for much of modern history,global security has been understood through the lens of dogmatic realist paradigms,state sovereignty,military power,and zero-sum competition. From the balance-of-power dynamics of the 19th century to Cold War deterrence strategies, the prevailing assumption has been that peace is best achieved through heavy-handed dominance and deterrence, as well as the prevention of parity and delicate strategic equilibrium. But the threats of the 21st century are borderless, interconnected, collective, and increasingly existential in nature – as highlighted by pandemics, climate change, cyberwarfare, space militarisation, and mass disinformation. These threats cannot be contained by tanks or treaties alone, they require a new framework for global security, one that integrates transdisciplinary insights from science, psychology, and systems thinking to understand both the roots of conflict as well as the human psychological and neurochemical underpinnings of peaceful coexistence. I call this approach sustainable global security. It challenges traditional notions of security and helps unlock the human capacity for peace. In particular, it recognises that durable peace is built not only by countering threats, but by nurturing the capacities and conditions that reduce the human impulse toward violence in the first place.

What if the greatest threats to global security no longer came from rival armies or state aggression,but from invisible forces like disinformation or unmet human dignity needs? How do our emotional biases and neurochemical impulses shape the way nations compete,cooperate,or spiral into conflict? Can we build a more peaceful world by rethinking what security truly means – and by reimagining the very nature of power,identity,and trust?

Outgrowing Old Paradigms

classical theories of international relations have made major contributions to our understanding of global order. Realism, still the dominant lens in many security circles, views states as rational actors operating in an anarchic international system where self-help and power maximisation are paramount. It emphasises the security dilemma: efforts by one state to improve its security frequently enough threaten others, creating arms races and cycles of mistrust. Variants such as balance-of-power theory and hegemonic stability theory offer different visions of how stability might be imposed.

Yet realism’s zero-sum logic is poorly suited to today’s world. Transnational threats such as climate breakdown, pandemics, and cyberattacks require cooperation rather than competition. Liberal traditions, such as collective security and institutionalism, offer a more cooperative view. These approaches, enshrined in bodies like the United Nations, posit that peace is achievable when states commit to rules-based systems and resolve disputes through diplomacy. But such institutions have frequently enough proven ineffective or politicised in the face of real-world crises.

Simultaneously occurring, other theoretical models have sought to broaden the field. Human security focuses on individuals rather than states, emphasising freedom from fear and want. Feminist and postcolonial approaches critique dominant paradigms and draw attention to systemic power imbalances, including gendered and racialised dimensions of insecurity. Securitisation theory, developed by the Copenhagen School, shows how threats are constructed through political narratives, and how this framing expands the reach of state power into new domains.Yet even these expanded models tend to lack a strong empirical foundation in human behavior and psychology.

These approaches have undeniably enriched debates on global security by offering influential perspectives and collectively contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the field. Though, a common shortcoming across these theories is their limited engagement with empirical sciences and their reliance on speculative assumptions about human nature and its role in promoting peace and security.

Reframing Global security: The Five Dimensions of Security

My theory of sustainable global security aims to bridge the aforementioned gaps by incorporating transdisciplinary research to better understand the preconditions for security. Adopting a more anticipatory approach, designed to respond more effectively to the accelerating pace of technological innovations and global change, I propose a refined classification of global security consisting of five interdependent dimensions:

1. Human security: Centering the dignity, rights, and well-being of individuals.
2. Environmental security: Protecting the biosphere and the conditions that sustain life.
3. National security: Ensuring the safety and sovereignty of states.
4. Transnational security: Managing border-spanning threats like terrorism and pandemics.
5. Transcultural security: Promoting peaceful coexistence among diverse cultural and civilisational groups.

This framework avoids the definitional sprawl that often plagues expanded security models. Each dimension is clear and interlinked. Most existing theories cover the first four dimensions in some way. What sets this model apart is the fifth: transcultural security. Culture is frequently enough neglected in security studies, yet most of the world’s conflicts today have a cultural dimension. With 89% of current conflicts occurring in countries with low intercultural dialogueand three-quarters of major conflicts having a cultural dimension, fostering peaceful cross-cultural interaction is essential for global security. We must acknowledge that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the active