An Architecture for Peace, Technology, and Coexistence in the 21st Century

Introduction: From the End of History to the Polycrisis

The first quarter of the 21st century (2001–2025) will be remembered as an era of systematic deconstruction of the post-Cold War international order. The initially optimistic vision of a future brought about by globalization has transformed into the reality of a “polycrisis,” where geopolitical, economic, and technological shocks interact, cascade, and amplify one another. While the Cold War had a clear structure based on ideological East-West confrontation, the international community has been searching for a new order since its end. However, this search has remained inconclusive, and the world has entered a new era of instability.

The central thesis of this report is that the core challenge facing the modern world lies in the widening divergence between a highly integrated global economic system and an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape. The purpose of this report is to propose an integrated architecture to manage this divergence and transition from a framework of disorderly competition to one of “managed coexistence.”

To achieve this goal, this report presents an integrated set of mutually reinforcing “breakthroughs” designed to address the three major fractures in the contemporary international order. Based on a historical analysis from 2001 to 2025, these proposals aim to provide concrete and actionable prescriptions for the complex challenges of our time.

Part 1: The Unraveling Order (2001–2025): Anatomy of a Polycrisis

This section provides an essential historical analysis, tracing the key events and structural shifts that define the contemporary global environment. The objective is to illuminate the causal chain leading from an era of unipolarity to the current state of multipolar confrontation.

1.1 The 9/11 Shock and Unipolar Overstretch (2001–2008)

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks fundamentally transformed the international security landscape. The global focus shifted from interstate conflicts to a struggle against non-state actors—the “War on Terror.” While this event provided a rationale for unilateral American action, it also spurred unprecedented international cooperation on counter-terrorism, leading to the creation of new legal frameworks. The United Nations, for instance, mandated that member states adhere to multilateral counter-terrorism treaties, demonstrating a moment of international solidarity.

However, the response to 9/11, particularly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, significantly drained U.S. military and economic resources. This diverted attention and capital from other pressing global issues, thereby accelerating a relative shift in the global balance of power.

The events of this period created a profound paradox in the international order. In the short term, the common threat of terrorism fostered multilateral cooperation. Yet, the subsequent U.S. strategic response—preventive war and unilateral action—ultimately weakened the very international norms and institutions that the U.S. had long championed. This behavior, coupled with the broader trend of globalization diminishing the status of sovereign states, challenged the structure of international law. The precedent set by the U.S. of selectively applying the “rules-based order” created a normative vacuum that revisionist states like Russia would later exploit to assert their spheres of influence and justify actions outside the existing framework of international law. Thus, the era of the “War on Terror” sowed the seeds of the geopolitical challenges of the 2020s.

1.2 The Financial Crisis and the Rise of Geoeconomics (2008–2016)

The 2008 global financial crisis, originating from the U.S. subprime mortgage problem, cascaded across the world with the collapse of the major investment bank Lehman Brothers. This crisis exposed a catastrophic failure in the Western financial model, severely damaging confidence in its economic leadership. Following the crisis, advanced economies entered a period of long-term stagnation characterized by lower growth rates, suppressed capital investment, and sluggish productivity growth.

In contrast, China achieved a swift recovery through a massive state-led stimulus package, establishing itself as the primary engine of growth in the post-crisis global economy. This event decisively accelerated the shift of the world’s economic center of gravity toward Asia, particularly China. In the course of crisis response, the G20 emerged as the principal forum for global economic governance, reflecting the new multipolar reality. However, the G20 has faced difficulties in transitioning from a crisis-response body to a proactive steering committee, exposing the challenges of consensus-building among diverse economic powers.

The 2008 financial crisis was not merely an economic event but a geopolitical turning point. It undermined the legitimacy of the market fundamentalist model represented by the “Washington Consensus” and lent credibility to state-capitalist models like China’s. This gave rise to a new arena of competition known as “geoeconomics,” where economic instruments such as trade, investment, and currency policy became central tools of state power. Economic interdependence, once seen as a source of peace, transformed into a potential vector for conflict. China began to leverage its increased economic power for strategic ends, expanding its influence through initiatives like the “Belt and Road” and intensifying trade and technology friction with the United States.

1.3 The Return of Hard Power and Systemic Fragmentation (2016–2025)

This era is characterized by the resurgence of great-power competition. The trade friction between the U.S. and China, and in its most acute form, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, are emblematic of this trend. The invasion was a direct challenge to the cornerstones of the post-World War II international order—national sovereignty and the non-use of force—and resulted in unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia. This forced a realignment of global energy and food markets, delivering a significant blow to the world economy.

The concurrent COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst, accelerating this fragmentation. The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains, spurring movements toward “resilience,” “reshoring,” and “friend-shoring”.1 In particular, awareness grew regarding the risks posed by China’s dominant role in critical sectors and the over-reliance on it.2

The events of this period revealed that the global system is operating on two divergent logics. The “operating system” of the global economy remains deeply integrated through supply chains and finance, while the “operating system” of geopolitics is fragmenting into competing blocs. The war in Ukraine is the most violent manifestation of this split, forcing states and corporations to prioritize geopolitical alignment over economic efficiency. If the pandemic demonstrated the “vulnerability” of China-centric supply chains, the Ukraine war proved that economic interdependence could be “weaponized” through sanctions. The combination of these events has prompted a global strategic recalculation, shifting from pure economic rationality to the logic of security and resilience.

1.4 The Digital and Climate Accelerants

Another critical trend defining this quarter-century is the exponential evolution of artificial intelligence (AI). AI has transformed from a niche technology into a general-purpose technology, promising dramatic productivity gains while posing profound challenges to employment, social cohesion, and security.

Simultaneously, the deepening climate crisis has become a top international priority, creating new arenas for both cooperation and conflict. Policies like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) are attempts to prevent “carbon leakage,” but are viewed by other nations as a form of environmental protectionism, becoming a new source of trade disputes.

AI and climate change are not separate issues but are systemic accelerants. AI is reshaping the means of production and power, while climate change is reshaping the physical and economic environment itself. These factors are creating new, non-traditional domains of competition—such as the race for dominance in AI platforms or the setting of standards for green technologies—adding further layers of complexity to the international system.

Part 2: The Three Fractures Eroding Global Stability

This section provides a detailed analysis of the three specific problem areas identified in the user’s query, drawing on the insights from Part 1 and leveraging extensive data.

2.1 The Engine of Imbalance: Economic Asymmetries and Zero-Sum Thinking

The “scramble for a slice of the pie” that the user is concerned about is a symptom of deep-seated structural imbalances among major powers. This analysis dissects the divergent economic models of the key players.

• United States: A consumption-driven economy reliant on the dollar’s status as the primary reserve currency, running persistent trade and current account deficits.
• China: An investment- and export-led model driven by state-led industrial policy, a managed exchange rate system, and a central role in global manufacturing, generating massive trade surpluses.
• EU, UK, Japan: Mature economies facing demographic headwinds and varying degrees of industrial competitiveness challenges, often positioned between the U.S. and Chinese poles. Japan, in particular, has suffered from decades of wage stagnation despite high productivity in certain sectors.

The tool of exchange rates has its limits. This report argues that while currency adjustments are necessary, they are insufficient on their own. Analysis from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) shows that the deepening of global value chains (where imports are intermediate goods for exports) has blunted the impact of exchange rate fluctuations on trade balances.3 Because the Chinese economy is so deeply integrated into global supply chains, a depreciation of the renminbi also raises China’s own production costs, limiting its competitive advantage.

The nature of the competition is not just about price, but about fundamentally different, state-backed economic strategies. Case studies of successful and unsuccessful industrial policies 4, and the ongoing disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), clearly illustrate this point.

The core of the economic fracture is not merely a trade imbalance but a “clash of capitalisms.” A free-market model and a state-capitalist model are operating on the same global stage with fundamentally different rules and objectives. This situation creates systemic friction that cannot be resolved by market mechanisms or simple policy tools alone. Recognizing this divergence and creating a new framework for negotiating its interactions is essential. Disputes over tariffs and subsidies show that this “scramble for the pie” is already a reality. A simple currency realignment like the Plaza Accord is no longer sufficient, as integrated supply chains complicate its effects.3 The real issue is the underlying systemic difference between an economic system that prioritizes short-term shareholder value and consumption (U.S.) and one that prioritizes long-term, state-directed industrial capacity and market share (China). Therefore, solutions must go beyond financial metrics and address the rules of industrial competition itself.

Table 1: Comparative Economic Dashboard of Major Powers (2001–2025)

Note: Data are representative values compiled from public sources including the IMF, World Bank, OECD, EIA, and national statistical agencies. EU data uses Germany as a representative example.

2.2 The Pariah’s Dilemma: Confronting and Reintegrating Revisionist States

This section analyzes Russia as a case study. The current sanctions regime imposed on Russia is the most comprehensive ever applied to a major economy.

• Impact on Russia: The sanctions have deprived Russia of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and blocked access to critical technologies. However, the Russian economy has shown resilience through import substitution, oil exports via a “shadow fleet,” and trade diversion to non-sanctioning countries like China and India.
• Global Impact: The sanctions have caused severe disruptions in global energy, food, and fertilizer markets, with a disproportionate impact on developing countries.

To formulate an effective strategy for this challenge, we analyze historical precedents.

• South Africa: The end of apartheid demonstrates that sustained international pressure combined with internal dynamics can bring about political change, followed by a swift reintegration into the global economy. The key here was the existence of a clear political end-state (democracy) that offered a path to normalization.
• Iran (JCPOA): The nuclear deal is a prime example of a performance-based model, directly linking verifiable actions to sanctions relief. Even partial sanctions relief provided significant economic benefits, proving the power of incentives. At the same time, the deal’s fragility offers lessons on the importance of political commitment.
• The Reconstruction Challenge: The scale of destruction in Ukraine is immense, with reconstruction costs estimated to exceed $524 billion. The debate over whether to use frozen Russian assets to fund this reconstruction will be a central issue in any future settlement, directly linking Russian accountability to Ukraine’s recovery.

The current strategy toward Russia lacks a clear end-state. Indefinite sanctions risk permanently cementing a hostile Eurasian bloc (Russia-China-Iran) and accelerating the fragmentation of the global financial system. A successful strategy must shift from mere punishment to “coercive diplomacy,” using sanctions as leverage to achieve a clear political settlement. This requires a clear, credible, and internationally supported “off-ramp” that links verifiable changes in Russian behavior to a phased process of normalization. The current situation, where sanctions are effective but not decisive, creates a dangerous stalemate. The South African case suggests that sanctions work best as leverage for a political transition. The Iran nuclear deal provides a model for a “transactional” approach, trading verifiable steps for concrete rewards. Applying this logic to Russia means moving from the current binary state of “all sanctions or no sanctions” to a phased, conditional framework. This is the only way to maintain pressure while ensuring accountability for Ukraine and creating incentives for change within Russia.

2.3 The Governance Vacuum: Taming the Technological Double-Edged Sword

This section analyzes the user’s proposed dual system of technology governance.

• The Open-Source Commons: Open-source software (OSS) is a critical global public good, forming the foundation of nearly all modern technology from cloud computing to AI, with an estimated demand-side economic value of $8.8 trillion. However, this commons is threatened by underinvestment in maintenance and security, creating systemic risks. The Log4Shell vulnerability is a prime example of how a flaw in one obscure, volunteer-maintained component can endanger the entire global digital infrastructure.
• The Closed-Source Shield: Simultaneously, the sophistication and transnational nature of cybercrime—from ransomware gangs to state-sponsored hackers—outstrips the capabilities of individual national law enforcement agencies. International cooperation through bodies like INTERPOL and Europol is essential but is often hampered by differing legal systems and delays in information sharing. An expert, technologically superior global organization is needed to effectively counter these cross-border threats.

The core challenge here is how to create a centralized, powerful, and accountable body to police the abuses that arise from the open-source world, while preserving its innovative, decentralized, and permissionless nature. This mirrors the classic political philosophy problem of balancing liberty and security in the digital age.

The current approach to digital governance is dangerously fragmented. We are attempting to regulate a global, instantaneous digital world with 20th-century, national legal frameworks. The user’s proposal correctly identifies the need for a new, two-tiered global architecture: one layer that acts as a “steward” for the productive digital commons (OSS), and another that acts as an “enforcer” against the destructive forces that exploit it. These two functions are symbiotic. Innovation can only flourish if the commons is secure. OSS creates immense value but faces the risk of a “tragedy of the commons.” This requires a stewardship model, with public-private funding for critical infrastructure. Cybercrime, on the other hand, is a global, organized threat that demands an organized, powerful response. A global cyber police force needs to maintain a technological edge over adversaries, which means proprietary, closed-source tools. The two proposals are two sides of the same coin: one nurtures the good, the other suppresses the bad, creating a balanced digital ecosystem.

Part 3: A Blueprint for a New Era: Proposed Breakthroughs

This core section presents concrete prescriptions derived from the preceding analysis, directly answering the user’s query with detailed, actionable proposals rooted in the foregoing analysis.

3.1 Proposal 1: The Global Economic Stability Accord (GESA)—A 21st-Century Framework for Managed Coexistence

• Concept: A new multilateral framework, envisioned to operate under the G20, designed to manage the structural competition between different economic models and prevent destabilizing imbalances. This is not a return to a fixed system like Bretton Woods, nor a simple repeat of the Plaza Accord, but a dynamic system for policy coordination.
• Key Components:

1. Expanded Surveillance Basket: Monitoring a broader set of indicators beyond just trade balances and exchange rates. This would include current account surpluses/deficits as a percentage of GDP, domestic savings and investment rates, levels of industrial subsidies (drawing on WTO reform proposals), dependency on critical mineral supply chains, and the carbon intensity of exports (linking to mechanisms like CBAM).
2. Transparency and Peer Review: Member states commit to transparent reporting on these metrics, subject to peer review by a joint technical body of the G20, IMF, and WTO. This would address the current opacity of subsidy policies.
3. Coordinated Adjustment Mechanism: When metrics cross pre-agreed thresholds, a structured dialogue is triggered, obligating members to negotiate a package of policy adjustments. This could include coordinated currency interventions, phase-outs of specific subsidies, joint investment in supply chain diversification, and linking trade preferences to climate commitments.

• Rationale: GESA recognizes that global economic stability can no longer be an accidental byproduct of uncoordinated national policies. It creates a formal process to manage interdependence and prevent “beggar-thy-neighbor” policies that lead to trade wars and instability.

Table 2: Framework of the Global Economic Stability Accord (GESA)

3.2 Proposal 2: A Performance-Based Roadmap for Russia’s Reintegration

• Concept: A formal, multi-stage roadmap to break the current sanctions stalemate. It creates a conditional path for Russia’s normalization by linking specific, verifiable Russian actions to reciprocal actions by the international community. This maintains maximum pressure while providing a clear “off-ramp.”
• Key Components:

1. Establishment of the Ukraine Reconstruction and Reparations Authority (URRA): An internationally supervised body, co-chaired by Ukraine, the G7, and a neutral state (e.g., Switzerland), to manage all reconstruction funds. Its initial funding would come from the profits generated by frozen Russian sovereign assets, as is already beginning to happen.
2. Phased Sanctions Relief: A detailed roadmap linking Russian actions to the unfreezing of assets and lifting of sanctions. This would be transactional and reversible.
3. Security Architecture: In the final phase, negotiations for a new European security treaty, including limitations on force deployments and new verification mechanisms, to address the root causes of the conflict.

• Rationale: This proposal shifts the dynamic from punishment to resolution. It learns from the conditional, performance-based approaches of the JCPOA and post-apartheid South Africa by making Russia’s reintegration contingent on its contribution to solving the problem it created (the rebuilding of Ukraine).

Table 3: Roadmap for Russia’s Reintegration

3.3 Proposal 3: The Digital Commons and Global Cybersecurity Shield Initiative

• Concept: A two-tiered governance model to manage global technology, responding to the user’s call to separate general/commercial and security technologies.
• Tier 1: The Digital Commons Foundation (DCF)

• Mission: To act as a global steward for critical open-source software and digital infrastructure.
• Structure: A public-private consortium funded by national governments (contributing based on GDP) and major technology corporations.
• Functions: Funding professional, full-time maintenance and security audits for critical OSS projects; setting standards for secure software development; providing a neutral forum for resolving disputes over OSS governance.
• Rationale: This institutionalizes the protection of a vital global public good, mitigating the risk of a “tragedy of the commons” and ensuring the stability of the digital economy upon which all nations depend.

• Tier 2: The World Cybercrime Agency (WCA) – “The Shield”

• Mission: To proactively investigate, disrupt, and dismantle transnational cybercrime networks (ransomware, financial fraud, terrorist financing).
• Structure: An operational body acting under an expanded INTERPOL mandate, staffed by elite cybersecurity experts seconded from member states.
• Capabilities: Possesses its own proprietary, closed-source intelligence analysis platform leveraging AI and data fusion. This technology would be jointly developed but kept under strict international control to prevent proliferation and ensure accountability. The WCA would have coordinated authority to seize illicit digital assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies) across borders.
• Rationale: This creates a global “enforcer” with the technological superiority and legal authority to pursue criminals across borders, overcoming the limitations of individual national agencies. The closed-source nature of its tools is essential to maintain an operational advantage over adversaries.

Conclusion: From Unconstrained Competition to Managed Coexistence

The synthesis of this report’s analysis and proposals leads to a single conclusion: the era of globalization guided by an “invisible hand” is over. The defining challenge of the next quarter-century is to build an architecture for a world of persistent, open competition.

The three proposed initiatives—GESA, the roadmap for Russia’s reintegration, and the digital governance initiative—are not presented as standalone solutions, but as three core, interlocking pillars of a new, more resilient international system.

This report concludes with a sense of realistic optimism. A return to a unipolar order is impossible, and a harmonious global consensus is unlikely. However, a stable future based on managed coexistence, clear rules of engagement, and robust cooperation on shared existential threats is both necessary and achievable.

引用文献

1. Supply Chain Disruptions, Trade Costs, and Labor Markets – San …, 9月 27, 2025にアクセス、 https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2023/01/supply-chain-disruptions-trade-costs-and-labor-markets/
2. China’s Role in Supply-Chain Strategies | MSCI, 9月 27, 2025にアクセス、 https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/blog-post/china-role-in-supply-chain-strategies
3. The trade balance and the real exchange rate – BIS Quarterly …, 9月 27, 2025にアクセス、 https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1109e.pdf
4. Country Case Studies (Part II) – Industrial Policy for the United States, 9月 27, 2025にアクセス、 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/industrial-policy-for-the-united-states/country-case-studies/84D7065CEDE486DCB4E035B5397DF5D9