This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of National Security and Strategy

Acknowledgement

For Imogen and Erin, my elegant additions to the material world. 
Someone clever once said “to write is to bleed.” 
Can confirm.

Summary

Classical theories of international relations (IR) inadequately address the intricacies of modern state-based behaviour, falling short in their attempt to explain and extrapolate possible outcomes due to their linearity, reliance on rigid frameworks, overemphasis on material power, and difficulties in adapting to complex, evolving scenarios.

A quantum statecraft narrative incorporates quantum principles for understanding and communicating IR, demonstrating better relevance to modern statecraft in-praxis. It emphasises the complexity, interconnected nature, and the potential for multiple simultaneous states in IR, and global statecraft’s probabilistic nature

Beginning with a review of available literature, this thesis considers the novel potential of a quantum statecraft narrative to offer a potent alternative to classical IR theories. It delivers a compelling analysis of quantum statecraft narrative’s utility before closing with a consideration of its value for the contemporary statecraft practitioner.

This quantum statecraft narrative offers a timely evaluation that incorporates material and ideational dimensions of quantum for IR. This new perspective, prosecuted via a ‘beginner-appropriate’ crash course in quantum lexicon aims to motivate and foster innovative problem-solving in the social sciences by encouraging creative thinking to transcend traditional barriers in IR.

Introduction

International Relations (IR) has a problem. In the high stakes of modern statecraft, where convolution and counterintuition are regular challenges, classical IR theories fall short in capturing the full complexity of our interconnected world. We have an international environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA).^[1] It is a complex adaptive system,^[2] where the factors that drive this state-of-affairs are not new: globalisation, the dissolution of a unipolar world, re-emergence of great power competition, and numerous regional conflicts. Powerful non-state and information actors benefit from nation-state boundaries where convenient, and companies such as Black-Rock or Microsoft function within, across, and beyond those same borders to garner global influence and wealth.

The current era is affected by five major factors relating to technology and its use that increase the IR system’s complexity in ways that are unique, novel, and unexpected. These factors are the immense increase of nodes within the state-system, nodal connectivity, speed of information passage, velocity of decision effects, and the rate of technological change. In short, the world has never been as complex; and disassembling the system using classical IR theory to better understand it, or control it, seemingly leads to chaos.^[3] The combined effect of these issues is that classical IR theory is no longer keeping pace with the challenges it seeks to explain.

IR’s rising VUCA has reduced classical IR theory’s explanatory and predictive effects, and now falls short of contemporary statecraft practitioners’ expectations. This thesis presents a new idea, so-named ‘Quantum Statecraft.’ Its aligned research question has three parts:

1. What is Quantum Statecraft?
2. What is its utility and value?
3. How is Quantum Statecraft best communicated to the statecraft practitioner?

This thesis advocates for adding a quantum philosophy broadly to social science, and specifically within the IR domain. It seeks to unify physical and social quantum ontologies to provide a novel lens to analyse human behaviour and societal issues. As national power dynamics and statecraft blur in our increasingly interconnected world, quantum offers a valuable narrative for Australian policymakers and statecraft practitioners that assists in replacing outdated and exclusive classically Newtonian language too focused on finite gains, adherence to established rules, risk reduction, and guaranteed outcomes.

The quantum statecraft narrative offers a fresh perspective on global interactions. It fosters creativity and responds effectively to the complex demands of modern statecraft.^[4] This approach addresses gaps between academic communities. It also equips statecraft practitioners with necessary contextual knowledge to engage with scientific advancements that will reshape statecraft in the 21^st century.^[5] A shift from Newtonian toward quantum-thinking permits statecraft practitioners to explore more paths and possibilities across strategy development and operational practice. In turn, resilience is inferred by preparing practitioners for rapid change and greater unpredictability in decision-making. This approach encourages creativity and experimentation and explains infinite learning pathways rather than leading people to linear often flawed singular courses of action. Before progressing selected definitions that will assist are listed below:

Key Arguments

The first argument is that a quantum statecraft narrative can ameliorate IR theory’s reduced efficacy caused by the international environment’s growing VUCA. It seeks to deliver three things: Firstly, understanding of the literature already available across this subject including those that support the idea and those critical of this approach. Secondly, it offers how a quantum statecraft narrative can be utilised to leverage, construct and analyse the activities of statecraft in contemporary IR. Finally, it encourages broadening of the IR practitioner’s mindset to the value of quantum statecraft, as with this knowledge, comes enhanced resilience, adaptive capacity and depth, no matter their political, military, social or diplomatic lens through which they practice statecraft.

This thesis will contribute to wider development and progress of statecraft-in-practice by examining the broader research then analysing its utility and value to IR and policy practitioners. Harnessing the principles of quantum theory will support better IR understanding and reshape the understanding of states and their interactions. If, as argued herein, there is room to develop, utilise and value quantum theory for statecraft’s practice, it is prudent to begin with ‘quantum’ as a noun and give it a memorable story.

For most of its linguistic life quantum has meant ‘something with quantity.’ The word passed into physics in 1870, during the era of electricity, although ‘quantum theory’ was delivered into popular use by Max Planck. Albert Einstein followed him to explain measurable bits of energy as ‘quanta.’ The expression ‘quantum leap’ arrived in 1932 and became popular when the nuclear bomb in 1945. The influence of quantum’s nuclear fission and the race to develop the nuclear bombs that ended World War II cannot be underestimated. This impact and its simplified versions saw it spread into popular culture, with Einstein and his ilk becoming the era’s pop-icons. Soon after, the Oxford English Dictionary claims the first use of quantum to describe something really big in 1956, when ‘the enormous multiplication or power was described as a quantum leap^[6] describing the US-Soviet nuclear post-war capacity for destruction.^[7] By 1982, Websters dictionary added ‘any sudden and extensive change or advance, as in a program or policy’ to its definition.^[8] It has been used by Antman,^[9] the television series (Quantum Leap: 1989) and Duracell to tout its modern battery power in 2014.

A quantum statecraft narrative offers new thinking to deliver a powerful understanding with greater congruence with the contemporary international environment. As we lean into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) as the solution for our contemporary statecraft woes, this thesis provides the prospect for IR practitioners and leaders, to see beyond accepted classical IR explanations to explain more fully reality and better predict our future. It offers for the social sciences to reckon with the exclusive cult of STEM and robustly defend the humanities.

Finally, appreciating science does not require genius, it demands character and determination, attributes that statecraft practitioners possess. A little experimentation with this post-modern thesis can enable enhanced understanding, and interdisciplinary opportunities if the practitioner is open to non-linear post-Newtonian ideas that science offers.^[10]

Methodology

The introduction described this thesis’ research question, defined key terms, and outlined core arguments. This methodology highlights the gap between the realities of the modern statecraft, and the explanations offered by classical IR theories that no longer sufficiently explain IR’s complexity. This thesis therefore is exploratory. It aims to reconnoitre the breadth of the humanities philosophical understanding of quantum theory, and to establish the post-modern term ‘quantum statecraft’ as an appropriate nexus that joins classical IR theory with quantum science to enhance the practice of contemporary statecraft.

The new aspect of this study is significant. It explores that quantum thinking in the humanities is not new, and to demonstrate that the use of quantum language, its lexicon and philosophies has value for the practitioners of statecraft, and that quantum statecraft is an excellent start point for those who manage STEM specialists. It also aspires to bridge the worlds of quantum scientific theory, and quantum philosophy, and to analyse the utility and value of this narrative for IR practitioners. This examination investigates the extent to which this initiative delivers a paradigm shift in strategic thinking. It also offers classically trained statecraft practitioners’ preparedness for technological advancement, enhanced communication strategies and decision making. This new framework for complex system modelling supports a necessary engagement with the earlier five factors that describe modern IR’s complexity.

The essay has three chapters:

Literature Review

This chapter portrays the building blocks of quantum physics, and its turn toward the humanities. It explains the importance of scientific history to the subject, before illuminating quantum theory in social science. This initial investigation leads to a discussion of quantum theory in IR, then covers dissenting views. To narrow the paper’s focus, an investigation into a specific consideration of quantum in politics, the military, diplomacy and economics has been set aside. This maintains emphasis on the broader scholarship of quantum for IR and its practical use for wider statecraft.

The Utility of a Quantum Statecraft Narrative

Chapter two examines the utility of a quantum statecraft narrative. It seeks to address the complexities of global IR by using quantum concepts to accommodate the five scale factors of modern statecraft – system volume, nodal connectivity, speed of information delivery, velocity of decision effects and rate of technological change. This thesis argues that narratives derived from quantum theory assist in conceptualising and communicating the complexities of 21^st Century IR. It recognises that IR is rarely linear or predictable. Instead, it acknowledges the intricate entanglement, and often chaotic interactions between states, non-state actors, and information between them, as being analogous to the behaviour of particles and waves in quantum mechanics.

The utility of the quantum statecraft narrative is derived from ten foundational principles that deliver a perspective of state-based interactions and encourages policymakers to be strategically adaptive. It emphasises that actions taken by one state can have far-reaching and non-linear effects on others, reflecting the increasing scaled-up and entangled nature of inter-and intra-state interactions. Quantum statecraft considers the impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing on statecraft, and why a broadly technical knowledge of quantum will significantly benefit generalists (of the humanities), as they adopt leadership positions, and manage STEM in all areas of statecraft in praxis.

Put simply, this essay claims that leaving quantum to STEM specialists alone is a haphazard way to lead one’s nation-state into a quantum age. The technology that will reshape state-interactions and decision-making will be improved vastly by integrating insights from quantum theory to provide a more comprehensive understanding of global affairs than the exhausted state-centric classical Newtonian IR can offer.^[11]

The Value of a Quantum Statecraft Narrative for the Practitioner

This chapter is a synthesis of study’s main arguments to consider the value of a quantum statecraft narrative for the practitioner. It will outline the issues of education and training of quantum statecraft narrative. It will reinforce that a novel quantum statecraft narrative can help address unknowns, rather than assume they are ‘categorically unknowable’ and assist statecraft practitioners to interrogate IR problems through multiple lenses. The convergence envisaged through quantum statecraft narrative between IR and quantum principles, coupled with new technologies and knowledge, can reshape even revolutionise understanding of strategy, diplomacy, warfare, and economics all specialised areas through a deliberate quantum turn.

Summary

This thesis will conclude that a narrative of quantum theory for practicing statecraft will not just deliver more insightful analysts, it will transform how the fabric of IR is perceived. In a world where traditional models are increasingly strained, quantum-inspired thinking could be the competitive edge for navigating the complexities of 21^st-century IR. This paper will now review the growing body of literature that captures scholarly thinking about quantum theory and IR.

Chapter 1 Literature Review

Most dictionaries define quantum simply as ‘an amount’. However, its potential to illuminate the five phenomena, mentioned in the introduction, that have profoundly changed IR in ways that see classical theories struggling, is unique and unexpected. This infuses the term ‘quantum’ with gravitas and relevance. This thesis argues that there is a gap between classical IR theory and the contemporary experience of statecraft practitioners; and that it is possible to provide order from the current IR chaos by offering a narrative aligned with quantum theory that enriches contemporary IR discourse drawing from but without relying on the scientific principles of quantum physics itself.^[13]

To begin the ordering, this chapter reviews literature that examines quantum theory, and its turn to the humanities. Firstly, it addresses the old and new schools of physics and provides an abridged explanation of the importance of scientific history to quantum statecraft for the practitioner, and why this storyline embeds so well with the practitioner.^[14] This review limits its scope to a consideration of quantum social science and IR; while there is literature stemming from the specialised areas of quantum theory in politics, diplomacy, warfare and economics, these require future treatment. Then, to demonstrate the utility and value of a quantum statecraft narrative this chapter will draw contextual similarities with gaming and complexity theory, and multi-methodology texts. Finally, it will examine opposition to quantum’s turn to the humanities.

The Importance of Scientific History to Quantum Statecraft

Short of war, overt aggression in the modern world is frowned upon across all levels of competition. In its place, passive aggression plays out across personal, business, collective group and nation-state competition. In the discourse of human interaction this phenomenon is comparatively new. The subtlety with which competition now occurs has seen a language vacuum emerge as society struggles to articulate this shift. In this vacuum, military language often provides a near enough-good enough solution for the dearth of appropriate diplomatic, political and economic language that can explain scaled up inter-and-intra state competition, and the aligned manoeuvring of statecraft. ^[15]

In his work on the influence that scientific principles have on war, Antoine Bousquet offered four epochs.^[16] First was the 1600’s ‘Newtonian’ worldview as a clockwork mechanism composed of atomistic, fragmented parts governed by deterministic laws, with materialism emerging as the dominant value. This represented the order, regularity and predictability that science sought to uncover in the workings of the universe. Second was the technology of the engine, with 19^th Century became an epoch of unstable thermodynamics. The technically concentrated 20^th Century delivered the epoch of cybernetics and network-centrism, after WWII, that reflected institutionalised bureaucracies and the emergence of computation. ^[17] This was useful until network theory was progressively displaced as notions of predictability and control over systems required combining chaos and complexity for his final epoch of ‘chaoplexity,’ whereby the five factors raised earlier being increase in nodes, connectivity between the nodes, speed of occurrence, velocity of decision effect and the rate of technological change decisively upended everything in favour of non-linearity.^[18]

While this description of Bousquet’s 2022 book was written to describe the technoscientific epochs of warfare, there is an obvious link whereby this thesis introduces a fifth epoch, that of a quantum era, that neatly extends his ideas from a discussion of warfare to one around a globalised IR theory whereby perspective shifts.^[19] While Bousquet’s theory focuses on the battlefield, Schubert et al argues that his reasoning could be extended to all forms of statecraft, including politics, diplomacy and economics.^[20] Harding,^[21] Kavalski^[22] and Akrivoulis think similarly.^[23] Further, McIntosh describes the entwining of technology and warfare as it extends beyond physical hardware. This idea he clearly describes as quantum entanglement and includes information warfare, where narratives, disinformation campaigns, and propaganda leverage technological platforms to shape public opinion and destabilise adversaries.^[24] The rise of social media as a battlefield for influence and manipulation underscores the transformative impact of technology on all forms of statecraft.

Akrivoulis argues that the alignment of Newtonian thinking with the social sciences, particularly IR, has not kept up pace with the changes in science, and that a quantum turn is necessary to advance theory in IR.^[25] His argument, supported by Rodgers earlier work, that IR’s existing paradigm, heavily influenced by Newtonian science, views organisations as machines operating under predictable and stable laws.^[26] In turn, this perspective fosters a mindset focused on efficiency and risk elimination. Through the statecraft practitioners’ lens, this leads to top-down management styles that prioritises and reward certainty. However, quantum physics emphasises uncertainty’s creative potential. It suggesting that complex systems thrive when allowed to self-organise and engage in dialogue within their own environments, a point that Robinson^[27] and Feyerabend in 1957,^[28] Barad in 2005,^[29] Kessler in 2007^[30] and Armstrong et al in 2019^[31] all support. Barad’s claim is that these systems are most effective at the ‘edge of chaos’, where instability fosters innovation.

Ideas such as Feyerabend’s literary example are not new. John Randall published a particularly instructive book on the Science of Man in 1926 that discussed scientific ideals, and Newtonian and mechanistic thinking.^[32] A selected reading list, available at the end of each chapter is valuable to further study on the subject. It may be, then, as Australian scholar David Chalmers notes, that the Newtonian framework has led to isolationist thinking and unsustainable practices that no longer service the entirety of our social and IR experience.^[33] Despite these significant challenges, many, including Flyvebjerg and Gunnell continue to approach these issues with a business-as-usual mindset.^[34] As the quantum philosopher Danah Zohar surmises ‘this is the only game we know.’^[35]  Noting the one hundred years of discussion that has passed since Randall’s observations in 1926, it is broadly evident to contemporary practitioners that the interplay of 18^th Century science with 21^st Century statecraft is due a fundamental shift in thinking to meet the demands of the 21^st century’s global complexities.

Quantum’s Humanities Turn

Despite the desire of many quantum physicists the broad, and popular culture-based use of the language of science without fully grasping its implications, often leads to its scientifically frustrating tautological use where terms that merely capture changing ideas without deeper understanding are often misused. However, while this frustration, as will be expressed in a later section, invites picking a side, theorists like Hone, in “Metaphor’s for Diplomats,” have proffered well considered ideas around why telling stories is important, and have concluded that science has a significant role in telling them.^[36] Her counterparts Beger and Smith, in their book “How metaphors guide teach and popularise science” also present a sensible counterpoint to the purists, by focusing on how to integrate quantum principles into the practice of IR.^[37] In their journal article on Generalised Quantum Theory, Walach and Stillfried explore how quantum scientific theory can enhance decision making, leadership, and policy development across the practice of statecraft. ^[38] Their research has demonstrated how non-specialists can utilise and value scientific theories.

Akrivoulis wrote in 2002, ‘if we consider how terms like ‘quantum entanglement’ might help us understand the intricate, instantaneous connections between global events, or how ‘superpositions’ could provide a framework for analysing complex diplomatic situations where multiple realities seem to coexist until a decision is made, or ‘uncertainty’ acknowledges the observer’s role in shaping outcomes, and recognises that distant events can be intimately connected’.^[39] Understanding quantum principles then, delivers access to powerful metaphors and analytical tools for the social science theorists. This might prove to be especially important for any IR theorist attempting to tether the many IR theories, as Moon and Blackman describe.^[40]

In 2008, Akrivoulis’ further claimed ‘the potential of a quantum statecraft narrative is boundless’, becomes easier to accept^[41] the more broadly his ideas were considered by others. In 2015, Dellsen expressed IR could be perceived as a field of probabilities and potentials rather than a chessboard of unrelated pieces.^[42] Beyond 2015, Grinbaum follows this idea with a stronger claim of the narrative method’s power, claiming ‘quantum technologists ought to support the provocation of an aesthetic perception in the public commensurable with the mathematical beauty of a quantum as it is experienced by the physicist.’^[43]

One could easily stay within the specific quantum science lane to expand this reading list. A venture by Pothos and Busemeyer,^[44] and Campagne^[45] across the sciences to the realm of mathematical and other psychology provides an irresistible pull toward the concept of human cognition,^[46] and irrationality, the most non-linear of complex ideas. Here, Ori and Rom Brafman consider examples of humanity’s propensity to irrationality, particularly challenging to Newtonian linear thought in IR, in 2008’s book ‘Sway’.^[47] This follows the extensive psychology works of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman,^[48] and his academic partner Amon Tversky,^[49] who adopted a mathematical psychology perspective in their experiments.^[50]

It is important to understand that while Brafman et al do not use quantum theory directly, the narrative of quantum goes a long way in describing the anomalies of individual and collective human nature that are not well supported by IR’s comparatively linear paradigms. These influential paradigms of bounded rationality, and the utility of rational choice that IR’s realism, libertarianism or constructivism deliver, as pointed out in Levy’s and Shleifer’s article’s on Kahneman’s contributions to interdisciplinary studies of decision, judgement and prospect theory.^[51] Rosenberg offered in 2017 that social science is biological science.^[52] If classical and neo-classical IR theories are based on human actor rationality, then more work is required to test these underlying assumptions. The Australian cognitive scientist David Chalmers is a proponent of this quantum turn,^[53] as is Nobel laureate Roger Penrose if only because he offers that classical physics has not yet solved consciousness (an imperative issue for AI development).

Quantum Social Science

Quantum social science is an emerging interdisciplinary field that applies principles of quantum mechanics to understand social phenomena, decision making and human behaviour. Erskine et al contemplates the classical assumptions of social sciences by proposing that intentional phenomena, including psychological facts can be viewed as quantum processes.^[54] This perspective is supported by the notion that cognitive biases, identified by Tversky and Kahneman,^[55] can be better understood through quantum decision theory.^[56] Schubert et al 1983 work on the evolution of biology, physics and psychology established that neither quantum science,and the subsequent humanities-based quantum philosophies pertaining to such, are new. Its main theme aims to bridge the interdisciplinary divide between topics by proposing a novel analytical framework that offers deeper insights into the collective consciousness of international politics.^[57]

A key modern proponent for quantum social science, is Alexander Wendt. His book “Quantum Mind and Social Science” hypothesises that all intentional phenomena, including both psychological and social facts are macroscopic quantum mechanical processes.^[58] Wendt’s views are most challenging. They do, however, highlight the fact that the social sciences, including IR, have not systematically discussed the potential relevance of work conducted during the century old quantum revolution. According to Wendt, that has left social scientists today operating from an implicit and impoverished 19^th Century world view that cannot accommodate important facts about human subjectivity. This position is supported by several others, such as Reyes-Galindo,^[59] Busemeyer et al, who explicitly compare a classical model of human information processing with alternatives that draw on a quantum model.^[60]

Bagarello^[61] and James Der Derian^[62] who all seek an airing of the classical-quantum debate in a social science context.^[63] All are advocates for the integration of quantum principles into social sciences, arguing that classical IR theorists have taken for granted the ontological and ideational properties of the structure of the States-system, and that such a shift can lead to more sophisticated analytical tools for navigating the unpredictable nature of global affairs.

If David Bohm’s assertion that the world’s problems stem from the siloed view of science and philosophy was true, then his next statement, that “the humanities needed to shift from Newtonian to quantum thinking” was a clear call to arms.^[64] As Danah Zohar, the quantum philosopher states, this was one such example that examined an ‘evolving quantum worldview presenting a universe that is dynamic, interconnected, and comprised of self-organising systems that explore the future through trial and error. In this quantum perspective, meaning, purpose and motivation supplant determinism and mechanistic laws as the driving principles of social organisations, shifting from fragmentations to holism and from certainty to uncertainty.’ ^[65] This new framework emphasises potentiality and possibilities rather than fixed realities, moving away from materialism. While finding it necessary to call this paradigm ‘new’ in 1996, Wallerstein et al also address ‘rapid change, complexity, uncertainty, global interconnectivity, decentralisation, and heightened ethical expectations’ as critical to ensuring best restructure for the social sciences.^[66]

The underlying assumption of social science is that social life and human decision-making are classical material phenomena.^[67] In 2005, however, Wendt proposed that methodologies within quantum theory offer a transformative and novel way to consider human rationality, survival, identity, and societal relationships.^[68] This directly challenged the underlying framework of classical, accepted social theories. He argued that quantum theory be inserted into the social science debate to directly affect the development of AI and classical and neo-classical IR approaches. Purists in the physical and philosophical arenas of academia, including IR, argue that the distance between quantum science and the classical philosophies should remain. However, the persistent neglect of each other prevents a useful bridging of gaps necessary to advance the “application of quantum mechanical methods to topics in social sciences, which include economics, ecology and psychology.”^[69]

If this holds, applying quantum methods in social science may shed light on mysteries surrounding human behaviour and cognition, leading to the development of significantly more advanced AI systems from the outset.^[70] Byrne and Hall also explore quantum theory's links to enhanced collective consciousness.^[71] It argues that the consciousness gap between future AI capabilities and the human-like qualities it seeks to emulate is disconnected from science and philosophy. In a final showing for Quantum Social Science, Haven and Khrennikov are further examples of those writing on this issue who call for a re-evaluation of the foundational assumptions that have persisted since the 19^th Century. They emphasise the value of critical thinking and theoretical exploration rather than empirical data collection, and that this precludes us from considering and assessing potential for structural and institutional change.^[72]

Quantum IR

This review now considers the growing number of scholars exploring the potential of quantum theory to provide new analytical tools and critical approaches for addressing IR’s intractable probability problems. Importantly, the degradation of academia by its splitting the natural and social sciences is not new, as Matson recognised in his work “The Broken Image: Man, Science and Society” in 1964. ^[73] Nor is it of one nation alone that has broadcast a concern. A fortunate outcome of the globalised world is the cross pollination of quantum ideas, even to the antipodean global south, where the US-based privately owned Carnegie Foundation^[74] has sponsored the work of USYDs Project Q (for Peace and Security in a Quantum Age) to advance knowledge of geopolitical and societal implications of quantum innovation.^[75] This contextualises the Australian perspectives of a number of quantum IR proponents like the aforementioned Der Derian, Chalmers and highlights that the answers to a quantum statecraft in practice may come from nations less wedded to previously held ‘old master’ ideas, or Waters, who seeks to lay groundwork for it.^[76] While some of these scholars’ ideas challenge accepted majority views, and are challenging to understand initially, they telegraph connexions to gaming theory as delivered by the likes of Martinez-Martinez,^[77] Arfi^[78] and Eisert et al,^[79] complexity theory as explained by Abbe,^[80] and multimethodologies as exemplified by Mingers and Gill.^[81] Here, the challenge becomes drawing out themes of complexity that Newtonian IR models inadequately explain such as the rapid scaling of global complexity. It is to this end, that quantum’s superposition, decoherence, entanglement and unpredictability illuminate these themes much better.

Beyond his book, IR’s ‘quantum turn’ has been championed by Wendt. His work has been influential in establishing the foundations for a quantum approach to IR.^[82] Wendt’s quantum monism, based on a panpsychist theory of mind, challenges the mind-body dualism.^[83] It has radical implications for understanding the social and physical world as discussed by Brafman and Brafman in their book “Sway: The Irrational Pull of Irrational Behaviour.”^[84] By engaging with quantum concepts like entanglement, Wendt suggests that people are never fully separable but are entangled elements of society. This has implications for how IR practitioners view the interconnectedness of global events and aligns with Barad’s theories around the agency of states and actors.^[85] This approach encourages adoption of cognitively novel methods, shifting focus to relationality; and contrasts with classical IR theories that rely on Newtonian mechanics characterised by linear causality and predictability.

Finally, AI evolution, which currently resides within hard systems and computational development, is considered. Alongside it, also a hard science, sits quantum physics. However, AI also necessitates a deeper understanding of human cognition, which is more than computational. Moreover, the experience of cognition, including that of IR, is rooted in the humanities. In essence, Quantum IR, and its specialisations, leads wholeheartedly to the IR plays a pivotal role in comprehending the experience of cognition at the global level. As stated by Busemayer et al,^[86] and McIntosh, developing AI without incorporating the humanities and social science observations of decision-making would be a grave oversight.^[87] As Penrose aptly articulated, exploring whether there is a research pathway for quantum theory in social science may be beneficial. ^[88] Meyer’s entertaining Starship Enterprise deliberations, that equilibrium describes IRs balance of power, could be an example that propels philosophical and sociological thinking and enable quantum scientists to test quantum IR quantitatively.^[89]

By embracing quantum principles, IR practitioners can develop more sophisticated tools for modelling behaviour, such as those offered by Piotrowski and Giulianotti’s Quantum Game Theory^[90] while Brannigan and Giulianotti consider a quantum approach to IR can help practitioners move beyond outdated Newtonian analogies and metaphors that have long dominated the field.^[91]

While promising not to extend this paper to the subject of quantum economics or quantum politics, a small step toward Der Derian and Alexander Wendt paper on “a human science of world politics”,^[92] Herbert Simon’s Nobel prize for Economics by demonstrating the limited capacity to digest information needed to make complex decisions, ^[93] and Maurice Allais^[94] following proof of the breakdown of classical economic theory used to predict choice by acknowledging the links between economics, psychology, and the other social sciences all encourage the reader to lift the lid on the utility and value of quantum for IR. Overarchingly, while classical IR recognises its limitations, it has been slow in finding alternatives to challenge the status quo, with the following section demonstrating a steadfast effort to keep quantum contained to the natural sciences.

Embracing Inevitable Dissent

While quantum theory offers intriguing possibilities for rethinking IR, its application as pointed out by Snow, is contentious.^[95] While Kavalski called for the waking of IR from its deep Newtonian slumber in 2012,^[96] as far back as 1927 the divisive William Munro called for an academic alignment to “get rid of intellectual insincerities concerning the nature of sovereignty, the general will, natural rights, and the freedom of the individual” to discover “the true purposes and policies which should direct human action in matters of government.”^[97] This request, to combine the talents of science and philosophy was a rare demand for the natural and social sciences to come together, with most scientists then including Nobel laureates Born and Heisenberg opposing a marriage of academia to progress the collective understanding of cognition and consciousness through physics and its philosophy.^[98]

Frustratingly for science, the social science realm begins with the assumption that the mind and body are separate. The aligned assumption that the mind is not subject to physics laws is, therefore, open to a never-ending cycle of hypotheses that IR theorists are willing to debate but can never resolve. However, the third emerging hypothesis of quantum decision theory has started to investigate the premise of deniability.^[99]

Wendt's ideas are critiqued by Rasmus Jaksland, who contends that the arguments for quantum relevance in social science lack sound epistemic foundations.^[100] Daniel Little also evaluates Wendt's claims, particularly emphasising the limitations of quantum effects in current biology and quantum consciousness.^[101] Friedrich V. Kratochwil question Wendt's interpretations and the implications of quantum theory for social science, arguing that Wendt's claims do not adequately address the complexities of social phenomena.^[102]

While Karen Barad emphasises the significance of quantum metaphysics, and advocates for a broader epistemic relevance of quantum mechanics social contexts, she too is challenged by Jaksland that quantum effects are minimal. Additionally, Emmanuel Haven and Andrei Khrennikov’s work on quantum social science is challenged by Vogel who questions their approach and the compatibility of quantum theory with social science methodologies.^[103]

Tegmark,^[104] and Donald^[105] argue more broadly that quantum mechanics deals with inanimate particles and cannot be applied to human and social phenomena. They contend that attempts to ‘quantise’ IR often result in ‘mere’ metaphors not substantive theories, lacking scientific rigour and practical relevance. This is like other interdisciplinary approaches that borrow concepts from different fields, such as economics in IR, where models are adapted to fit social phenomena. While not entirely discounting the quantum social sciences and IR theories, in their considerations of the quarrels between the natural and social sciences Oren,^[106] Pothos and Busemeyer,^[107] and Cohen all agree quantum IR faces scepticism due to the challenges of scaling quantum concepts to human and social systems. ^[108]

Suffice to say, there are several treatments of using quantum theory for the social sciences and IR. At one end, Harre^[109] gently criticises Feyerabend’s position (by 1975 his post-modern work ‘Against Method’ was published);^[110] while in the middle, Kagan merely works to separate the academic cultures.^[111] Tegmark^[112] is joined in his unadorned denunciation of quantum theory for the humanities by Brueckner,^[113] Sokal,^[114] Sokal and Bricmont,^[115] Stone,^[116] and Waldner,^[117] all of whom adopt particularly critical positions.

Despite these strong negative responses quantum methods for social science and IR deserve a systematic and academically sound treatment, especially as classical and neo-classical IR scholars like Arfi.^[118] Indeed, Gross and Levitt acknowledge that their ontological and epistemological foundations remain unproven.^[119] Notwithstanding the academic criticisms, these issues align with broader social sciences trends that seek to incorporate complexity and non-linearity into theoretical frameworks, such as system, complexity and game theory. If Bacciagaluppi and Valentini^[120] captured sciences struggle with itself in 1927, that science will also struggle with the humanities philosophical intrusion into quantum should be anticipated. 

In Summary

This literature review outlined an exploratory approach to studying quantum science narratives for application to IR, particularly to statecraft. This review addressed the lack of discourse on the intersection of quantum theory and IR for the purpose of statecraft. The potential power of a quantum statecraft narrative lies in its ability to challenge outdated assumptions and offer innovative frameworks for enhancing understanding complex global interactions.

By adopting a quantum statecraft narrative, IR practitioners can enhance their analytical capabilities and foster a more inclusive and adaptive approach to statecraft and policymaking. This narrative empowers them to embrace uncertainty and complexity leading to more effective strategies for addressing the pressing challenges of an interconnected world. This thesis will prime the reader for quantum’s incorporation into 21^st-century IR theory.

Chapter 2 The Utility of a Quantum Statecraft Narrative

Quantum statecraft draws inspiration from quantum mechanics and quantum field theory to frame state behaviours and interactions in a new and holistic light. Quantum statecraft releases state behaviour from the traditional boundaries of classical IR theory, with its three major schools of IR theory - realism, liberalism and constructivism. While this essay bounds its considerations, there is room to test quantum ideas across any IR classical theories, or neo-theories as described by Blackman and Moon.^[122] Integrating a quantum statecraft theory into the classical IR schools of thought offer several significant improvements by addressing classical IR theory limitations and expanding perspectives for those educated in classical IR.

This chapter considers non-linear dynamics as it pertains to 21^st Century statecraft and considers it within the context of rapid technology innovation and a holistic approach to its practice. Three issues will be brought together to illuminate the utility of quantum statecraft in practice. First is an epistemological revision of the classical world views and discuss the issues of translation for bringing quantum mechanics to bear for IR theory and practice.^[123] Second is IR’s classical pedagogy in which most practitioners are trained. This leads to the third argument for the added value of quantum for statecraft, before finishing with why this translation is valuable.^[124]

Limits of Classical Learning and Western Pedagogy

Wendt believes that quantum theory has been needlessly constrained by classical social science theory. He argues powerfully that human consciousness and therefore decision-making are impervious to classical IR theories and models; and claims that the assumption of the classical basis of social science is wrong. Wendt argues there is growing empirical evidence stemming from quantum decision theory and quantum cognition literature that quantum models deliver better perspectives on social life, including statecraft, than the classical models. This argument extends to mathematical theories of psychology by Tversky and Kahneman, who evince that human actions are not deterministic.^[125] While they do not raise the argument for quantum modelling for human behaviour directly, Wendt argues that this behavioural evidence of human indeterminism in decision making and actions challenges classical models, and that human beings are not quantum-like, instead, they are quantum beings, and that this plays out in ontology.^[126]

Wendt’s above view is challenged by classical IR theorists and physicists. It is particularly perplexing for physicists, who counter with the idea that quantum theory washes out at the macro level or human, real-world level. Other physicists prefer to adopt a ‘shut-up-and-calculate’ view, rather than engage across disciplines to discuss the metaphysics^[127] as presented by Wendt, Lewis^[128] and Becker.^[129] Other key supporters of quantum IR like Der Derian,^[130] Chalmers, and Waters rework earlier ideas to make them more viable to classical IR thinkers. Collectively, they begin to set up quantum theory across the IR realm, by considering four issues that require reasoned interdisciplinary logic.

If quantum social science is true, these quantum humanities theorists ask for the acceptance that the Western teaching of people as classical beings has been implicit for over three centuries, through statistics and rational choice IR theory, and matches the Newtonian world view. If the classical world view is taught intergenerationally, and from first principles, it limits the ability to think inventively and reduces the potential to consider the human actions, and therefore the actions of collective human (nation-state) actions, beyond this classical world view.

Possessing a quantum IR world view, one should consider the subjectivity of each classical theory. An example is to observe IR’s realism in comparison to other classical views of liberalism and constructivism. The ‘them or us’ politicising of classical IR (are you a realist, or a liberalist?), leads to the development of nation-state great power theory. This convergence in epistemic and technical theory deftly explains the lived experience of quantum during the 20^th Century. The progress of quantum theory has never been smooth. From Planck’s discovery of the ‘constant’ in 1905, later developed by Bohr, and Einstein separately, then debated through the 1920s lead to the establishment of the Copenhagen school of quantum physics, and the repudiation of Newtonian physics.^[131] While WWII elevated the popularity of quantum’s new conventions, the development of the nuclear bomb, also ended international collaboration across quantum scientific discovery. Ongoing competitive quantum science through the Cold War and information age saw quantum weaponised and monetised with capital made available to certain schools that matched the views of political-state sponsors. This set the scene for a tenacious status quo defence in both the natural sciences, and classical IR theories whereby:^[132]

1. Realism emphasises the competitive and anarchic nature of the international system, where states act primarily in their interest and power dynamics dominate interactions.
2. Liberalism focuses on cooperation, institutions, and the potential for progress in international affairs, emphasising how states and non-state actors can work together to achieve mutual benefits and address global challenges.
3. Constructivism has several key parallels with quantum world view. It emphasises the role of ideas, beliefs, norms, and identities in shaping state behaviour and the international system; in turn provides a better accommodation of the complexity discussed previously, while still sitting squarely in the classical, linear camp. Even this classical theory has its detractors and lends itself an understanding of quantum statecraft’s battle for relevance and legitimacy.

A Vivid IR Explanation

The above provides an initial consideration as to why quantum is required across IR. Put simply, social science starts with folk psychology and rational choice whereas physicists discuss the physical world. Neither consider the human mind, and this is a problem given the creation of AI. Wendt claims everything in the mind, or consciousness, is quantum science, not a part of a classical machinery (the traditional view of humans). He specifically claims there is zero evidence that humans are classical machines, however we continue to teach social science and IR, and conduct statecraft, through a classical lens. Without a hint of irony, Wendt also says that the most necessary audience to win over – those who practice IR and statecraft in all forms - will also be the toughest to convince due to their history, pedagogy, and classical learning.

As Earle discusses, through a quantum lens, we can begin some of the translation issues.^[133] To understand that like quanta, the science of the smallest to largest magnitudes of energy, IR can perceive of scale from the atomic to astro-level, and bio-to geo-political level. This is relevant in 21^st Century statecraft’s use of the military and how the military conceives itself, for example the Australian Defence enterprise has recently added cyber and space domains to the traditional (Newtonian, material and classical) domains of land, air and maritime. While this is one example, and only one avenue through which statecraft is practiced, we can begin to understand how to ask questions affecting future statecraft in practice. If quantum statecraft starts widening the aperture of its practitioners, eventually there will be a change in the burden of proof. If evidence of quantum like behaviour in people increases then the burden of proof will shift to the classists who will have to justify their orthodoxy of rational choice theory, and why people, as ‘classical machines’, behave quantumly.

Translating Ten Quantum Statecraft Ideas

Quantum theory is vast. It relates everything to atomic existence of particles, electrons, and waves. Ten quantum principles will be defined and then outlined as to how they can apply to statecraft. These principles will be considered against the five major factors of complexity in the practice of statecraft: increase of IR system nodes, their connectivity, speed of information passage, velocity of decision effects, and the rate of technological change, to deliver an initial utility of quantum statecraft:

1. Superposition^[134]

Definition (in physics): The ability of a quantum system, such as an electron, particle or wave, to be in multiple states at the same time – until it is measured.^[135]

Utility in Quantum Statecraft: Superposition supports the development and management of complex systems modelling. This provides for depth in strategic flexibility, and for subsequent actions and outcomes. It is crucial to decision-making by shaping how practitioners interpret and respond to complex international scenarios, where various outcomes coexist until decisions are made. Just as quantum systems can exist in multiple potential states simultaneously and only ‘collapse’ into a single state upon measurement, statecraft is fluid, with multiple potential outcomes influenced by states’ interactions and perceptions. This understanding creates cause for analysis across the specific elements of statecraft, forcing the consideration of alternate futures, rather than single courses of action committed to and planned for.^[136] States might manoeuvre through various strategic options, only collapsing into a specific strategy when circumstances require. This can be metaphorically related to the idea that states may hold multiple potential strategies or objectives at the same time. In comparison, realism, which focuses specifically on power and security, can be adapted toward quantum as states continuously evaluate and shift their strategies based on evolving power dynamics and threats. Superposition therefore can deliver agency and empowers choice. In its quantum statecraft paradigm, it considers social constructs, societal norms and social change as it pertains to societal identity.

Superposition is an expression of reality of the macro-environment that accommodates for the human mind being insufficiently understood. Thus, it prepares policymakers and practitioners of statecraft for many possible futures, and develops their adaptiveness earlier, and more broadly. Therefore, surprise is also reduced, as is discomfort at unexpected departures from linear decisions or movement. In turn, themes of miscalculation, oversight, or even blunders can be circumvented earlier, and statecraft can manage destabilising actions more adroitly. Quantum statecraft enhances understanding of complex dynamics through improved analytical tools for understanding complex and fluid dynamics such as the interplay between multiple potential outcomes and the interconnectedness of global actors.^[137] This supports statecraft practitioners analysing and interpreting complex scenarios where traditional models fall short. Further, the superposition principle assists in conceptualising multiple potential statecraft-outcomes simultaneously, enabling more nuanced strategic planning. Finally, it enhances communication strategies for explaining complex international situations to policy makers and the public, potentially improving strategic communication.

2. Decoherence

Definition: Quantum decoherence is the process where a complex object interacts with its surroundings, causing a disappearance of certain quantum properties, leading to a loss of quantum coherence.^[138]

Utility: The changing nature of international norms and identities is analogous to decoherence, where new beliefs and practices emerge becoming dominant as they interact with existing norms and social structures. Understanding decoherence offers IR practitioners perspectives for navigating the increasingly complex and interconnected global landscape, potentially leading to innovative statecraft. This process illustrates how social change, and the development of new norms can shift state behaviour and the international system, reflecting that IR are dynamic and shaped by evolving social constructs, as per Heyes 2024.^[139]

3.Multiple realities

Definition: The ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics asserts the universal wave function is objectively real, and that there is no wave function collapse. This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurement are physically realised in some world or universe.^[140]

Utility: Just as a quantum system's state is determined upon measurement, the international system’s configuration can be shaped by its actors’ collective perceptions and social constructions, highlighting the fluid and subjective nature of IR. Transference of the multiple reality idea - that international realities are not fixed but can exist in multiple, coexisting states based on the social constructions, identities, and beliefs of its actors - argues that IR are fluidity and evolving, shaped by changing norms, identities, and interactions. The international system is seen as dynamic not static. In quantum statecraft, narratives are not merely stories; they embody the interplay of multiple possibilities. By recognising the agency inherent in narratives, practitioners can better understand their role in shaping diplomatic realities. This awareness can empower them to make more informed decisions, considering the immediate consequences and the broader narrative context.

4.Entanglement

Definition: Quantum entanglement involves the interconnection of particles such that they become linked such that the state of one particle instantaneously affects the state of another, regardless of distance or what lies between them.^[141]

Utility: Applying this to IR highlights how actions in one region or by one state can have immediate often unforeseen effects elsewhere.^[142] This underscores the importance of understanding global interconnectedness and the ripple effects^[143] of decisions. Quantum entanglement emphasises deep interconnectedness and mutual influence among states, regardless of distance or formal alliances. As Zanotti claims, this can enhance classical IR theories by illustrating how states’ actions are interconnected in more complex ways than suggested by traditional theories.^[144] As realism often focuses on power politics and competition, often prioritising material power and security, it potentially overlooks the role of ideational and perceptual factors.

This can be related to how states are connected through complex power relationships and alliances. Just as entangled particles affect each other instantaneously, states in an anarchic international system can have their power and security directly affected by the actions other states. This interconnectedness implies that states must constantly be aware of the broader power dynamics and influence of other states, as actions in one region or by one actor can have immediate and unexpected repercussions elsewhere. Similarly, liberalism emphasises cooperation through institutions. While liberalism focuses on institutional cooperation, it potentially overlooks the role of ideational and perceptual factors that address how interconnectedness influences state behaviour beyond formal institutions.

The study of entanglement can extend traditional theories that struggle with complex rapidly evolving scenarios where simple power calculations, or institutional frameworks may not fully capture the dynamics in play.^[145] States’ influence each other’s behaviour through social and normative interactions. Quantum entanglement reflects this interconnectedness, where particles can affect each other instantaneously regardless of distance. Similarly, constructivism views international actors as deeply interconnected, where changes or actions by one actor can influence others through shared norms and values.^[146] Incorporating this approach highlights the importance of observation, perception, and ideas in shaping reality. This can enhance classical IR theories by integrating a more comprehensive view that includes the impact of ideational factors and social constructs in statecraft. Quantum concepts like entanglement could inspire novel ways of thinking about interconnectedness in global politics, potentially leading to innovative approaches in conflict resolution or peacebuilding.

5.Uncertainty

Definition: Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ is a fundamental mathematical principle whereby the position and speed of a particle cannot be accurately known.^[147] It describes a trade-off between complementary properties of a wave, like speed and position.^[148]

Utility: Quantum statecraft acknowledges IR’s inherent uncertainty and unpredictability. By embracing the uncertainty concept practitioners can develop strategies to manage and navigate uncertainty more effectively.^[149] This is crucial for those educated in Newtonian and classical models of IR whose leadership inclines towards likely courses of action, centres of gravity, material power, or economic policies, which all narrow options and solutionise pre-emptively. This can undermine developing sound strategy and statecraft. The uncertainty principle offers the statecraft practitioner greater comfort with ambiguity and understanding of uncertainty. This can enhance and inform decision-making across issues of risk and its management; and Kavalski says “where uncertainty is regarded and accepted as an intrinsic quality of nature and not as a result of imperfect knowledge.”^[150] This can improve anticipation and mitigate risks and uncertainties. The quantum-inspired uncertainty model could offer more accurate probabilistic assessments of geopolitical risks and opportunities, helping practitioners navigate IR’s VUCA. Put simply, the quantum statecraft narrative can improve the handling of uncertainty in statecraft by preparing for wider potential scenarios rather than focusing on deterministic outcomes.^[151] In line with other described quantum physics definitions in this chapter, a deeper understanding of uncertainty might provide a paradigm shift in strategic thinking. ^[152] A quantum statecraft narrative could encourage IR practitioners to move beyond binary thinking (e.g.: allies versus adversary) toward more nuanced, multidimensional understandings of relationships. A well-constructed quantum statecraft narrative mindful of uncertainty will highlight key themes and priorities, helping decision makers identify the critical factors influencing and guiding strategic choices. This focus enables practitioners to navigate IR’s complexities with greater confidence.

6.Indeterminacy

Definition: Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness of a physical system and is a key characteristic of quantum physics.^[153]

Utility: While the classical IR theories describe deterministic outcomes and probability, the quantum indeterminacy accepts that quantum theory is indeterminate, and therefore all activities are open to change. In turn this means a practitioner of quantum statecraft dispenses with the notion of determinism, which opens the door for free will. The role of free will is a multifaceted topic that various philosophers and physicists have explored. Quantum explanations – initially used to describe issues at the sub-atomic level, also raise interesting perspectives at the material and macro-level. These can be random international actions that are unexpected, and seemingly, neither linear nor logical. Put simply, quantum indeterminacy challenges traditional notions of cause and effect positing the need for a more nuanced understanding of agency and free will.

A quantum statecraft narrative embraces multiple possible outcomes and futures. This aligns with free will, where agents make choices. This view contributes to more sophisticated decision-making models that better account for the probabilistic nature of outcomes and the observer’s part in shaping events. However, the implications for free will are not straightforward. Indeterminacy might prompt new discussions about the ethical implications of international or domestic actions, considering their potential effects across multiple realities or outcomes, and prompt deeper ethical reflections on statecraft’s possible consequences. This contrasts classical theories that often oversimplify ethical dilemmas.^[154] A quantum statecraft lens on ethical dimensions of decision-making can lead to more thoughtful and responsible policy outcomes.

7.Wave-Particle Duality

Definition: Wave-particle duality is a cornerstone of quantum physics. Here quantum entities exhibit particle or wave properties according to the experimental circumstances and highlight the inability of the Newtonian concepts such as particle or wave to describe how quantum objects behave.^[155]

Utility: Quantum objects exhibit both particle-like and wave-like properties. Similarly, states might need to navigate between different roles or strategies—sometimes acting as fixed, predictable entities and other times adapting fluidly to changing circumstances. This aspect of statecraft suggests a need for greater flexibility and adaptability. While realism tends to focus on fixed power structures and competition, liberalism emphasises institutional stability and cooperation. A quantum perspective acknowledges that states can adjust their strategies based on evolving perceptions and interactions, offering a more fluid view of statecraft and policy that encourages adaptive strategies, which complement and refine those derived from classical approaches. Wave-particle duality provides a conceptual framework for assessing new information and adjusting decisions accordingly. In turn, this assists in flexible approaches to global challenges. Just as particles can exhibit different properties based on observation, IR actors can adopt various approaches—cooperative, multilateral, or institutionally driven—depending on context and the nature of the challenge. Understanding wave-particle duality embraces that quantum statecraft is dynamic, and that cooperation has different forms and evolves over time, much like the dual nature of quantum entities.

8.Observer Effect

Definition: The effect whereby watching, observers affect the observed reality.^[156]

Utility: The observer effect in quantum mechanics emphasises how perceptions and interactions influence outcomes. By integrating ideational factors—such as norms, values, and perceptions—into strategy, the non-material dimensions of statecraft can be better addressed to enhance effectiveness. Quantum statecraft promotes and fosters a holistic analysis of statecraft, integrating both material and ideational factors into a given perspective. This comprehensive approach can help statecraft strategies address the full spectrum of influences shaping global dynamics, leading to more balanced and effective policies. This might translate to the idea that military actions, or political or diplomatic negotiations can be influenced by perceptions and interactions, and that the presence of an observer (or mediator) can alter the dynamics of international engagements. The quantum observer effect suggests that observation influences outcomes, which can leverage perceptual dynamics as explained by Myers and Meneses.^[157] In negotiations, this can help practitioners more deeply appreciate how their presence, statements, and actions shape the perceptions and behaviours of other actors, leading to more effective engagement.^[158]

In quantum mechanics, particularly the observer effect, highlights that a quantum system is not fixed but depends on observation and measurement. The outcome can change based on how the system, in the statecraft any given international dynamic, is observed. This reflects that reality is not objective but subjectively influenced by the act of observation. States and actors’ perception, therefore, interpret and respond to the world based on these socially constructed realities, including those prevailing social constructions and ideas.

9.Quantum Tunnelling

Definition: Quantum tunnelling describes a particle's ability to pass through energy barriers, which are insurmountable in classical physics.^[159]

Utility: Quantum tunnelling characterises innovation, creativity and problem solving in statecraft. It epitomises how states or leaders might find unconventional solutions or breakthroughs in diplomacy and IR, transcending traditional barriers and constraints. It can inspire creative problem-solving approaches by encouraging practitioners to think beyond traditional frameworks. This can lead to innovative solutions for complex global issues. Importantly, for those practicing statecraft, quantum tunnelling directly links to quantum sensor technology too.^[160] While this concept yet to affect broad public security debates, its future highlights the need to ensure that significant and assumed ‘near-invulnerable’ national submarine investments are survivable, and not endangered by advances in quantum tunnelling technologies.^[161]

10.Coherence

Definition: Quantum coherence describes the ability of a quantum mechanical system to stably maintain its quantum mechanical states and generate interference patterns. In a coherent state, quantum states are precisely defined and exhibit regular and predictable behaviour.^[162]

Utility: By framing events and decisions within this structured narrative, statecraft practitioners can better understand their actions’ implications and the interconnectedness of global events. For a system of state-held beliefs, the beliefs that constitute the system must ‘cohere’. This coherence is taken to involve the components of logical consistency, explanatory, relations, and various non explanatory relations. Coherence creates a sense of agency and empowers practitioners by illustrating how their decisions can shape future outcomes. This agency is essential in quantum statecraft, where the interplay of choices can lead to various potential realities and dynamic approaches to policy formulation. This coherence also enhances communication among stakeholders, ensuring that all parties share a common understanding of a situation. This is crucial in diplomacy and politics, where misinterpretations may cause conflict, miscalculation or missed opportunities.

Summary

A quantum statecraft world view encourages a more comprehensive, nuanced, flexible, and interconnected understanding of IR. It promotes a recognition of uncertainty and complexity, urging policymakers to embrace adaptability and innovative thinking in addressing global challenges. By addressing uncertainty, emphasising interconnectedness, and integrating non-material factors, a quantum statecraft narrative offers tools to refine and enhance the insights provided by traditional theories, leading to a richer and more adaptable framework for analysing and understanding global affairs. While constructivism and quantum statecraft both emphasise the importance of perception, interconnectedness, and the fluidity of reality, constructivism’s basis is that humans are classical machines, whereas quantum accepts that humans are not deterministic. This distinguishes the perspectives. Quantum statecraft counters the emphasis on a centre of gravity, or a single way forward for a national strategy.

These ten quantum concepts capture the fluidity and probabilistic nature of statecraft in the 21^st Century. This collaborative narrative can inform more comprehensive strategies that account for multiple perspectives and potential futures. Quantum statecraft can inspire more flexible and adaptive strategies and can scale for rapidly changing global dynamics.

Chapter 3 The Value of a Quantum Statecraft Narrative

Collectively, this analysis considers the relevance of a quantum statecraft narrative and assesses how these narratives can foster and illustrate the application of quantum principles in statecraft. It aims to further understanding, utility, and value of a quantum statecraft narrative to transform IR decision making and leadership and the practice of statecraft. It commences highlighting the integration of quantum statecraft narrative into policymaking.

The previous section considered its ‘utility’. This section focuses on its ‘value,’ and begins considering how a quantum statecraft narrative supports those facing a VUCA environment stemming from rapid new technology delivery, before demonstrating how quantum lexicon addresses Western statecraft’s weaknesses. It then addresses what leadership through quantum statecraft might look like, and how its practice might be advanced.

Value 1: Rapid New Technology Delivery

As quantum technologies advance, IR practitioners versed in quantum concepts will be better prepared to understand these technologies and their geopolitical implications.^[164] As technology continues to evolve, a quantum paradigm will increasingly pervade IR.^[165] Understanding and navigating this dynamic relationship between technology and users requires a comprehensive understanding of technological trends, strategic foresight, and a commitment to fostering the dual purpose of the natural and social sciences. IR’s future will undoubtedly be shaped by how societies navigate the opportunities and challenges presented by technological advancement.^[166] A quantum statecraft narrative delivers the opportunity to prepare not just STEM practitioners but provide sense-making and align leadership and practitioners from across the social science domains, particularly those invested in hard technologies, such as the military.^[167]

Value 2: Demonstrating how a Quantum Narrative Addresses Western Strategy Weaknesses

While quantum mechanics has reshaped our understanding of the universe, the philosophical implications have taken longer to influence the physical and social sciences, which remain rooted in Newtonian physics. Newton’s framework, focusing on larger-than-sub-atomic phenomena, offers precise scientific results. In contrast, quantum mechanics introduces potentiality, suggesting multiple outcomes exist simultaneously, leading to a fundamental shift in how reality and its inherent uncertainties is perceived. There is an argument that failures of strategy in Western IR often stems from several key factors, like rigid frameworks, an over-reliance on traditional models, and difficulties in adapting to complex and evolving scenarios. These weaknesses can be explained by normative theories:

Rigid traditional strategic-thinking models: Western strategy often relies on established models and frameworks that may not account for the complexity and fluidity of the global landscape.^[168] This rigidity can lead to inadequate responses to emerging challenges or unforeseen developments.

Overemphasis on material power in power dynamics: Western strategies often overly focus on material power and military strength, neglecting ideational factors, such as norms, beliefs, and identities, in shaping IR.

Underestimating complexity and uncertainty in complex systems: The international system with its many actors is highly complex, uncertain and interconnected. Western strategies often struggle to adapt to this leading to ineffective, mistimed or counterproductive outcomes.

Static approaches in diplomacy and inflexibility in policy: Inflexible approaches to diplomacy and policy can hinder the ability to respond effectively to changing circumstances and evolving geopolitical dynamics.

Value 3: Leadership Qualities in a Quantum Age

The juxtaposition between Newtonian and quantum leadership is stark.^[169] The education and experience of many current ‘Newtonian leaders’ focus on finite gains, adhering to established rules and seeking guaranteed outcomes.^[170] Historically, the development of Newtonian leadership favoured simplistic and complicated environments, engineering, and aligned linear solutions.^[171] This is despite for example the popular Cynefin framework illuminating that leaders more often operate in complex and chaotic environments that require non-linear solutions.^[172]

A quantum leader then, embraces infinite gamesmanship, and a persistent exploration of multiple paths and possibilities. This better prepares them for rapid change and unpredictability across myriad challenges, rather than reverting to planning around simplified and often singular courses, which is particularly true of military tactical training. A quantum approach to leadership, and an adjustment to tactical training encourages creativity and experimentation, viewing mistakes as natural end states of multiple possible realities rather than as abject failures of analysis and planning. Zohar describes twelve principles of quantum leadership^[173] as:

These provide a baseline for praxis; necessary as contemporary leaders face ongoing technological upheaval and an urgent need for creative restructuring. For statecraft-focussed departments, who provide through-life train and/or educate their people toward professionalised proficiencies and standards, determining the pertinent elements of quantum leadership might be appropriate at foundational-through-to-expert levels.

Further, a cautious and deliberate introduction and systematic but rapid uptake for those already in more senior positions (especially if Newtonian parallels have been a hallmark of success within the organisation). This will also show the necessary nature of a quantum statecraft narrative by explaining that the existing paradigm - heavily influenced by Newtonian classical views of both history, science and IR like Bousquet, and Akrivoulis, who offers a detailed analysis of Newtonian analogy of US foreign policy from the Cold War explaining organisations as machines operating under predictable and stable laws with cause and effect.^[174]

Further, there is likely to be a recognition especially among those with an academic IR background that leadership that fosters focused ‘efficiency and risk elimination’ mindset, often leads to top-down management styles that prioritise and incentivise certainty, despite modern statecraft’s complex and chaotic environments. Crafting a quantum statecraft narrative emphasises the creative potential of uncertainty.^[175] It suggests that complex systems thrive when permitted to self-organise and engage in dialogue within their environments. These systems are most effective at the ‘edge of chaos’, where instability fosters innovation most suited to the modern, VUCA statecraft environment.^[176]

Future consideration should interrogate the broader audience of IR professionals to quantitatively assess the awareness and acceptance of quantum principles in statecraft. This data will help identify trends and correlations between quantum thinking and effective decision-making. Careful placement of training and education can align to de-risking operational practices already in play. The benefits of early introduction, consistent and repetitive nature of exposure, understanding, and knowledge of quantum principles, and their usefulness for junior through to senior leadership. By leading with these practices and tools the practitioner will become more comfortable with VUCA at the strategic level and by dint more effective.^[177]

Value 4: Advancing Quantum Statecraft in Practice

A quantum statecraft narrative can enhance IR by transcending the limitations of classical schools of IR theory through a dynamic framework. Dator offers that the horse and buggy, once novel and splendid, is now obsolete in an environment that envisioned and built jets that required runways.^[178] Unlike traditional narratives that often rely on linear, deterministic models, a quantum narrative embraces complexity and uncertainty, reflecting the nature of global interactions. This approach fosters deeper engagement with global events’ interconnectedness, encouraging IR professionals to think beyond the binary of ally and adversary. Ultimately, a quantum statecraft narrative enriches analytical capabilities and empowers practitioners to navigate IR with greater insight and creativity, making it an essential statecraft tool.^[179]

Ultimately, STEM researchers and practitioners hold the zeitgeist, they will develop and deliver the science that allows IR practitioners to undertake statecraft through a quantum lens. If they are to succeed in building trust in their work, then STEM must connect with the practitioners of statecraft. This can be achieved by provoking a perception in IR circles that equals the thrill of quantum science as experienced by the physicist.^[180]

The power of a quantum statecraft narrative lies in its capacity to bring this specialisation’s knowledge and language to a wider audience. In response, the social scientists are responsible to use the narrative wisely. Einstein said quantum is incomplete.^[181] So too, IR theorists should accept that classical theories are also incomplete. As interest in using a quantum statecraft narrative and lexicon grows, ensuring responsible engagement involves establishing a solid foundation to integrate this new approach effectively and ethically.

To develop a robust framework for quantum statecraft in IR, clear definitions and concepts are required that connect quantum principles with IR theory. This interdisciplinary approach requires consistent and accurate use of terminology within the IR context, ensuring a well explained narrative that bridges quantum physics and the modern global statecraft, some of which is offered by Tsao and Laslo.^[182] Promoting scholarly research and dialogue is crucial for advancing quantum statecraft. As argued by Dey, this includes supporting theoretical work, empirical studies and case analyses that test and refine quantum analogies for IR. Facilitating collaboration between quantum physicists, IR scholars, and statecraft practitioners will ensure the sound application of quantum concepts to international affairs.

Developing training programs and educational workshops for policy makers, diplomats and scholars, and within professional military education systems is essential to familiarise them with quantum statecraft concepts and their implications for statecraft theory and practice. Scholars like Akrivoulis contribute ideas on how to do so including revising American Newtonianism.^[183] Another example is the observer effect in IR-action in the journal article by Tribe, which discusses “each legal decision restructures the law itself.” It explains how the law is inevitably embroiled in the dialectical process whereby society is constantly recreating itself. Tribe draws on quantum physics metaphors to rethink constitutional jurisprudence and the work of the US Supreme Court. He suggests viewing legal events as interconnected and to consider the interdependency between an observation and that which is being observed.^[184]

Incorporating these ideas into academic curricula for IR and related fields will prepare future professionals to employ quantum thinking. The collaboration between physics and philosophy departments at institutions like MIT and Harvard demonstrates the growing acceptance of interdisciplinary approaches. Following this, the creation of ethical standards and guidelines for the use of quantum statecraft concepts in policy making and diplomacy is necessary to address potential risk, biases and unintended consequences.^[185] Ensuring diverse perspectives in the development and application of these theories will reduce narrow applications or biased interpretations.

Sharing insights and developments through conferences, publications and public forums will shape discourse and guide responsible use of quantum statecraft concepts. Fostering public understanding by communicating implications and benefits to a broader audience, including policymakers, will ensure informed engagement. The regular evaluation of the impact of quantum statecraft concepts in IR is crucial. Assessing their contribution to understanding and addressing global issues will allow refinement, as per Geok and Shaari.^[186] Establishing feedback mechanism from practitioners and scholars will continuously improve the application and integration of quantum statecraft in IR theory and practice.

In Summary

By taking these steps, stakeholders can ensure that the integration of quantum statecraft into IR is done thoughtfully, responsibly, and effectively, leveraging the new perspectives it offers while mitigating potential risks and challenges. The allure of a quantum theory for statecraft lies in its ability to capture IR’s inherent complexity and uncertainty. Current practitioners, steeped in classical IR approaches, will find quantum’s perspective intriguing and challenging. By embracing quantum principles such as superpositions and entanglement, they can gain a richer understanding of the possibilities and interconnectedness that shape global events rather than perceive of recipient states being flat, homogenous shells ready to implant into.^[187] This insight will empower people to make more informed, adaptive decisions, and navigate the unpredictable diplomatic environment with greater agility.

The quantum statecraft narrative offers a seductive alternative to traditional linear thinking, by providing a stimulating pathway that demands the capacity to embrace uncertainty in large global ecosystems and encourages exploration and experimentation. It removes the desire to deliver a single, committed decision that either wins or loses the game, but allows the practice of crafting and cocreation of strategies, foreseeing or being better prepared to make necessary change, and adjusting decisions in response to changing circumstances. This fostering agile decision making, and necessary strengthening of stewards of technology for the 21^st century.^[188]

To close this section, learning about quantum statecraft offers IR practitioners advanced analytical tools, enhanced strategic flexibility, and a deeper understanding of complex and interconnected dynamics. By integrating these quantum concepts into their practice, practitioners can better navigate uncertainty, improve diplomacy, and develop innovative solutions to global challenges. A quantum statecraft narrative can improve Western strategies by promoting flexibility, embracing complexity, recognising interconnectedness, integrating ideational factors, fostering innovation, enhancing risk management, and encouraging holistic analysis. By incorporating these principles, Western strategists can develop more adaptive, nuanced, and effective strategies to addressing the challenges of the modern international landscape aligned with Sambursky’s framework that demonstrates a stoic reinforcement of philosophical concepts with scientific ideas.^[189]

Conclusion

While the topic of quantum theory is vast and can be turned to consider almost any element of the humanities, for this exploratory thesis the term ‘quantum statecraft’ refers to the application of principles from quantum mechanics to the practice of IR and statecraft. Its narrative, woven throughout delivers a historical context for how current statecraft practitioners arrived at this point. In considering this thesis’ central research question of quantum statecraft’s definition, and its utility and value, it addressed the complexity inherent in the practice of modern statecraft by using quantum concepts of non-linearity, superposition, entanglement, uncertainty, indeterminacy and the observer effect to offer insight to the power of a quantum consideration for the 21^st Century.

As a new term, introduced to align with ideas expressed by Wendt, Der Derian, Zohar and many others, this thesis seeks to extend quantum ideas for the social sciences, and to draw these theories of quantum for IR toward a useful practice for the practitioner of statecraft. For them, these thoughts offer a refreshed ability to capture the complex and interconnected nature of global IR in ways that classical IR models fail to satisfactorily communicate. For the quantum statecraft beginner, quantum mechanics challenges intuition with principles like superposition and entanglement. This paper endeavours to close the gap between the physical sciences and their social science counterparts, and to provide a start point through its key arguments for interdisciplinary engagement and ongoing studies of metaphysics will defy traditional simplistic IR explanations, leading toward greater comfort with multi-dimensional and unpredictable state, non-state, and global interactions.

By no means is the chronicle over. It cannot be, as the nexus between quantum physics and the humanities continues to search for answers across the physical, and atomic universe. If Einstein said quantum is not complete, then any person interested in developing the capacity of our statecraft practitioners should accept his reasoning. Wendt referenced something similar about the broad schools of social science. This addition has aimed to raise the utility and value of a post-modern quantum statecraft narrative and practice for 21^st century challenging traditional IR theories key assumptions such as mechanism, determinism and materialism.

While contemporary IR theories seek to address complex human engagements from the perspective of classical power considerations, newer versions of neo-realism and neo-constructivist theories work harder to consider cognitive psychology’s implications for decision-making. However, they still do so through the lens of these activities rather than through the lens of the human actors themselves. Quantum methods support advancing statecraft beyond the classical theories’ limits.

This space supports the growing hypothesis that quantum theory across the elements of IR allows the space to update the classical world view with the teachings of quantum physics to better understand human behaviour, and the collective social interactions between nation-states. While the bow of quantum statecraft remains untied, quantum utility in the specialised subjects of warfare, diplomacy, politics and economics remain unexplored in this thesis they are offered as a potential next step to draw out specific value for these specialists in practice. Any or each of them might start with Zohr’s quantum leadership principles. Similarly, those involved in intelligence analysis and tradecrafts might seek to investigate more deeply the value of quantum economics, from which there is already significant published works from Allais, Simon and others that connect economics to the biological, and chemical sciences and draws ever closer to the base-line theories from quantum science.

After introducing the breadth of quantum theory across the scientific and philosophical divide, we can now discuss whether those ideas presented across the philosophical domain are sufficiently strong enough to support a quantum statecraft narrative. In addressing the central research question, this enquiry considered why a quantum narrative, as opposed to another, is a valid development on classical IR, and what ways could the incorporation of quantum principles improve geopolitical discourse. It also endeavoured to demonstrate a theoretical integration of the two topics, and to show how knowledge of quantum theory will enhance and augment classical IR theories for improved strategy.

This thesis’s conclusion is that the quantum statecraft narrative offers practitioners a powerful lens for understanding and navigating the complex world. By embracing quantum principles, practitioners can develop more sophisticated tools for modelling behaviour, challenge outdated assumptions, and gain a deeper appreciation for the interconnectedness and uncertainty that characterises global events. As quantum statecraft evolves, it holds great promise for providing innovative solutions to the pressing challenges facing statecraft practitioners.

To close, employing a quantum for IR offers a powerful framework for understanding and navigating statecraft’s complexities and its specialities of politics, economics, diplomacy, and conflict and competition. Embracing quantum concepts can better capture the nuanced interactions, unexpected outcomes, and intricate dynamics that shape and shape-shift in the increasingly interconnected world. A quantum statecraft narrative challenges us to think beyond traditional classical IR paradigms and fosters a more holistic approach to addressing the trials and opportunities of the 21^st-century global landscape.