Opinion piece calls for a new term — 'pernicious states'
An Al Jazeera opinion article argues that international relations vocabulary lacks a term for powerful states whose actions cause global harm. The author points to an asymmetry in terminology that labels weak states but not strong ones.
Al Jazeera has published an opinion article raising a question about a gap in the vocabulary of international relations. The piece's central argument is straightforward: the language of world politics has long included terms for weak or collapsed states, but no equivalent term exists for powerful states whose conduct causes widespread harm to the international system.
An asymmetry in terminology
The author notes that concepts describing incapable or dysfunctional states are widely used and well established in both policy and academic language. They allow observers to identify and describe situations where a state fails to perform its basic functions. However, according to the author, there is no equivalent concept for the opposite case — when powerful, influential international actors cause instability or harm elsewhere in the world through their own actions.
A proposal for new vocabulary
The author proposes expanding the language of international relations with a term that would more precisely capture such powerful states. The idea is to create a conceptual framework that would allow equally critical assessment of both weak and strong states when their actions produce negative consequences on a broader scale.
The piece is published as an opinion article, and the views expressed reflect the author's personal perspective rather than an official editorial position of Al Jazeera. No specific examples or countries are named in the article — the emphasis is on a theoretical proposal to reconsider the vocabulary used in international relations as a whole.
