In an increasingly interconnected and globalised world, nations frequently face the dilemma of prioritising national interest over global responsibility. National interest is a guide toward achieving a state’s goals. It relates to a realist view in international relations, where security becomes the primary goal. It is the protection of physical, political and cultural identity against the encroachment by another nation-state.
Global Responsibility in terms of international law is the duty to respond in case of violation of laws. It focuses on the need for international cooperation, with the nation-states trying to follow a set of responsibilities that has been set up in the world by either oral values or some shared values. It refers to the obligation of nations and individuals to contribute positively to global welfare, peace, and stability. This concept signifies a shift in mindset from an individualistic perspective to a collective one (from “I” to “We”), emphasising the interconnectedness and interdependence in the global community. National interest and global responsibility are interlinked and must be approached with a strategy that maintains international order.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS
The concept of national interest gained prominence in the time of post-cold war era, with the USA and Russia emerging as the dominant global powers. Globalisation strengthens some states while exposing the vulnerability of others. This subsequently exacerbated the gap between strong and weak nations, with weaker nations struggling to preserve their internal security and maintain stability while avoiding external pressures that may destabilise the global order. In this strategic context, it is important for the nations to balance both internal stability and international engagements to ensure national security.
Discussing the importance of national interest in contemporary foreign policy requires a deep understanding of contemporary international affairs. Even one of the most developed countries in the world, the United Kingdom, has been questioned for its foreign policy decisions, especially those pertaining to Libya, Mali, and the Middle East. According to critics, the government’s actions do not align with the country’s national interest but rather reflect larger geopolitical pressures.[1] This shows how national interest, which was once a clear idea, is now being questioned and is under attack in an age of global interconnectedness.
Weldes contends that national interest is a vital survival tool for states in the international political system.[2] However, in the present globalised world, no state can operate in isolation. As the significance of international cooperation grows, states must establish ties with international organisations, institutions and other nations in order to successfully navigate complex issues effectively. As global dynamics evolve, states must continuously adapt new policies and modify their national interests in order to suit global needs.
CASE STUDIES
USA’s Shift from ‘America First’ to ‘Multilateralism’: The United States of America has historically played a dual role of advocating liberal democratic values while at the same time prioritising its own national interest. It was quite evident during Trump’s ‘America First policy’ in which he prioritised national interest by withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing economic burdens on the country and exiting the World Health Organisation (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic by accusing it of bias against China.[3]
Along with this, he also initiated a trade war with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports and renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)[4] into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA),[5] ensuring better trade deals for the United States over Canada and Mexico.
If one compares this with Biden’s decisions to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement[6] and NATO, along with promoting vaccine diplomacy by donating millions of COVID-19 shots, it remains a potent question to ponder whether Biden’s return to multilateralism is sustainable, given economic constraints within the US. The answer does not follow a straight-jacket principle. But a detailed analysis and informed decision-making. As every coin has two sides, so does every decision have two or more repercussions, and when it comes to geopolitics, it would not be an exaggeration to say that it has many repercussions.
India’s Dilemma: Climate Commitment Along with Economic Growth: India, a country with a burgeoning population of 1.4 billion and millions living below the poverty line, is the third largest carbon emitter.[7] Now, the dilemma in policymaking arises between prioritising economic development and global climate responsibility.
“Energy generated from coal accounted for about 77.01 per cent of the total generation…”[8] While the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative aims to industrialise and thus promote domestic manufacturing, it, in turn, increases emissions. At this juncture, India is also targeted to be Carbon Neutral by 2070, along with launching the landmark initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and National Hydrogen Mission, among others.[9]
Now, the question that arises before India is whether it should eradicate poverty before transitioning to a greener economy. This again needs a balanced approach. While there is an urgent need to curb environmental emissions, at the cost of poverty?[10] The answer lies in sustainable development and collaborative global efforts. A famous saying, “Charity begins at home”, underlines the philosophy that national interest starts with ensuring domestic well-being before extending outward.
WAY FORWARD: HOW CAN THE BALANCE BE MAINTAINED?
Policy Synchronisation Between Domestic and Global Agendas: The government must frame policies that align national interests with global responsibilities. As an example, economic policies should ensure domestic stability while promoting fair trade and cooperation in international markets. Similarly, environmental policies should address both national energy needs and international climate commitments.
Strengthening Regional Alliances: Countries can better balance national interests with global responsibilities by engaging in regional partnerships such as ASEAN, the European Union, and the African Union. These organisations provide a platform for economic cooperation, security collaboration, and crisis management, ensuring that nations do not have to face global challenges in isolation.
Adaptive Economic and Security Strategies: Economic policies should be flexible enough to adjust to global economic shifts without compromising domestic priorities. Likewise, security policies should balance national defence with international peacekeeping efforts, ensuring that military actions do not unnecessarily escalate regional tensions.
Multilateralism with Sovereign Safeguards: Engaging in multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO, and WHO is crucial for addressing global concerns. However, participation should come with safeguards that protect national sovereignty and prevent disproportionate external influence on domestic affairs.
Investment in Sustainable Development: Long-term national prosperity is linked to global stability. Investing in renewable energy, technological advancements, and healthcare ensures that countries contribute to global welfare while securing their own future needs. Germany’s renewable energy policies, for instance, have improved national energy security while fulfilling global climate goals.
Ethical and Pragmatic Diplomacy: Diplomatic efforts should be based on ethical considerations and pragmatic interests. Countries should engage in humanitarian initiatives when feasible while ensuring that such actions do not compromise national security or economic stability.
Strategic Multilateralism: Instead of complete isolation or uncritical global engagement, nations should strategically participate in global frameworks that align with their national interests. For instance, India’s participation in climate agreements while ensuring its economic growth highlights a balanced approach.
Looking ahead, a critical question remains: Will nations continue to prioritise national interest, or will global responsibility take precedence? Current geopolitical trends indicate that a selective approach will dominate global politics. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict exemplifies how national interest often takes precedence, with countries making strategic decisions based on security and economic concerns. While national interest will likely remain a dominant force, global issues such as climate change, cybersecurity threats, and public health crises will push states toward cooperative frameworks. The future will demand that nations craft policies that align short-term national stability with long-term global sustainability. Ultimately, the world is moving toward an era where national interests cannot exist in isolation from global challenges.
In addressing geopolitical challenges, states should embrace strategic diplomacy—engaging in regional and global organisations to ensure security without compromising sovereignty. The principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) serves as a model for balancing humanitarian intervention with respect for national sovereignty. Furthermore, advancing technological cooperation in fields like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and healthcare can create frameworks where national security aligns with global progress. Developing nations, in particular, need support mechanisms such as debt relief programmes and sustainable development projects to ensure they do not have to choose between national stability and global commitments.
CONCLUSION
In an era of globalisation, absolute prioritisation of national interest at the expense of global responsibility is neither feasible nor sustainable. States must recognise that addressing transnational challenges ultimately aligns with their long-term interests. A balanced approach that integrates national priorities with global cooperation is the most viable path forward for ensuring both security and prosperity. Drawing from research by Bhattacharya and Dermawan, the evolving nature of international relations necessitates a dynamic approach to balancing national and global concerns.
Author(s) Name: Divyansh Joshi (Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus)
References:
[1] Stephen M Walt, The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2018)
[2] Jutta Weldes, ‘Constructing National Interests’ (1996) 2(3) European Journal of International Relations 275.
[3] ‘U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Process and Potential Effects’ (Library of Congress, 14 April 2025) <https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48504> accessed 26 December 2025
[4] North American Free Trade Agreement 1994
[5] United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement 2020
[6] Paris Agreement 2016
[7] Abhishek Waghmare, ‘The World Bank’s Estimates of Poverty in India’ (Data For India, 19 December 2025) <https://www.dataforindia.com/world-bank-poverty/> accessed 26 December 2025
[8] Aarushi Koundal, ‘India Still Heavily Dependent on Coal, Takes 77 Per Cent Share in Total Energy Generation in FY23, Says MoSPI’ The Economic Times (20 February 2024) <https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/india-still-heavily-dependent-on-coal-takes-77-per-cent-share-in-total-energy-generation-in-fy23-says-mospi/108644839> accessed 26 December 2025
[9] ‘India Shines Bright! A New Era in Solar Energy: Progress Driven by the International Solar Alliance’ (Press Information Bureau, 7 November 2024) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2071486> accessed 26 December 2025
[10] Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva, ‘What are the Policy Trade-offs between Climate Action and Poverty Reduction?’ (World Economic Forum, 19 July 2023) <https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/07/policy-tradeoffs-climate-action-poverty-reduction/> accessed 26 December 2025
