Introduction
The United Nations was founded with the ambition to end the principle of “might makes right” in international relations. Diplomacy and international law were supposed to replace brute force with collective security and justice. Yet history since 1945 has shown the limits of this vision. From great-power conflicts to regional wars and coercive policies, the Right of the Strong continues to shape the global order.
Eidoism offers a deeper explanation: at the root of global conflict lies the Demand for Recognition (DfR)—the fundamental drive of individuals and nations to be seen, respected, and acknowledged. Laws and institutions cannot erase this drive. When recognition is denied, the strong use their power to assert it, regardless of abstract rules.
This essay explores why the Right of the Strong endures, why the UN has failed to overcome it, and how Eidoism can offer new tools for peaceful coexistence. It then turns to four case studies—U.S. hegemony, the Gaza “Riviera” project, the war in Ukraine, and U.S. bullying tactics—that illustrate how the struggle for recognition drives global politics today.
The Right of the Strong in International Relations
The Right of the Strong is not an accident of history; it is the natural expression of the Demand for Recognition at the collective level. Nations, like individuals, cannot tolerate humiliation. When their recognition is denied—whether in terms of security, dignity, or prestige—they assert themselves by force.
Diplomacy can postpone conflicts, and law can regulate them, but neither can abolish the underlying drive. The UN Security Council itself institutionalizes the Right of the Strong, giving veto power to five nations. This is not equality under law but a hierarchy of recognition formalized into the system.
Just as in daily life, where strong personalities dominate families, businesses, and politics despite rules, so too in world affairs: strength trumps principle when recognition is at stake.
Why the UN Failed
The UN fails not because its staff are incompetent or its charter flawed, but because it attempts the impossible: abolishing the Right of the Strong through abstract rules.
- Veto Paralysis: The strongest powers protect their interests by blocking enforcement against themselves or their allies.
- Selective Application: International law is applied unevenly; the weak are punished, the strong exempt themselves.
- Lack of Enforcement: Without independent power, UN resolutions remain words on paper.
The UN is a stage for recognition struggles, not their solution. It allows the weak to speak, but it cannot prevent the strong from acting when they feel humiliated.
The U.S. Hegemony Problem
The most visible form of global policing has been the Pax Americana. For decades, the United States enforced an order that reflected its own interests, while presenting itself as guarantor of democracy and security.
But U.S. hegemony is dangerous for three reasons:
- Selective Enforcement: The U.S. intervenes where its recognition is threatened (Iraq, Afghanistan), but ignores principles when rivals’ dignity would increase. This exposes the order as self-serving.
- Humiliation of Rivals: Russia, China, Iran, and others experience U.S. dominance not as stability but as humiliation—fuel for DfR-driven resistance.
- Risk of Great-Power Confrontation: As U.S. dominance erodes, rivals demand overdue recognition. If the U.S. refuses to share dignity, conflicts escalate—potentially to direct confrontation.
The danger of U.S. hegemony is not just war in one region, but the destabilization of the entire recognition system. A declining hegemon clinging to superiority is one of the most explosive configurations in history.
Case Study: Gaza “Riviera” and the GREAT Trust
The leaked plan for a U.S.-administered Gaza Riviera project, marketed as the GREAT Trust, exemplifies the Right of the Strong in a modern economic disguise.
- Palestinians would be offered relocation incentives—cash payments, rent subsidies—while their land is converted into high-tech investment zones.
- Land rights would be reduced to digital tokens, redeemable in future “smart cities.”
- Governance would bypass Palestinian sovereignty, transferring control to a U.S.-led trusteeship.
Legally, this violates principles against forced displacement. Morally, it denies Palestinians recognition as agents of their own destiny. The strong impose their vision, justifying it as modernization.
This is raw power cloaked in business language. International law is ignored because Trump and his allies simply do not care: the strong act, the weak must adapt.
Eidoism highlights why such projects guarantee instability: they humiliate rather than recognize. By reducing dignity to tokens, the plan transforms Gaza into a trophy for the powerful, not a homeland for its people. Peace built on humiliation cannot endure.
Case Study: Ukraine and the Right of the Strong
The war in Ukraine illustrates how recognition struggles escalate into violence.
From Russia’s perspective:
- NATO expansion represented humiliation, denying Moscow recognition of its security sphere.
- Ukraine’s westward turn symbolized the loss of Russia’s historic identity.
- To be strong meant to act—inaction would confirm marginalization.
Thus, the invasion was not only about territory, but about protecting recognition. Russia’s message was: We exist, we demand dignity, and we will not accept humiliation.
The outcome is catastrophic:
- International law is paralyzed by Russian veto power.
- Ukraine’s sovereignty is upheld only because Western strength backs it.
- Both sides frame the conflict as existential, making compromise nearly impossible.
Eidoism shows why: when recognition is denied, parties prefer destruction to humiliation. Unless recognition is balanced—for Ukraine as sovereign, for Russia as a great power—the conflict risks endless escalation.
Case Study: Bullying as the Right of the Strong
Bullying is the most visible form of the Right of the Strong. It is the act of forcing compliance through intimidation rather than persuasion. The United States often employs bullying tactics:
- NATO maneuvers in the Baltic Sea: signaling dominance at Russia’s doorstep.
- North Korea: deploying carrier groups and bombers to show overwhelming superiority.
- Iran: crippling sanctions to coerce policy changes.
- Latin America: embargoes and interventions disciplining weaker states into obedience.
For the bullied, this is humiliation. Their DfR is denied, and they resist in whatever way they can: nuclear weapons, alternative alliances, or silent resentment.
Bullying secures compliance in the short run but destabilizes the future. It creates polarizations and fuels the very rivalries it seeks to suppress.
Eidoism’s Corrective: Recognition Architecture
The Right of the Strong cannot be abolished, but it can be redirected. Eidoism proposes:
- Recognition Balancing: Give both strong and weak dignity in forums and rituals. The strong are recognized for restraint; the weak are recognized for sovereignty.
- Prestige Currencies Beyond Force: Compete for status in science, culture, climate leadership, or space exploration.
- Ritualized Rivalry: Channel conflict into games, symbolic competitions, and non-lethal displays of strength.
- Guardianship, Not Domination: Strong nations gain prestige not by humiliating, but by protecting weaker ones.
- Recognition of Limits: Restraint becomes a sign of strength—all you need is less.
Conclusion
From the UN’s paralysis to U.S. hegemony, from Gaza’s Riviera plan to Ukraine’s war, from NATO maneuvers to Iranian sanctions—the pattern is clear: the Right of the Strong rules world politics. Laws and diplomacy provide structure, but when recognition is denied, power overrides principle.
The danger is that humiliation fuels endless cycles of violence. The opportunity lies in rethinking recognition itself. Eidoism insists that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of dignity. Only by creating a global recognition architecture—balancing strength, honoring sovereignty, and offering new avenues of prestige—can humanity move beyond bullying and hegemony toward a sustainable order.
The choice before us is stark: continue the cycle of dominance and rebellion, or reframe recognition so that strength serves dignity rather than destruction.
