material resources or capitalist competition. Military conflicts are shaped by complex interactions among nationalism, political ideology, technological transformation, institutional legitimacy, and geopolitical strategy. Nevertheless, these dimensions increasingly operate within broader systems of global political economy characterized by unequal distributions of power and institutional influence. The structural account developed here also has important implications for understanding contemporary peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Traditional approaches frequently emphasize military deterrence, diplomatic negotiation, or humanitarian intervention after violence has already emerged. While such mechanisms remain important, they may prove insufficient if broader structural inequalities and institutional asymmetries remain unchanged.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: institutional political structural contemporary violence geopolitical economic systems military conflict conditions insecurity competition shaped broader
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  This article therefore argues for a more integrated understanding of war ethics. Questions concerning individual moral responsibility should be connected to broader analyses of political authority, global inequality, institutional power, and structural injustice. Such an approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of why armed conflicts continue to emerge within the contemporary international system. Understanding war through this broader framework also has important implications for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. If political violence is connected to institutional inequalities and structural asymmetries, then reducing warfare requires more than regulating military behavior or enforcing international humanitarian law. Sustainable peace also depends upon addressing the structural conditions that generate political instability, economic marginalization, geopolitical vulnerability, and institutional exclusion. In this respect, war ethics and global justice should not be treated as separate areas of inquiry. The moral evaluation of violence is closely connected to the institutional organization of the global political economy and the distribution of power within the international order. A comprehensive social science approach to war therefore requires integrating ethical analysis with critical examination of the structural environments that shape political conflict. The following section further develops this argument by examining how global justice theory and institutional inequality contribute to understanding the persistence of war within the contemporary global order. 6. Global Justice, Structural Inequality, and the Persistence of War Debates concerning global justice have become increasingly important for understanding the structural dimensions of contemporary armed conflict. In a highly interconnected international system, political violence cannot be separated from the institutional arrangements that shape global distributions of power, economic opportunity, technological capacity, and geopolitical influence. The persistence of war in the modern world is therefore closely related not only to military competition or strategic rivalry among states, but also to broader systems of structural inequality embedded within the global political economy. Contemporary theories of global justice differ significantly in how they interpret the moral significance of international inequality. One influential perspective emphasizes the continued importance of state sovereignty and national political autonomy. From this viewpoint, principles of distributive justice apply primarily within domestic political communities rather than across the global system. International institutions are therefore understood mainly as frameworks for cooperation among sovereign states rather than mechanisms for achieving global equality.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: global political structural institutional international justice understanding inequality within contemporary moral connected broader power system
• War, Structural Injustice, and Global Political Economy: Rethinking Armed Conflict through a Social Justice Perspective (2026) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · doi

  Pogge’s (2008) theory of global institutional injustice is particularly significant for the argument developed in this article. According to Pogge, international economic structures actively contribute to the persistence of poverty, dependency, and unequal development across societies. Trade systems, financial arrangements, and global governance institutions do not merely regulate cooperation among states; they also shape the distribution of opportunities, resources, and political influence within the international order. Structural inequality therefore becomes embedded within the institutional architecture of globalization itself. From the perspective developed in this article, these structural inequalities are closely connected to the persistence of war. Economic marginalization, unequal access to resources, institutional exclusion, and geopolitical dependency may intensify tensions that increase the likelihood of violent conflict. Societies experiencing long-term structural disadvantage often face weakened institutional legitimacy, social fragmentation, economic instability, and political vulnerability. Under such conditions, armed conflict becomes more likely not simply because of individual political decisions, but because structural environments generate instability and geopolitical competition. This relationship between structural inequality and conflict is particularly visible in contemporary geopolitical tensions surrounding energy security, technological sovereignty, trade dependency, digital infrastructures, and strategic supply chains. Competition over critical resources and institutional influence increasingly shapes relations among states within the global economy. Military conflict is therefore often connected to broader struggles concerning economic positioning and geopolitical influence within international systems of power. Critical social theorists have further emphasized that structural violence may persist even in the absence of direct military confrontation. Galtung (1969) argues that institutional systems can systematically reproduce deprivation, exclusion, and unequal life conditions across populations. From this perspective, violence should not be understood solely as direct physical harm but also as the outcome of structural arrangements that limit human flourishing and reinforce social vulnerability. Structural inequalities embedded within global political and economic systems may therefore contribute indirectly to the conditions under which armed conflict emerges. Similarly, Young’s (2011) theory of structural injustice emphasizes that responsibility for harmful social conditions cannot always be reduced to isolated individual actions. Institutional systems themselves may generate patterns of exclusion and vulnerability that contribute to broader forms of political instability and social conflict.

  generalfuture workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: structural institutional conflict economic systems political within social global geopolitical conditions international contribute dependency unequal

Questions about this gap