Trends in recent global peacefulness can be summed up in one concerning phrase: ‘structural deterioration’.
For the 13th consecutive year, the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Global Peace Index (GPI) shows a decline in the average global peacefulness. 97 of the 163 countries or territories ranked are now less peaceful than they were in 2008, when the Index started. While small improvements are recorded in perceptions of societal safety and security, the GPI found that the factors that precede major conflicts rank even higher than they did following the second world war.
The GPI identifies internationalised conflict, geopolitical fragmentation, economic tensions and overstretched conflict-management structures as major factors pointing to further degradation of peace. Despite recent gains in peace-making – such as the tenuous ceasefire in Gaza – the broader vision of a peaceful world remains dim. Limited engagement in mediation and peacebuilding, as well as a trend toward extended ceasefires rather than lasting peace agreements, point to a future of escalation.
How the GPI quantifies peace
To track changes in peacefulness over a year, the GPI scores countries’ activities across three domains:
- Ongoing conflicts, both domestic and international;
- Degrees of militarisation and associated activities; and
- Societal safety and security.
Within these domains, 23 peace/conflict indicators track more nuanced changes. Indicators range from ‘external conflicts fought’ to ‘perceptions of criminality’, allowing the GPI to consider a wide range of threats to peace and allowing it to link activities in relatively peaceful countries to outcomes that undermine peacefulness on a global scale.
Though the militarisation domain saw improvement, several key indicators in this domain, such as weapons imports and exports, deteriorated significantly.
For example, when peaceful countries like Norway and the United Kingdom export weapons and increase defence spending, their militarisation score deteriorates. It is a significant fact that eight of the ten largest weapons exporters are democracies in the most peaceful regions globally, such as Western and Central Europe. This year’s report records that 108 countries have become more militarised, leading to heightened tensions and fewer stabilising influences.
GPI 2025: All trends point to a more violent world
With the final tally of the scores, trends point to a world where conflict is more ubiquitous and peace is more fragile. Improvements were recorded in 74 countries, but deteriorations were recorded in 87. The average level of peacefulness deteriorated by 0.36% across countries.
Average peacefulness was most impacted by the ongoing conflict domain, which has deteriorated significantly over the period of 2008 to 2025. Deteriorations present most significantly in the key indicators of conflict deaths, number of conflicts, and intensity of internal conflicts.
Trends in conflict deaths
The number of conflict deaths have most recently been driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Isreal’s war in Gaza, which make up 63% of all deaths from internal conflict in 2024. While the total number of conflict deaths is lower for 2024 than 2023, a greater number of countries have reported conflict deaths.
Earlier this year, protestors in Rotterdam laid out nearly 16,000 shoes to draw attention to the number of children killed in Gaza.
The internationalisation of conflicts
The number of external conflicts fought is also rising. This indicator has deteriorated year on year since 2008, reflecting the internationalisation of conflicts, as more countries go to war with each other or get involved in conflicts outside their own borders in support of other states.
Regionally, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) show the most prominent deterioration in the external conflicts indicator. At time of publication, the Index listed 98 countries involved in external conflict in the last five years, compared to 59 in 2008. 76 countries in the Index are dealing with explicit threats of violence from other countries, up from 58 in the same 2008-2025 period.
“The GPI shows that conflict is more intense, involves more actors, and is less likely to reach decisive resolutions, either by victory or negotiated settlement – all factors that add to the risk of recurrence.”
More military spending; less spending on peace-enhancing activities
The militarisation indicators of weapons imports, weapons exports, and military expenditure as a percentage of GDP have all deteriorated since 2022, reversing improvements made since 2008. The most significant improvement in the weapons export indicator occurred in Russia, but only as a result of their invasion of Ukraine, where loss of matériel has necessitated production for their own use.
This is a significant indicator because increased militarisation and military spending happen at the state level, such as with the ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030. This means that states commit a greater percentage of their GDP to militarisation, often at the cost of peace-enhancing activities, such as education, health, and business. The redirection of state investment away from social structures undermines social and state stability, which in turn increases the likelihood of fragmentation, unrest, and tension.
In response to geopolitical shifts and marked increases in aggression, bodies like the European Union are stepping up their military spending.
The GPI argues that militarisation is likely to deteriorate further as a result of geopolitical fragmentation, which increases instability, leads to more security threats from internal and external sources and results in further militarisation. For example, the United States’ continued push for NATO allies to commit greater percentages of their GDP to defence has already resulted in the EU diverting funds away from peace-enhancing activities.
Economic friction and the rise of middle powers
Economic interdependence has also become a greater source of geopolitical tension in recent months, as tariffs, trade wars and protectionist policies aimed at security-critical industries increase friction between economies. Trade wars between China and America, sanctions against Russia, and the weakening of multilateral institutions contribute to greater fragmentation and the loss of tools and capacities to resolve disputes or limit unilateralism.
As the result of both the US and China reaching the limits of their influence in other countries, a greater number of middle powers have entered the competition for geopolitical influence since 2011. Middle powers are made up of lower- and middle-income countries vying for a greater stake in world affairs.
Competition is focused in West Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, where middle-power countries leverage multilateralism, diplomacy, and coalitions to serve niche functions. These countries gain influence by acting as intermediaries cooperating either directly with the US or China, or functioning as neutral parties in negotiations and disputes.
This fragmentation of traditional world power has increased economic tensions and intensified conflicts, while making them more difficult to resolve. With more actors and interests, alignment and agreement become harder to secure, especially in the wake of escalating crises of faith in multilateral institutions.
Contributing to peace
If the structures that manage conflict are overstretched by geopolitical and trade fragmentation, NGOs, INGOs and private organisations have a role to play in buttressing forms of peace that can still be achieved. By working together to increase negative peace (an absence of violence and the fear of violence) as well as positive peace (building attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies), the world can push trends back toward the peaceful gains made before 2008.
For this to happen, resources must flow away from activities that undermine peacefulness and toward building resilient institutions that are more responsive to societies’ needs.
Investing in peace-building activities, such as summits, Sustainable Development Goals and building projects, can help push the world toward a more peaceful future.
Providing security and risk management to parties that aim to manage conflict is one avenue to fill the gaps left by the broader global political community. Another is to support material conditions of society, such as building and maintaining infrastructure, advancing education, increasing health and promoting fair and sustainable business. Bolstering institutions and building capacity in these sectors provides a stabilising force against escalating factors that could lead to increased conflict.
At the Chelsea Group, we’re ready to partner with governments, INGOs, NGOs and multilateral organisations to contribute to peace and build stronger and more resilient institutions. From providing clean water solutions to security and risk management, to smart people solutions, integrated life-support systems and leadership development – we can see a future where collaboration and partnership help us build a better world.