Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the tension between nations prioritizing their domestic interests and the urgent need for global solidarity, cooperation, and shared responsibility. This dynamic, deeply embedded in a theoretical framework that encompasses political, social, and economic paradigms, is evident in the diverse responses of nations such as the UK, a superpower; India, an emerging power; and Sri Lanka, a developing country. The research aims to analyze and compare the COVID-19 responses of these nations to decode the complex interplay between national priorities, international cooperation, and theoretical constructs. In a globalized world, understanding this delicate balance is essential, especially during a crisis, as it informs future diplomatic, health, and socio-economic policies and builds resilience in the international system. Qualitative research methods were employed, analyzing literature, governmental communications, policy documents, and international treaties/agreements, illuminating patterns of national and international actions and interests during the pandemic‟s evolution. The UK's vaccine rollout initially prioritized national needs but later contributed significantly to COVAX, marking a shift from a national to a global focus, a transition elucidated by underlying theoretical constructs. India used vaccine diplomacy as a soft power tool but retracted due to domestic urgencies. Sri Lanka leaned heavily on international goodwill, a decision influenced by theoretical considerations of national capacity and international benevolence. In conclusion, the spectrum of pandemic responses, from initial nationalistic tendencies to collaborative efforts, is more comprehensible when viewed through a theoretical lens. The early emphasis on international collaboration and theoretical groundwork can expedite response times and mitigate nationalistic tendencies, fostering a robust global recovery during future crises.
