Hubbry Logo
International orderInternational orderMain
Open search
International order
Community hub
International order
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
International order
International order
International order
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In international relations, international order consists of patterned or structured relationships (such as polarity) between actors on the international level.[1][2][3]

Definition

[edit]

David Lake, Lisa Martin and Thomas Risse define "order" as "patterned or structured relationships among units".[2]

Michael Barnett defines an international order as "patterns of relating and acting" derived from and maintained by rules, institutions, law and norms.[4] International orders have both a material and social component.[4][5] Legitimacy (the generalized perception that actions are desirable, proper or appropriate) is essential to political orders.[4][5] George Lawson has defined an international order as "regularized practices of exchange among discrete political units that recognize each other to be independent."[6] John Mearsheimer defines an international order "an organized group of international institutions that help govern the interactions among the member states."[7]

In After Victory (2001), John Ikenberry defines a political order as "the governing arrangements among a group of states, including its fundamental rules, principles and institutions."[8]

The United Nations has been characterized as a proxy for how states broadly perceive the international order.[9]

Jeff Colgan has characterized international order as entailing multiple subsystems.[10] These subsystems can experience drastic change without fundamentally changing the international order.[10]

Liberal international order

[edit]
Main article: Liberal international order

The liberal international order is a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s.[11] More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions (like the United Nations, World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund) and is constituted by human equality (freedom, rule of law and human rights), open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation.[11][12][13] The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.[11][14]

The nature of the liberal international order, as well as its very existence, has been debated by scholars.[15][16][17][11] The LIO has been credited with expanding free trade, increasing capital mobility, spreading democracy, promoting human rights, and collectively defending the West from the Soviet Union.[11] The LIO facilitated unprecedented cooperation among the states of North America, Western Europe and Japan.[11] Over time, the LIO facilitated the spread of economic liberalism to the rest of the world, as well as helped consolidate democracy in formerly fascist or communist countries.[11]

Origins of the LIO have commonly been identified as the 1940s, usually starting in 1945.[11] John Mearsheimer has dissented with this view, arguing that the LIO only arose after the end of the Cold War, since Liberal International Order is practically possible only during unipolar moment(s), while at the time of the Cold War the World was bipolar. [18] Core founding members of the LIO include the states of North America, Western Europe and Japan; these states form a security community.[11] The characteristics of the LIO have varied over time.[11] Some scholars refer to a Cold War variation of the LIO and a post-Cold War variation.[19] The Cold War variation was primarily limited to the West and entailed weak global institutions, whereas the post-Cold War variation was worldwide in scope and entailed global institutions with "intrusive" powers.[19]

Aspects of the LIO are challenged internally within liberal states by populism, protectionism and nationalism.[20][21][18][22] Scholars have argued that embedded liberalism (or the logics inherent in the Double Movement) are key to maintaining public support for the planks of the LIO; some scholars have raised questions whether aspects of embedded liberalism have been undermined, thus leading to a backlash against the LIO.[23][24][22]

Externally, the LIO is challenged by authoritarian states, illiberal states, and states that are discontented with their roles in world politics.[18][25][26][27][28] China and Russia have been characterized as prominent challengers to the LIO.[18][26][27][29][30] Some scholars have argued that the LIO contains self-undermining aspects that could trigger backlash or collapse.[25][30]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

International order

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The international order encompasses the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations among and major non-state actors in the anarchic global environment, often reflecting the distribution of power among great powers. Emerging from historical precedents like the of sovereign equality post-1648, it has typically stabilized interactions through hegemonic leadership or balance-of-power dynamics rather than universal ideals. The post-World War II iteration, dominated by U.S. primacy, established multilateral frameworks including the for , the Bretton Woods institutions for , and alliances like to deter aggression, enabling relative peace among major powers and rapid global for decades. This order's defining achievements include the containment of great-power war since 1945, the expansion of international trade that lifted billions from poverty through institutionalized openness, and the diffusion of norms against conquest via mechanisms like the UN Charter's prohibition on territorial aggression. However, its liberal variant—emphasizing democracy promotion, human rights, and economic interdependence—has proven unstable, as attempts to export domestic institutions abroad generated backlash and overextension without accounting for realist imperatives of state survival in anarchy. Controversies persist over its perceived hypocrisy, such as selective enforcement of rules favoring Western interests, and internal erosion from populist backlashes in established democracies against supranational constraints. Today, the order confronts existential strains from power diffusion toward multipolarity, exemplified by China's economic ascent challenging U.S.-centric trade norms and Russia's rejection of post-Cold War security architecture through territorial revisions in and Georgia. Realist analyses underscore that no order endures without a dominant enforcer, predicting fragmentation into regional spheres unless great powers renegotiate terms grounded in capabilities rather than aspirational . While institutions like the WTO and IMF persist, their efficacy wanes amid protectionist retreats and alternative groupings such as the , signaling a potential shift to a more competitive, less rule-bound equilibrium.

Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Principles

The international order refers to the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations among sovereign states and other key actors in the anarchic global environment, structuring interactions to promote stability, predictability, and while mitigating the inherent risks of conflict. This framework emerges from the interplay of power distributions, mutual interests, and negotiated agreements, rather than a supranational , and has varied historically according to the relative capabilities of dominant states. Unlike transient alliances or , an enduring order establishes patterned behaviors that constrain arbitrary actions and facilitate issue-specific , such as on or . At its foundation lies the principle of , which recognizes states as the primary units of international with exclusive jurisdiction over their territory and internal governance, thereby prohibiting external interference absent consent or necessities. Complementing sovereignty is the norm of non-aggression, which proscribes the use or threat of force to alter borders or compel policy changes, a rule reinforced through deterrence and reciprocity rather than infallible mechanisms. equality, as a , posits that all states possess equal in the regardless of size or strength, though in practice, this is tempered by power asymmetries that allow great powers to shape interpretations and exceptions. Additional core principles include , which safeguards borders against forcible revision, and the preference for multilateral mechanisms to resolve disputes, enabling collective management of transnational challenges like economic exchange or . These elements collectively foster a balance-of-power dynamic, where states align to prevent by any single actor, ensuring order through mutual restraint rather than ideological uniformity. Empirical evidence from recurrent great-power competitions, such as the (1815–1914) or the post-1945 bipolar standoff, demonstrates that violations occur when power shifts erode perceived legitimacy, underscoring the causal primacy of material capabilities over normative appeals alone.

Theoretical Frameworks: Realism versus Liberalism

Realism in views the global system as fundamentally anarchic, devoid of a supranational capable of enforcing rules, which compels sovereign states—treated as rational, unitary actors—to prioritize their own survival and security through the accumulation and balancing of power. This perspective, rooted in thinkers like (circa 431 BCE, as in the accounts emphasizing fear and honor driving conflict) and modernized by in (1948), posits that international order emerges not from shared values or institutions but from temporary equilibria achieved via self-interested alliances and deterrence, as states inherently compete in a zero-sum manner for relative gains. Waltz's neorealist framework in Theory of International Politics (1979) further structuralizes this by attributing state behavior to systemic pressures rather than internal human nature, predicting that great powers will recurrently challenge hegemons, as seen in historical shifts like Britain's 19th-century dominance yielding to U.S. ascendancy post-1945. In contrast, emphasizes the potential for cooperative order through , international institutions, and normative constraints that align state interests toward mutual absolute gains, challenging realism's pessimism about . Drawing from Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace (1795), which argued for republican constitutions and commercial ties to foster peace, and Woodrow Wilson's post-World War I advocacy for via the League of Nations, liberals like in After Hegemony (1984) assert that regimes such as the enable repeated interactions that build trust and reduce transaction costs, even absent a dominant enforcer. The democratic peace proposition, empirically supported by data showing no wars between established democracies since 1816 (with over 200 pairs analyzed in studies up to 2000), underpins this view, suggesting that domestic accountability and transparency promote pacific relations among like-minded states. The core divergence lies in their causal mechanisms for order: realists regard institutions and interdependence as epiphenomenal—mere reflections of underlying power distributions, prone to collapse when great-power interests diverge, as evidenced by the League of Nations' failure against Axis aggression in the 1930s despite liberal designs. Liberals, conversely, see these as transformative forces capable of reshaping incentives, pointing to post-1945 outcomes like Europe's economic integration via the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) averting Franco-German war despite historical enmity. Empirical assessments favor realism for explaining security dilemmas and conflicts, such as the U.S.-Soviet Cold War proxy wars (1947–1991) driven by balance-of-power logic over institutional appeals, while liberalism better accounts for non-security domains like global trade volumes tripling from $5 trillion in 1990 to $15 trillion by 2010 under WTO auspices, though both theories falter in isolation—realism underpredicts sustained alliances like NATO's endurance beyond 1991, and liberalism overlooks how rising powers like China exploit rules without full reciprocity. This tension underscores realism's emphasis on enduring power asymmetries as the bedrock of order, tempered by liberal mechanisms only insofar as they serve state interests.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern and Early Modern Systems

Pre-modern international orders were predominantly hierarchical, often centered on empires or religious-universal authorities rather than equal sovereign states. In , the Chinese tributary system, originating during the around 1046 BCE and persisting through the Qing era until 1911, structured relations around China's self-perceived centrality, with peripheral states offering symbolic tribute in exchange for trade access, investiture of rulers, and protection against nomads; this Sinocentric framework emphasized cultural superiority and ritual deference over reciprocal equality. In medieval Europe, overlapping jurisdictions under , the Papacy, and the formed a fragmented order where authority derived from iurisdictio (legal jurisdiction), potestas (coercive power), lord-vassal ties, and magisterial roles, enabling through ad hoc envoys, dynastic marriages, and but lacking fixed territorial ; conflicts like the (1075–1122) highlighted tensions between secular and ecclesiastical powers in managing cross-border relations. Similar imperial logics prevailed elsewhere, such as in the Islamic caliphates' dar al-Islam versus dar al-harb dichotomy, prioritizing expansion and submission over balanced coexistence. The , spanning roughly the 16th to 18th centuries, saw the gradual consolidation of state amid religious wars and dynastic rivalries, culminating in the (1648), which ended the by affirming territorial sovereignty for German principalities, curtailing imperial and papal interference in domestic affairs, and establishing principles of non-intervention and (the ruler's religion determines the region's). This settlement reduced the Holy Roman Empire's over 900 entities toward fewer sovereign actors and fostered diplomatic practices like resident ambassadors, though sovereignty was not absolute—alliances and dynastic ties persisted. In , an incipient balance-of-power mechanism emerged to counter hegemonic threats, as seen in coalitions against in the 16th century and Louis XIV's after 1660, where shifting alliances among roughly five great powers (, , Habsburgs, , ) prevented dominance through rather than formal institutions. These systems transitioned from pre-modern hierarchies, where legitimacy flowed from universal claims (e.g., or ), to early modern pluralism, enabling recurring coalitions but also endemic warfare; empirical records show European great-power wars averaging 0.2 per decade pre-1648 versus stabilized patterns post-Westphalia, attributable to sovereignty's constraint on internal meddling. Outside Europe, early modern echoes of hierarchy persisted, as Ottoman millet systems or Mughal suzerainties mirrored tributary logics, underscoring regional divergences from the emerging Westphalian model.

19th and Early 20th Century: Balance of Power and Imperial Rivalries

The , convened from September 1814 to June 1815, reorganized Europe after the by redrawing territorial boundaries to prevent any single power from dominating the continent, thereby instituting a balance-of-power principle among , Britain, , , and . This settlement emphasized legitimacy of monarchies, compensation for wartime losses, and through the Quadruple Alliance, which committed the signatories to intervene against threats to the status quo. The resulting system prioritized equilibrium over ideological uniformity, allowing limited adjustments like the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830) while suppressing broader revolutionary movements, such as the 1848 uprisings across Europe. The , evolving from Vienna's framework, operated from 1815 to the early as an informal diplomatic mechanism where great powers coordinated to resolve disputes and maintain stability, averting general war for nearly a century despite internal challenges like and industrialization. Key interventions included the , which withdrew Allied troops from , and the Treaty of (1827), which checked Russian expansion in the . This multipolar arrangement relied on congresses and mutual vetoes, fostering restraint but straining under rising domestic pressures, as evidenced by the (1853–1856), where Britain and allied against Russia to preserve Ottoman integrity and Ottoman balance. Imperial rivalries intensified the balance-of-power dynamics, as European states pursued overseas expansion to secure resources, markets, and prestige amid economic competition. The "Scramble for Africa" accelerated after 1880, with Britain acquiring over 30% of the continent by 1914 through protectorates in Egypt (1882) and Nigeria, while France controlled nearly equivalent territory via Algeria's expansion and the Fashoda Incident (1898) resolution. The Berlin Conference (1884–1885), convened by Otto von Bismarck, formalized partition rules among 14 powers, claiming 90% of Africa by 1900 and heightening tensions, such as Anglo-German disputes over East Africa. Concurrently, the Great Game pitted Britain against Russia in Central Asia from the 1830s, involving proxy conflicts in Afghanistan (First Anglo-Afghan War, 1839–1842) and Persia, culminating in the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 delineating spheres in Persia, Tibet, and Afghanistan. Germany's unification in under Prussian leadership fundamentally altered Europe's power equilibrium, creating a centralized state with 41 million people and superior industrial output, surpassing Britain's coal production by 1900. Bismarck, as chancellor, preserved stability through flexible diplomacy, forming the Three Emperors' League (1873, renewed 1881) with and to contain , and the evolving into the with , which deterred French post-Franco-Prussian (1870–1871). His with (1887) neutralized eastern threats, but its lapse after his 1890 dismissal enabled Franco-Russian alignment (1892 military convention), isolating . By the early 20th century, rigid alliances supplanted fluid balancing, with the (formalized 1907) uniting Britain, , and against the Triple Alliance, exacerbating naval arms races—Germany's fleet expansion under Tirpitz reaching 40 battleships by 1914—and colonial flashpoints like Morocco Crises (1905, 1911). These pacts, intended as deterrents, fostered mistrust and escalation, as seen in the (1908) where Austria's annexation strained Russian commitments, ultimately contributing to the of 1914. The era's order, while averting through counterbalancing, succumbed to and miscalculations, exposing the fragility of informal great-power coordination absent enforceable institutions.

Interwar Period and World Wars

The , signed on June 28, 1919, sought to establish a new international order following by imposing punitive terms on , including acceptance of sole war guilt under Article 231, territorial cessions amounting to 13% of its prewar land and 10% of its population, military restrictions limiting the army to 100,000 men with no tanks, aircraft, or submarines, and reparations initially set at 132 billion gold marks (later reduced). These measures, intended to prevent future German aggression, instead fostered economic hardship, in 1923, and political instability in the , eroding legitimacy and enabling revanchist movements. The treaty's failure to achieve balanced power distribution—exacerbated by the exclusion of , , and the from key negotiations—undermined the stability of the emerging order, as defeated powers were humiliated without integration into a cooperative framework. Complementing the treaty, the League of Nations was founded in January 1920 as the first global institution for and , with 42 original members committed to mutual guarantees against aggression under Article 10 of its Covenant. However, structural weaknesses doomed it: the U.S. Senate rejected membership in 1919-1920 due to isolationist sentiments, depriving the League of American economic and military leverage; enforcement relied on voluntary compliance without standing forces; and major powers like (admitted 1926, withdrew 1933), (withdrew 1933), and (withdrew 1937) flouted rules during crises. Key failures included inaction on 's 1931 invasion of , despite the Lytton Report's condemnation; ineffective sanctions against 's 1935-1936 conquest of ; and tolerance of 's 1936 Rhineland remilitarization and 1938 with , reflecting policies by Britain and amid domestic economic woes from the 1929 , which contracted global trade by 66% and fueled authoritarian rises. These lapses exposed the League's inability to counter revisionist powers exploiting power vacuums, reverting to raw balance-of-power struggles absent effective deterrence. World War II erupted on September 1, 1939, with Germany's , triggering declarations of war by Britain and on September 3, and rapidly engulfed the globe, resulting in 70-85 million deaths and the total devastation of the interwar order. Driven by unresolved grievances from Versailles, territorial expansionism under Nazi ideology, and opportunistic alliances like the 1936 Axis Pact and 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the conflict highlighted the interwar system's causal flaws: mismatched ideals of and against realist imperatives of power projection, as aggressors such as Hitler rebuilt Germany's to 4.5 million by 1939 while democracies hesitated. Axis conquests—spanning , , and —collapsed fragile institutions, with the League convening its last assembly in 1940 amid irrelevance. The war's end in 1945, marked by Allied victories including D-Day on June 6, 1944, and atomic bombings of and on August 6 and 9, 1945, necessitated a complete reconfiguration of international order, as the prewar balance proved unsustainable without hegemonic enforcement.

Post-1945 Establishment of the Dominant Order

The defeat of the Axis powers in 1945 left the United States and the Soviet Union as the preeminent global powers, with the U.S. possessing unmatched economic and military strength, including a monopoly on atomic weapons until 1949. At the Yalta Conference from February 4 to 11, 1945, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin agreed on the division of Germany into occupation zones, the holding of free elections in liberated Eastern European states (though Soviet compliance was limited), and support for the nascent United Nations organization, including the Security Council's veto power for permanent members. These arrangements aimed to manage postwar reconstruction and prevent future aggression, but emerging tensions over Eastern Europe foreshadowed the Cold War division of Europe. The United Nations Charter was subsequently signed on June 26, 1945, by 50 nations in San Francisco, establishing a framework for collective security and international cooperation under U.S. initiative. Economically, the of July 1944 laid foundational agreements implemented postwar, creating the (IMF) to oversee fixed exchange rates pegged to the U.S. dollar (backed by gold) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) to finance development and reconstruction. These institutions sought to stabilize global finance, avoid the competitive devaluations of the , and promote trade liberalization, with the U.S. providing the system's anchor through its dollar's convertibility. In 1947, U.S. Secretary of State proposed the European Recovery Program, known as the , which delivered approximately $13 billion in aid (equivalent to over $150 billion today) to 16 Western European countries from 1948 to 1952, facilitating industrial revival, infrastructure repair, and market access for U.S. goods while countering Soviet influence. The plan's conditions emphasized and democratic governance, contributing to rapid growth rates averaging 5-6% annually in recipient nations by the early 1950s. On security, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, by 12 founding members including the U.S., Canada, and ten Western European states, establishing NATO as a collective defense pact under Article 5, which deemed an attack on one member an attack on all. Formed amid Soviet actions like the 1948 Berlin Blockade, NATO institutionalized U.S. extended deterrence in Europe, shifting from unilateral U.S. power to alliance-based containment of Soviet expansion. This structure, alongside bilateral security ties in Asia (e.g., U.S.-Japan and U.S.-South Korea pacts), embedded American leadership in a rules-based order prioritizing open markets, sovereign equality (with exceptions for great powers), and non-aggression norms, though the Soviet bloc's parallel institutions like the Warsaw Pact in 1955 created a bipolar framework. By the early 1950s, these mechanisms had solidified a U.S.-led Western order, fostering prosperity in aligned states while isolating communist regimes economically and militarily.

Structure and Mechanisms of the Post-WWII Order

Key Institutions and Rules

The (UN), founded on October 24, 1945, following ratification of its by 51 original member states including the on July 28, 1945, constitutes the central institution of the post-World War II international order. The , drafted at the 1945 San Francisco Conference by representatives from 50 nations, codifies foundational purposes such as maintaining international peace and security through collective measures, fostering friendly relations among nations based on principles of equal rights and of peoples, and achieving cooperation to address economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian challenges while promoting respect for . The UN's structure comprises six principal organs: the General Assembly, providing a forum for all member states with one vote each regardless of size; the Security Council, tasked with primary responsibility for peace and security, consisting of 15 members including five permanent ones (, , , as successor to the , and , with the replacing the in 1971) empowered with rights over substantive decisions; the Economic and Social Council; the Trusteeship Council (largely inactive since 1994 after the last trust territory's independence); the for settling legal disputes between states; and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General. Core rules of the order derive principally from the UN Charter's Chapter I, emphasizing sovereign equality of states (Article 2.1), settlement of international disputes by peaceful means without endangering (Article 2.3), and refraining from the threat or use of force against or political except in individual or collective or when authorized by the Security Council (Article 2.4 and Chapter VII). These provisions underpin a framework of and , prohibiting intervention in domestic affairs (Article 2.7) while obligating states to fulfill Charter obligations in good faith (Article 2.2). Complementary norms include adherence to and treaties like the , which update protections for victims of armed conflict, ratified by over 190 states. Enforcement relies on Security Council resolutions, though mechanisms have frequently stalled action, as seen in over 300 vetoes since 1946, predominantly by permanent members during and post-Cold War rivalries. This institutional and normative architecture prioritizes state sovereignty and as bedrock principles, distinguishing the post-1945 order from pre-war systems by institutionalizing dispute resolution and limiting unilateral aggression, though real-world application has varied with power asymmetries among great powers.

Economic Pillars: Bretton Woods and Trade Regimes

The , convened from July 1 to 22, 1944, in , gathered representatives from 44 Allied nations to design a international monetary framework aimed at averting the competitive currency devaluations and trade barriers that exacerbated the . The agreement established fixed but adjustable exchange rates, with participating currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar within a 1 percent band and the dollar convertible to gold at $35 per ounce, fostering monetary stability to support and . Central to the system were two new institutions: the (IMF), tasked with overseeing stability, providing short-term financial assistance to members facing balance-of-payments deficits, and promoting consultation on monetary policies; and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, later the ), focused on long-term loans for postwar reconstruction and development projects. The IMF's Articles of Agreement, adopted at the conference, emphasized cooperation to avoid policies that harmed global prosperity, while granting the U.S. veto power in major decisions due to its quota share. This structure positioned the U.S. dollar as the world's , enabling American economic influence but also exposing the system to strains from U.S. deficits. Operational from 1945 to the early 1970s, the Bretton Woods regime facilitated rapid global economic recovery by stabilizing currencies and channeling capital flows, with IMF lending totaling over $5 billion by 1970 to support adjustments in member economies. It complemented security alliances by tying economic interdependence to geopolitical stability, though inherent tensions arose from the U.S. commitment to gold convertibility amid growing foreign dollar holdings exceeding U.S. gold reserves. The system's demise culminated in the "Nixon Shock" of August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon suspended dollar-to-gold convertibility, imposed wage-price controls, and introduced a 10 percent import surcharge to address inflation, trade imbalances, and speculative pressures, effectively ending fixed rates and ushering in floating exchange regimes. Parallel to monetary reforms, trade regimes emerged to liberalize commerce and prevent . The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), signed on October 30, 1947, by 23 countries, served as a provisional accord after the proposed failed U.S. ratification, establishing rules for reciprocal reductions and non-discriminatory trade via most-favored-nation principles. Over eight negotiation rounds from 1947 to 1994, including the Kennedy Round (1964–1967) cutting industrial tariffs by 35 percent and the (1986–1994) addressing services and , GATT reduced average industrial tariffs from 40 percent in 1947 to under 5 percent by 1993, expanding global merchandise trade from $58 billion in 1948 to $4.9 trillion in 1994. GATT evolved into the (WTO) on January 1, 1995, following the , incorporating 123 founding members and introducing binding dispute settlement mechanisms, broader coverage of , textiles, and services, and principles like transparency and predictability. The WTO's framework reinforced the post-WWII order by institutionalizing —resolving over 600 cases by 2023—and promoting trade as a driver of growth, with world trade volume expanding 43-fold from 1950 to 2024 under its precursors and successor. Together, these pillars underpinned U.S.-led economic , prioritizing openness while allowing exceptions for , though they faced critiques for favoring developed economies in early decades.

Security Architectures: Alliances and Norms

The post-World War II security architecture was characterized by bipolar alliances that institutionalized mutual defense commitments amid ideological rivalry between the -led West and the Soviet bloc. The (), established on April 4, 1949, by 12 founding members including the , , and ten European nations, served as the cornerstone of Western collective defense. Its core provision, Article 5 of the , stipulates that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, enabling unified military response to deter aggression, primarily aimed at countering Soviet expansion in Europe following events like the 1948 . By 2025, had expanded to 32 members, incorporating former states, which reinforced transatlantic security but also provoked Russian assertions of encirclement. Opposing NATO, the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact on May 14, 1955, comprising the USSR and seven Eastern European satellites to formalize military coordination and justify interventions, such as the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. This treaty mirrored NATO's structure but emphasized centralized Soviet command, serving as a tool for maintaining dominance over satellite states rather than equitable collective defense. The Pact dissolved on July 1, 1991, amid the Soviet Union's collapse, leaving a unipolar security vacuum temporarily filled by NATO's eastward enlargement. Peripheral U.S.-led alliances complemented NATO by extending containment to Asia and the Middle East: the Australia, New Zealand, and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) signed in 1951 focused on Pacific defense; the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), formed in 1954 with eight members including the U.S., Britain, and Pakistan, aimed to curb communism but proved ineffective due to limited military integration and dissolved in 1977; and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), established in 1955 linking Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Britain, targeted Soviet influence in the region but collapsed in 1979 following Iran's revolution. Security norms underpinning these alliances emphasized deterrence through overwhelming conventional and nuclear superiority, alongside restraints on escalation. The nuclear taboo, solidified post-1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, evolved into formalized non-proliferation efforts, culminating in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) opened for signature in 1968 and entering force in 1970, which committed non-nuclear states to forgo weapons development in exchange for peaceful technology access, ratified by 190 states by 2017. safeguards since 1970 have verified compliance, preventing diversion of fissile materials despite challenges from proliferators like . Broader norms included respect for sovereignty under the UN Charter's Article 2(4) prohibiting force except in self-defense, though alliances often prioritized strategic interests, as evidenced by U.S. interventions and Soviet suppressions that tested these principles. agreements like the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty and subsequent SALT/START processes further normativized mutual vulnerability to avert , sustaining a precarious stability through the .

Achievements and Empirical Outcomes

Promotion of Prosperity and Stability

The post-World War II international order facilitated unprecedented global economic expansion through institutions like the , which established fixed exchange rates and promoted monetary stability until its effective end in 1971, thereby reducing trade risks and encouraging cross-border investment and commerce. This framework, complemented by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) evolving into the , underpinned a surge in volumes, which began recovering post-1945 after interwar declines and grew steadily, correlating with higher global output and gains in participating economies. Empirical data indicate average annual global GDP growth rates exceeded 4 percent in the decades following 1950, outpacing pre-war eras, driven by reconstruction aid, open markets, and technological diffusion under the order's rules-based architecture. Global poverty rates also declined markedly within this system, with (measured at $1.90 per day in 2011 PPP terms) falling by approximately 0.5 percentage points annually from to , accelerating thereafter due to integration into networks and foreign direct investment flows. By 2019, the proportion of the world's population in had dropped below 10 percent from over 40 percent in the mid-1980s, attributing much of this to and institutional support for development, though unevenly distributed across regions. These outcomes stemmed causally from the order's emphasis on property rights enforcement, via , and capital mobility, which incentivized productive investment over . On stability, the order's security mechanisms, including founded in , deterred large-scale interstate aggression in , enabling 75 years without major war on the continent by providing collective defense commitments that stabilized post-war frontiers and prevented Soviet incursions. Interstate conflict incidence has trended downward since 1945, with the rate of wars between states dropping to near zero in recent decades per datasets, reflecting norms against territorial conquest and nuclear deterrence underpinned by U.S.-led alliances. This era marks the longest absence of great-power conflict in modern history, with battle-related deaths from interstate wars comprising a fraction of levels, attributable to institutionalized balancing and that raised the costs of disruption. Overall, these mechanisms fostered a characterized by reduced systemic violence and sustained growth, though reliant on hegemonic enforcement rather than pure .

Spread of Norms and Conflict Reduction

The post-World War II international order has been associated with a marked decline in the frequency and severity of interstate wars, often termed the "." Since 1945, there have been no wars between major powers, a departure from the preceding centuries that included the , , and . Empirical data from the project indicate that the number of interstate conflicts has decreased, with battle deaths dropping significantly; for instance, annual battle deaths averaged over 200,000 in the early but fell to under 10,000 per year in most post-Cold War decades. This trend aligns with statistical models showing a reduced risk of death in battle after 1945, particularly following the Cold War's end in 1991. A key mechanism has been the dissemination of norms prohibiting territorial conquest and aggression, codified in instruments like the Charter (1945), which renounces the against territorial integrity. Post-1945, forcible territorial changes have become rare, with international responses—such as sanctions and condemnations—reinforcing a norm against that contrasts with pre-war practices where annexations were more tolerated. This normative shift has contributed to the peaceful resolution of many disputes; for example, territorial conflicts since 1945 have increasingly been settled through legal rather than , as evidenced by studies of over 300 cases where facilitated compromises. The spread of democratic governance represents another normative achievement, with democracies rising from about 20% of states in 1945 to 57-58% by the late , driven by waves of transitions in , , and post-Cold War . The , supported by empirical analyses, posits that shared democratic norms and institutions reduce war likelihood between such states; post-1945 data show democracies fighting each other in fewer than 1% of potential dyads, compared to higher rates involving autocracies. Institutions like have embedded these norms among members, fostering transparency and restraint that correlate with intra-alliance peace since 1949. Economic interdependence, promoted through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1947) and its successor, the (WTO, 1995), has further dampened conflict incentives by raising the costs of via disrupted trade flows. GATT/WTO membership has halved average rates from 22% in 1947 to under 5% by 2000, expanding global trade eightfold and creating mutual vulnerabilities that deter aggression, as seen in reduced militarized disputes among high-trade partners. Peer-reviewed assessments confirm that such regimes lower probabilities by 20-30% in interconnected dyads, though causation is debated amid confounding factors like U.S. . Nuclear non-proliferation norms, anchored by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, entered into force 1970), have constrained escalation risks. Ratified by 191 states, the NPT has limited new nuclear powers to four (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) despite technological diffusion, preventing the proliferation predicted in the 1960s when over 20 states pursued programs. This regime, alongside deterrence doctrines, has maintained nuclear peace among possessors, with no use in conflict since 1945, though critics note uneven enforcement favoring nuclear haves. These developments, while not eliminating —civil wars and intrastate conflicts persist, accounting for most post-1945 deaths—demonstrate causal links between institutionalized norms and reduced systemic threats, substantiated by longitudinal datasets rather than anecdotal advocacy. Skepticism from realist perspectives highlights selection effects, such as bipolar stability during the , but aggregate trends support normative efficacy in curbing great-power clashes.

Criticisms and Inherent Limitations

Ideological Imposition and Hypocrisy

The liberal international order, established post-1945 under U.S. leadership, has promoted universal norms such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through institutions like the United Nations and conditional aid programs, yet critics argue this constitutes ideological imposition by prioritizing Western liberal values over diverse national systems. This imposition often manifests in interventions justified by ideological goals, such as NATO's 1999 Kosovo campaign or the 2011 Libya intervention under the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which bypassed full UN Security Council approval despite emphasizing multilateralism. Realist scholars contend that such actions reflect not genuine universalism but a strategic extension of hegemonic interests, eroding the order's legitimacy when outcomes deviate from proclaimed ideals, as seen in Libya's subsequent state collapse and civil war persisting into 2023. Hypocrisy arises from selective enforcement of these norms, where violations by allies elicit muted responses compared to those by adversaries. For instance, the U.S. has maintained robust and economic ties with despite its 2018-2023 Yemen intervention, which the UN documented as causing over 377,000 deaths including , while imposing sanctions on for comparable territorial actions in starting 2014. Similarly, Western condemnation of China's Uyghur policies—estimated by Department reports to involve detention of over 1 million since 2017—contrasts with limited action against allies like , where mass detentions of dissidents exceeded 60,000 by 2020 per monitors, yet aid continued unabated. This , highlighted in Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1979 critique of equating anti-communist authoritarians with totalitarian regimes, undermines credibility, as allies perceive favoritism and adversaries exploit it to justify norm rejection. Contemporary examples amplify these charges, particularly divergent responses to conflicts: the unified Western sanctions and $100 billion-plus in aid to following Russia's 2022 invasion starkly differ from restrained criticism of Israel's Gaza operations post-October 7, 2023, which UN reports linked to over 40,000 Palestinian deaths by mid-2024, fueling Global South accusations of racialized norm application. Such inconsistencies, while not unique to the West—Russia's Ukraine rhetoric ignores its own Georgia incursion in 2008—erode the order's , as empirical studies show perceived reduces compliance with international rules by non-Western states. Critics from realist perspectives argue this stems from causal realities of , where ideological rhetoric serves interests rather than transcending them, prompting revisionist powers to advance alternatives unburdened by similar pretensions.

Erosion of Sovereignty and National Interests

The post-World War II international order, through institutions like the (IMF), (WTO), and regional bodies such as the (EU), has imposed binding commitments that constrain states' autonomous policymaking, often prioritizing supranational rules over national priorities. These mechanisms, intended to foster cooperation and prevent conflict, frequently require governments to relinquish control over fiscal, trade, and regulatory domains in exchange for access to markets, loans, or security guarantees. For instance, IMF loan programs attach conditionality clauses mandating structural reforms, such as measures or , which limit borrowing countries' fiscal and have been linked to suppressed wages and weakened labor bargaining in recipient nations. Similarly, WTO agreements enforce principles like most-favored-nation treatment and non-discrimination, subjecting national laws—such as trade remedies or environmental bans—to dispute settlement panels that can deem them inconsistent, as seen in rulings against U.S. tariffs and EU import restrictions. In the economic sphere, these arrangements subordinate national interests to global integration, evidenced by cases where states face retaliation or exclusion if they deviate from agreed norms. Developing countries receiving IMF assistance, for example, have experienced reduced policy space, with conditions extending beyond macroeconomic stability to influence domestic social policies, thereby eroding the ability to tailor responses to local economic shocks. WTO dispute outcomes have compelled adjustments in national , such as the U.S. losing over 90% of cases challenging its antidumping measures, highlighting how international adjudication overrides unilateral protections deemed essential for domestic industries. Critics argue this framework benefits creditor nations and multinational corporations at the expense of debtor states' , as conditionality often perpetuates dependency rather than resolving underlying vulnerabilities. Regional integration exemplifies sovereignty transfer on a supranational scale, particularly within the , where member states have delegated authority over , , and aspects of to -based institutions. The Eurozone's single currency eliminates independent monetary tools for 20 members, forcing synchronized fiscal responses that may conflict with national economic cycles, as during the 2010-2012 sovereign debt crisis when and others faced externally imposed . EU law supremacy over national constitutions means directives on , environmental standards, and rule-of-law compliance can override domestic parliaments, leading to tensions in countries like and , where has withheld funds to enforce alignment. This pooling, while enhancing power globally, diminishes individual states' capacity to pursue divergent interests, as affirmed by the 2016 , where restoring control over borders and laws was a central grievance. Security and normative architectures further erode by embedding interventionist principles that justify external oversight of internal affairs. The UN-endorsed (R2P) doctrine, formalized in 2005, permits collective action against states failing to safeguard populations from atrocities, potentially legitimizing military or diplomatic intrusions that bypass traditional non-interference norms. Applications, such as 's 1999 Kosovo intervention without Security Council approval, illustrate how rhetoric can prioritize universal standards over , with post hoc UN resolutions retroactively endorsing such overrides. Alliances like require members to align defense spending and strategies, constraining independent foreign policies—evident in Turkey's friction over purchasing Russian S-400 systems despite alliance pressures. These dynamics often align national interests with those of dominant powers, as smaller states trade for , fostering dependency rather than balanced multipolarity.

Failures in Conflict Prevention and Inequality

The post-World War II international order, through institutions like the (UNSC), aimed to prevent conflicts via mechanisms, yet empirical data reveal persistent failures. Since 1946, at least 285 distinct armed conflicts have occurred globally, including major wars in Korea (1950–1953), (1955–1975), and ongoing crises such as those in (2011–present) and (2014–present). In 2023 alone, 59 state-based armed conflicts were recorded, the highest annual figure since the end of , with battle-related deaths exceeding 150,000 in recent years. These statistics, tracked by the Peace Research Institute (PRIO), underscore how institutional veto powers have paralyzed decisive action, as permanent UNSC members have cast over 300 vetoes since 1946, frequently blocking resolutions on active conflicts. Veto usage exemplifies structural impediments to conflict prevention. vetoed 15 of 53 UNSC resolutions on between 2011 and 2021, shielding the Assad regime from sanctions amid over 500,000 deaths and mass atrocities. Similarly, blocked resolutions condemning its 2022 invasion of , while has vetoed measures addressing Uyghur abuses and territorial disputes. The has vetoed at least 45 resolutions critical of since 1972, including those seeking ceasefires in Gaza conflicts. Such vetoes, as documented in UN records, prioritize national interests over multilateral enforcement, rendering the UNSC ineffective in crises involving great powers or their allies, as evidenced by the failure to halt genocides in (1994, ~800,000 deaths) and (1995, ~8,000 deaths) despite early warnings. On inequality, the Bretton Woods institutions—International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—promised equitable growth but have faced criticism for policies that exacerbated disparities in developing nations. Global income inequality, measured by the , stood at approximately 0.67 in 2020, reflecting persistent high disparity despite post-1945 . programs imposed by the IMF in the 1980s–1990s, affecting over 100 countries, mandated , , and trade liberalization, which correlated with rising within-country Gini coefficients; for instance, in , average Gini rose from 0.45 in 1980 to 0.48 by 2000 amid debt crises. World Bank lending, totaling $500 billion since 1946, often prioritized infrastructure over social safety nets, contributing to and widened gaps, as seen in Latin America's Gini stagnation around 0.50–0.55 from 1990–2020. These economic pillars failed to mitigate North-South divides, with the top 10% of global income earners capturing 52% of world income by 2020, per estimates. Critics, including economists analyzing IMF conditionality, argue that fiscal reduced public spending on and by up to 20% in borrower countries during the 1980s debt crisis, entrenching poverty cycles. While lifted 1.2 billion from since 1990, primarily in , it amplified inequalities elsewhere through uneven trade benefits and , with concentrating in urban enclaves. Peer-reviewed studies link these outcomes to institutional designs favoring creditor nations, where voting shares remain dominated by the U.S. (16.5% in IMF) and , sidelining emerging economies.

Contemporary Shifts and Challenges

Signs of Decline in US-Led Hegemony

The ' share of global (GDP), measured in (PPP) terms, has declined from approximately 21% in 1990 to 16% as of 2024, reflecting the rapid of emerging markets such as , whose PPP share reached 19.63% in recent IMF data. This relative erosion underscores a broader of , with the G7's collective GDP share also shrinking amid the ascent of non-Western economies. Concurrently, U.S. manufacturing's contribution to domestic GDP has fallen from 21-25% in the to about 10% today, signaling vulnerabilities in industrial capacity that limit leverage in disputes. Challenges to the U.S. dollar's status as the world's primary reserve currency have intensified, with its share of allocated global foreign exchange reserves dropping from 66% in 2015 to 58% by the first quarter of 2025, according to Federal Reserve and IMF tracking. Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries have similarly declined over the past 15 years, partly due to de-dollarization efforts in trade invoicing and payments, as evidenced by reduced dollar usage in emerging market transactions. The expansion of BRICS—adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates in 2024 and Indonesia in early 2025—has accelerated this trend, with intra-BRICS trade fostering greater use of local currencies and diminishing reliance on dollar-denominated systems. Militarily, the U.S. withdrawal from in August 2021 exemplified operational and strategic shortcomings, as the rapid resurgence despite two decades of investment highlighted limits to and efficacy. U.S. defense spending, comprising nearly 40% of the global total, has not prevented adversaries from advancing objectives, such as Russia's 2022 invasion of , where NATO's deterrence failed despite extensive U.S. commitments, or China's militarization of the . These instances reflect overstretch, with simultaneous commitments in multiple theaters straining resources and alliances. Diplomatic influence has waned in the Global South, where countries increasingly pursue non-aligned strategies amid perceived U.S. inconsistencies, as seen in limited adherence to Western sanctions on and growing participation in as an alternative forum. Major economies like and have maintained neutrality in the conflict, prioritizing economic ties with revisionist powers over alignment with U.S. positions, signaling a broader reconfiguration toward multipolarity. This shift is compounded by U.S. policy unpredictability, including escalations under the second Trump administration, which have prompted retaliatory diversification away from dollar-centric trade.

Rise of Revisionist Powers: China and Russia

China's ascent as a revisionist power stems from its pursuit of regional dominance and selective challenges to international norms, particularly in security domains where its interests conflict with the US-led order. Economically integrated into global institutions like the WTO—where it has complied with over 80% of dispute rulings—China nonetheless seeks to reshape maritime rules through territorial claims encompassing 90% of the , constructing artificial islands and militarizing reefs since 2013 despite the 2016 ruling against its "." This assertiveness reflects a broader under to achieve "great rejuvenation" by 2049, prioritizing Chinese centrality over universal liberal norms. Supporting this shift, China's military expenditure surged to $314 billion in 2024, a 7% increase from 2023 and the largest annual rise globally, funding advancements in hypersonic missiles, aircraft carriers, and anti-access/area-denial capabilities that undermine in the . The People's Liberation Army's expansion—now the world's largest navy by hull count—enables beyond traditional coastal defense, as evidenced by frequent incursions into Taiwan's air defense zone, exceeding 1,700 sorties in 2022 alone. These developments indicate not mere maintenance but incremental revisionism, accommodating existing economic rules while eroding architectures like UNCLOS in favor of might-based adjudication. Parallel to military buildup, the (BRI), launched in 2013, has extended Chinese influence via $1 trillion in loans and investments to over 150 countries, fostering infrastructure ties that bypass Western-led institutions like the World Bank. While critics allege "debt-trap diplomacy," empirical analysis reveals holds only 20% of Sri Lanka's external debt and has restructured rather than seized assets in cases like Hambantota port, where a 99-year lease followed voluntary handover amid broader fiscal mismanagement. Nonetheless, 80% of Chinese BRI loans since 2013 target countries now in debt distress, correlating with Beijing's leverage in renegotiations and resource access, such as Angola's oil-backed financing. This model promotes dependency on Chinese standards, challenging the impartiality of multilateral development norms. Russia's revisionism manifests through revanchist territorial grabs and rejection of post-Cold War enlargement, exemplified by the 2014 annexation of —adding 7% of Ukraine's land and strategic access—and the 2022 invasion, which has secured control over roughly 19% of Ukrainian territory including resources. These actions, justified by Moscow as countermeasures to NATO's eastward expansion from 14 members in 1999 to 32 by 2024, violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum's sovereignty guarantees and the 1990 Charter's inviolability of borders, prompting Western sanctions that contracted Russia's GDP by 2.1% in 2022 before partial wartime rebound via . Despite economic resilience—fueled by oil exports to and —Russia's pivot to has isolated it from forums, underscoring a doctrinal opposition to unipolarity articulated in Putin's 2007 speech. The Sino-Russian axis amplifies mutual revisionism, formalized in their February 2022 "no-limits" partnership declaration opposing "hegemonism" and color revolutions, with hitting $245 billion in 2024—up 66% from 2021—dominated by Russian energy imports sustaining 's growth amid decoupling. Joint exercises, technology transfers, and SCO expansion counterbalance Western alliances, enabling Russia to evade sanctions via Chinese dual-use goods while accesses discounted hydrocarbons and routes. This pragmatic entente, absent formal obligations, erodes the exclusivity of -led structures like QUAD and , fostering a bifurcated order where revisionists prioritize hierarchies over democratic . Empirical gains include Russia's territorial consolidation and 's diversification, though asymmetries—'s economy 10 times larger—limit equivalence.

Emergence of Multipolarity and Global South Perspectives

The post-Cold War era of U.S.-led unipolarity has given way to multipolarity, marked by the diffusion of economic, military, and diplomatic influence among multiple actors, including rising non-Western powers. This shift accelerated in the , driven by China's economic expansion—its share of global GDP (PPP) exceeding the U.S. by 2014—and the formation of institutions like the in 2016, which drew participation from over 100 countries despite Western opposition. Russia's military resurgence, exemplified by its 2014 annexation of and subsequent interventions, alongside India's to become the world's fifth-largest economy by nominal GDP in 2022, further fragmented power concentrations. By 2025, the Munich Security Report described this as "multipolarization," an ongoing process where ideological and material capabilities enable more states to contest global influence, eroding the exclusivity of Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Empirical indicators include the expansion of the grouping, which in August 2023 admitted , , , and the as full members effective January 2024, increasing its collective GDP share to approximately 35% of the global total on a PPP basis and representing 45% of the world's population. This enlargement, formalized at the summit, positioned as a to dominance, facilitating South-South trade that reached 24% of global commercial exchanges by 2025 and promoting de-dollarization efforts through settlements in intra-group transactions. Such developments reflect causal dynamics where economic interdependence among non-Western states reduces reliance on U.S.-centric financial systems, as evidenced by Russia's redirection of exports to post-2022 sanctions, sustaining its economy despite isolation from Western markets. From Global South perspectives, multipolarity offers emancipation from perceived Western hegemony, enabling greater agency in without ideological preconditions. Countries in , , and , comprising the G77 bloc of 134 nations, increasingly prioritize pragmatic nonalignment, as seen in their abstention from UN votes condemning Russia's 2022 invasion of —over 30 Global South states refused to join Western sanctions, citing and economic self-interest over norms. Leaders from and have articulated this view, with Indian Prime Minister emphasizing as a platform for "multipolarity" where emerging economies shape equitable rules, free from unilateral impositions. This stance aligns with empirical gains: Global South GDP growth outpaced the average from 2000 to 2023, fostering optimism that diffused power balances will yield more inclusive institutions, though challenges like internal asymmetries persist. Critics within Western analyses, such as those from the Atlantic Council, warn that multipolarity risks instability without shared rules, yet Global South actors counter that unipolarity historically amplified inequalities, with Western interventions in (2003) and (2011) eroding trust in liberal order prescriptions. Instead, forums like the , expanded to include in 2023, exemplify preferred models of consensus-based cooperation among , , , and Central Asian states, prioritizing development over confrontation. By 2025, BCG assessments highlighted the Global South's strategic maneuvering—leveraging U.S.-China rivalry for concessions—as a net positive, repositioning these nations from periphery to pivotal players in trade, technology, and resource diplomacy.

Alternative Visions and Competing Orders

Realist Conceptions: Spheres of Influence and Power Balances

Realist theory posits that international order emerges from the anarchic structure of the global system, where states prioritize survival through self-help and power maximization, rather than shared norms or institutions. In this view, great powers maintain stability by balancing against potential hegemons and delineating spheres of influence to manage competition and avert catastrophic conflicts. Kenneth Waltz's neorealism emphasizes structural constraints that compel states to form alliances or coalitions, ensuring no single actor dominates, as imbalances invite aggression. John Mearsheimer's extends this by arguing that great powers inherently seek regional hegemony within their spheres to enhance security, viewing unchecked expansion by rivals as existential threats. Spheres of influence represent geographic zones where a predominant power exercises military, political, and economic primacy, tacitly accepted by peers to preserve equilibrium. Historically, the 1823 exemplified this, with the asserting dominance in the to exclude European intervention, a policy rooted in realist calculations of proximity and vulnerability. Post-World War II agreements, such as the 1945 divisions in Europe, reflected recognition of mutual spheres to consolidate gains and deter rivalry escalation. Realists contend these arrangements reduce miscalculation; for instance, Mearsheimer argues that denying a sphere in its near abroad, as in since 2014, provokes balancing behaviors akin to U.S. intolerance of Soviet bases in in 1962. Balance of power mechanisms complement spheres by fostering alliances that counterbalance threats, historically stabilizing multipolar systems like 19th-century , where shifting coalitions prevented French or Prussian hegemony after 1815. In realist thought, this dynamic order is self-regulating: states "balance" through armaments or pacts when power asymmetries arise, as evidenced by NATO's expansion post-1991 prompting Russian countermeasures, per Mearsheimer's analysis of great power tragedy. Critics within realism, like defensive variants, caution that excessive buck-passing or can destabilize, yet proponents maintain it outperforms idealistic pursuits of perpetual by aligning with states' innate dilemmas. In contemporary multipolarity, realists advocate informal sphere accommodations—such as U.S. deference in Russia's post-Soviet periphery—to mitigate escalation risks from revisionist bids.

Sino-Centric Alternatives and Belt and Road Initiative

China's vision for international order emphasizes a multipolar framework centered on economic interdependence and mutual benefit, often framed as a "community with a shared future for mankind," which prioritizes state sovereignty, non-interference, and development over Western liberal norms like democracy promotion. This approach draws on historical Sino-centric concepts such as tianxia (all under heaven), adapting them to modern geopolitics where China positions itself as the gravitational core for Global South partnerships, challenging U.S.-led institutions by offering alternatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), established in 2015 with 109 member countries by 2023. Beijing's rhetoric, including Xi Jinping's Global Development Initiative (2021), Global Security Initiative (2022), and Global Civilization Initiative (2023), promotes these ideas as inclusive yet implicitly hierarchical, with China's economic model and governance as exemplars for emulation. The (BRI), formally announced by in 2013, serves as the operational cornerstone of this Sino-centric paradigm, encompassing land-based " Economic Belt" and sea-based "" networks spanning , , and beyond. By 2023, China had signed cooperation agreements with over 150 countries and 30 international organizations, committing approximately $1 trillion in investments and loans for infrastructure projects including ports, railways, highways, and energy facilities. Key examples include the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (launched 2015, over $60 billion invested by 2023) featuring , and the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway in (completed 2023, first such line in ). These efforts aim to address infrastructure deficits in developing regions, fostering connectivity that aligns recipient economies with Chinese supply chains and standards. BRI has demonstrably boosted trade volumes, with China's exports to partner countries rising 6.4% annually from 2013 to 2022, and exceeding $2 trillion cumulatively by 2023; developments have reduced times, such as cutting Beijing-to-Europe rail journeys from 45 days by to 12-15 days. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it has filled financing gaps where multilateral lenders like the World Bank were constrained, enabling projects like African hydropower dams and Southeast Asian rail networks that supported local GDP growth rates of 1-2% in participating economies per some econometric studies. However, outcomes vary: while resource-rich nations like those in gained extraction tied to Chinese firms, benefits often concentrate among elites, with limited or local job creation due to reliance on Chinese labor and contractors. Critics highlight risks of debt dependency, with 60% of BRI countries facing public debt distress or high risk by 2023 per AidData analyses, exemplified by Sri Lanka's 2017 handover of Port to a Chinese state firm after defaulting on $1.5 billion in loans. Lending practices, often non-concessional and collateralized against assets, have prompted defaults or restructurings in (2020) and (ongoing since 2022), fueling debates over "debt-trap diplomacy" despite China's claims of no territorial designs. Geopolitically, BRI secures China's access to strategic chokepoints like the Malacca Strait via dual-use ports, while opaque contracts and environmental impacts—such as in ' rail project—have drawn scrutiny from international observers, underscoring how economic leverage translates to influence in UN votes and regional alignments. Beijing counters that such partnerships respect , contrasting with perceived Western conditionality, though empirical evidence shows selective enforcement of transparency standards.

Regional and Non-Western Models

Regional models of international order often prioritize , non-interference, and pragmatic cooperation tailored to local contexts, contrasting with the universalist liberal framework by avoiding imposed ideological norms such as or conditionality. These approaches draw from historical experiences of , great-power rivalry, and , fostering consensus-based mechanisms that accommodate authoritarian and economic interdependence without supranational enforcement. In Asia, the , founded in 1967, exemplifies this through its Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, which enshrines non-interference and peaceful , enabling via the ASEAN Economic Community established in 2015, which has boosted intra-regional trade to 24.5% of members' total by 2022. 's centrality in architecture, as affirmed in its 2023 ASEAN Outlook on the , positions it as an alternative operating system for order-building, emphasizing dialogue over confrontation amid U.S.- tensions. The (SCO), established in 2001 by , , and Central Asian states, extends this model across , promoting security cooperation against "three evils" of , , and while advancing multipolar governance. With expansion to include in 2017, in 2023, and in 2024, the SCO represents 40% of the world's population and focuses on joint military exercises, such as the 2024 "Peace Mission," and economic initiatives bypassing Western sanctions. At its 2025 summit, leaders endorsed a vision of equitable global order, critiquing and advocating de-dollarization through trade, though internal divergences—such as India-Russia frictions—limit supranational depth. In , the (EAEU), operational since 2015 among , , , , and , pursues deeper integration via a and for goods, services, capital, and labor, with intra-bloc trade reaching $78.5 billion in 2023. This model emphasizes economic resilience against external pressures, as seen in free trade agreements with (2016) and (2019), but faces challenges from unequal benefits favoring , with GDP growth averaging 2.1% annually post-integration per independent assessments. The EAEU's framework aligns with realist spheres of influence, prioritizing state-led development over market liberalization. Africa's non-Western approach centers on the (AU), successor to the Organization of African Unity since 2002, which advances pan-African solidarity through , a 50-year blueprint launched in 2013 for self-reliant integration, aiming for a united as a "strong, united, resilient, peaceful and influential global player." The AU's (AfCFTA), effective from 2021, seeks to create the world's largest by area, covering 1.3 billion people, though implementation lags with only 47% tariff liberalization by 2024 due to infrastructure deficits. Recent assertions of agency include the AU's membership in 2023, enabling collective bargaining on issues like , reflecting a shift from post-colonial dependency toward multipolar engagement without Western normative preconditions. In the Gulf, the (GCC), formed in 1981 by , UAE, , , , and , embodies a security-oriented model rooted in monarchical solidarity and deterrence against , formalized in the 1984 Joint Defense Agreement. The 2024 GCC Vision for Regional Security outlines unified threat responses, including border management and counter-terrorism, amid reconciliation post-2017 Qatar crisis, with defense spending totaling $118 billion in 2023. This framework prioritizes internal stability and energy security over expansive alliances, incorporating economic diversification via Vision 2030 initiatives, though reliance on U.S. security guarantees underscores hybrid dependencies. These models collectively challenge Western by scaling cooperation to regional realities, yielding tangible gains in and but often constrained by power asymmetries and limited institutional enforcement, as evidenced by persistent intra-bloc disputes.

Prospects for the Future

Scenarios of Continuity, Reform, or Fragmentation

Scholars analyzing the future of the international order outline three primary scenarios: continuity of the existing US-led liberal framework, incremental to accommodate rising powers, or fragmentation into competing blocs. Continuity posits that core institutions like , the IMF, and WTO, established post-World War II, retain legitimacy through their provision of public goods such as facilitation and guarantees, underpinned by economic and military dominance—evidenced by the accounting for 3.5% of global GDP growth in 2024 while maintaining defense spending exceeding the next ten countries combined. This resilience stems from the order's evolutionary adaptability, where challenges like under Trump-era tariffs (2018–2020) prompted adjustments rather than abandonment, allowing persistence amid power shifts. However, critics argue the order's foundational flaws, including over-reliance on and exclusionary elements favoring Western liberal norms, limit long-term viability without addressing internal contradictions like rising inequality and enforcement inconsistencies. Reform scenarios envision targeted updates to multilateral institutions to integrate non-Western powers, averting outright rivalry. For instance, proposals draw from Bretton Woods (1944) precedents, suggesting recalibration of IMF voting shares—currently skewed toward the with 16.5% influence—to reflect China's 18% share of global GDP by 2025, fostering buy-in from the Global South. Such reforms could include WTO dispute mechanisms reformed post-2019 paralysis, enabling unified trade rules over bilateral deals, as fragmentation in standards (e.g., vs. Chinese tech regulations) already imposes 1–2% GDP losses annually via compliance costs. Proponents, including elements within the Biden administration's 2022 , view this as stabilizing multipolarity by embedding rivals in rule-based systems, though skepticism persists given Russia's 2022 invasion of exposing reform limits against revanchist actors. Empirical data from summits (e.g., 2023 ) show partial successes in pledges totaling $100 billion annually, hinting at feasible evolution if leadership commits to inclusive over . Fragmentation risks a balkanized order, with geopolitical tensions bifurcating global finance and trade into -aligned and China-Russia-led spheres, as seen in the SWIFT exclusions of Russian banks prompting parallel systems like China's CIPS, now handling 5% of cross-border payments. This multipolar "Pax Multipolaris" amplifies instability, with projections estimating 0.5–1% annual global GDP drag from derisking supply chains, exacerbated by tech decoupling— export controls on semiconductors since reduced China's advanced chip imports by 20%. Historical analogies to interwar fragmentation (1919–1939), marked by wars and alliances, warn of heightened conflict probability, as multipolarity historically correlates with 30–50% elevated war risks per data. Global South neutrality, evident in 40% of UN votes abstaining on resolutions (–2024), could accelerate bloc formation, undermining universal norms like nonproliferation, where Iran's 2025 uranium enrichment neared 90% amid expansion. While some view fragmentation as inevitable given power diffusion—China's GDP surpassing the EU's in PPP terms by 2014—causal factors like mutual (bilateral trade volumes exceeding $600 billion -China in 2024) may constrain full rupture, favoring hybrid outcomes over pure scenarios.

Implications for Global Power Dynamics and Stability

The prospective fragmentation or reform of the international order carries significant risks for global stability, as power transitions in multipolar environments historically correlate with heightened conflict probabilities. In 16 cases over the past 500 years where a rising power challenged a ruling one, war ensued in 12 instances, a pattern encapsulated in the framework applied to U.S.- dynamics. While not deterministic—successful avoidance occurred in four cases through diplomatic maneuvering—the structural incentives for miscalculation persist amid opaque intentions and alliance uncertainties. Escalating military expenditures underscore this tension: global spending reached $2,718 billion in 2024, a 9.4% year-on-year increase and the sharpest rise in a decade, with the top five nations (U.S., , , , and ) accounting for over half. This arms buildup, driven by regional conflicts and great-power rivalry, erodes deterrence predictability and amplifies risks, as evidenced by Iran's drone supplies to and North Korea's provision in . U.S.-led hegemony's relative decline redistributes influence toward revisionist actors, potentially destabilizing alliances and norms. China's defense outlays, estimated at $296 billion in 2024 (second only to the U.S.'s $997 billion), fund capabilities challenging American primacy in the , including hypersonic missiles and carrier-killer systems that compress response times in potential contingencies. Russia's 2022 invasion of exemplifies revisionist opportunism, fracturing energy security—Europe's gas imports from Russia fell 80% by 2023—and testing cohesion, yet prompting alliance expansion with and Sweden's 2023-2024 accessions. These shifts foster a bifurcated order, with Sino-Russian partnerships countering Western institutions through forums like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which expanded to include in 2023, thereby diluting sanctions efficacy as Global South abstention (e.g., India's continued Russian oil purchases) limits enforcement. The Global South's assertiveness in this multipolar landscape introduces both stabilizing pluralism and fragmenting incentives. Representing over 85% of the world's population, these states prioritize pragmatic non-alignment, as seen in expansion to 10 members by 2024, enabling economic diversification via China's (spanning $1 trillion in investments across 150 countries) without full endorsement of Western rules-based order. This agency mitigates bipolar bloc formation—evident in and South Africa's mediation pushes in —but risks norm erosion, such as tolerance for territorial revisionism, potentially normalizing aggression in disputed regions like the . Overall, while competition may incentivize restraint to avoid mutually assured losses, empirical precedents from pre-World War I suggest unmanaged multipolarity heightens systemic instability absent robust balancing mechanisms.

References

  1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1598.html
  2. https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-673
  3. https://www.rienner.com/uploads/5ce6ee447d698.pdf
  4. https://britishonlinearchives.com/collections/90/establishing-the-post-war-international-order-1944-1961
  5. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/new-global-power-after-world-war-ii-1945
  6. https://academic.oup.com/book/8563/chapter/154449998
  7. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/43/4/7/12221/Bound-to-Fail-The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-Liberal
  8. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/liberalism-doomed-liberal-international-order
  9. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/stagnant-order-michael-beckley
  10. https://www.cfr.org/article/liberal-world-order-rip
  11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0047117809104637
  12. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/illiberalism-real-crisis-global-order
  13. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/under-pressure-present-future-international-order
  14. https://academic.oup.com/book/5737/chapter/148873544
  15. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/rules-of-order-assessing-the-state-of-global-governance?lang=en
  16. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/11-characteristics-of-the-international-order/
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  18. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/
  19. https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/
  20. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125967055.pdf
  21. https://brill.com/view/journals/joch/5/2/article-p171_4.xml
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/political-authority-in-international-relations-revisiting-the-medieval-debate/4B4DE32077EFDB0E83B199C64E4F2D83
  23. https://academic.oup.com/book/1889/chapter/141648507
  24. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/conf/naj01/
  25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01916599.2022.2077401
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/rethinking-international-order-in-early-modern-europe-evidence-from-courtly-ceremonial/5135EDEF683F261C0D8246BFB3B22246
  27. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/contemporary_sec9/3/
  28. https://opil.ouplaw.com/page/477
  29. https://www.unesco.at/en/communication/documentary-heritage/memory-of-the-world-in-austria/final-document-of-the-congress-of-vienna-1815
  30. https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/europe-europeans-and-world/organizing-international-system/european-balance-power
  31. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE200/PE226/RAND_PE226.pdf
  32. https://www.thecollector.com/what-was-the-concert-of-europe/
  33. https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/international-relations/organizing-international-system/concert-europe
  34. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/great-britain-and-scramble-africa
  35. https://www.britishempire.me.uk/the-scramble-for-africa.html
  36. https://www.history.com/articles/imperialism-causes-world-war-i
  37. https://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/otto-von-bismarck-master-statesman/
  38. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/24-4-4-otto-von-bismarck-and-the-franco-prussian-war/
  39. https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/six-causes-world-war-i
  40. https://diplomatist.com/2021/04/19/circumstances-leading-to-formation-of-triple-alliance-and-triple-entente/
  41. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/paris-peace
  42. https://warontherocks.com/2021/08/how-an-international-order-died-lessons-from-the-interwar-era-2/
  43. https://historycooperative.org/league-of-nations-a-history/
  44. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/league-of-nations
  45. https://www.e-ir.info/2010/09/08/e-h-carr-and-the-failure-of-the-league-of-nations-a-historical-overview/
  46. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/foreword
  47. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf
  48. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/un
  49. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created
  50. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/98681.htm
  51. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/marshall-plan
  52. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato
  53. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm
  54. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/liberal-world-order/
  55. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
  56. https://www.un.org/en/video/founding-united-nations-1945
  57. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1426&context=ils
  58. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1598/RAND_RR1598.pdf
  59. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp
  60. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/bretton-woods
  61. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/
  62. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
  63. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends
  64. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm
  65. https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=363556&p=4108235
  66. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/trade_evolution_e/evolution_trade_wto_e.htm
  67. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm
  68. https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/
  69. https://www.britannica.com/event/Warsaw-Pact
  70. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/warsaw-treaty
  71. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/anzus
  72. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/seato
  73. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation
  74. https://www.cfr.org/report/global-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime
  75. https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization
  76. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2024-04/wp24-9.pdf
  77. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/estimates-global-poverty-wwii-fall-berlin-wall
  78. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief
  79. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
  80. https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/
  81. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041923-115351
  82. https://www.bethanylacina.org/docs/Lacinaetal_declinerisk.pdf
  83. https://academic.oup.com/book/2194/chapter/142222598
  84. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/does-international-law-promote-the-peaceful-settlement-of-international-disputes-evidence-from-the-study-of-territorial-conflicts-since-1945/9EC623E7292F1FF679FD99B83AD2AA74
  85. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/
  86. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2017/12/more-countries-are-now-democratic-than-at-any-point-since-world-war-two/
  87. https://bse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1203_0.pdf
  88. https://ourworldindata.org/democracy
  89. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12087
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043951X23001578
  91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2025.2488114
  92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2020.1824500
  93. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/experts-assess-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-50-years-after-it-went-into-effect/
  94. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons
  95. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/99/1/201/6967344
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366975814_Recognizing_injustice_the_%27hypocrisy_charge%27_and_the_future_of_the_liberal_international_order
  97. https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/06/14/there-human-rights-double-standard-us-policy-toward-saudi-arabia-iran-uzbekistan-and
  98. https://www.cato.org/commentary/too-many-foreign-policy-double-standards-hurt-us-credibility
  99. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2011.569195
  100. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/competing-visions-international-order/01-fracturing-us-led-liberal-international-order
  101. https://odi.org/en/insights/humanitarian-hypocrisy-double-standards-and-the-law-in-gaza/
  102. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/124334/3/limitations-of-hypocrisy-as-a-strategy-of-critique-in-international-politics.pdf
  103. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/IMF-Conditionality
  104. https://taxjustice.net/2018/07/06/the-damage-of-international-monetary-fund-conditionality-call-for-urgent-rethink/
  105. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm
  106. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/misinf_e/09sov_e.htm
  107. https://academic.oup.com/book/9638/chapter/156747380
  108. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2017/03/09/u-s-trade-laws-and-the-sovereignty-canard/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9172087/
  110. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty-experiment
  111. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2022.2042956
  112. https://ajges.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40856-017-0023-4
  113. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/about
  114. https://education.cfr.org/learn/learning-journey/sovereignty-challenges/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-responsibility-to-protect
  115. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/756/
  116. https://www.prio.org/news/3616
  117. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2024/10/14/the-american-economy-has-left-other-rich-countries-in-the-dust
  118. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPSH%40WEO/EU/CHN/USA
  119. https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/The-G7s-Share-of-Global-GDP-is-Shrinking-1699
  120. https://prosperousamerica.org/u-s-manufacturings-shrinking-share-of-gdp-and-how-to-catch-up/
  121. https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/cio-focuspoint-us-dollar-losing-its-luster-aug-2025.pdf
  122. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-international-role-of-the-u-s-dollar-2025-edition-20250718.html
  123. https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies/de-dollarization
  124. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-brics-group-and-why-it-expanding
  125. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/03/brics-expansion-and-the-future-of-world-order-perspectives-from-member-states-partners-and-aspirants?lang=en
  126. https://brics-econ.arphahub.com/article/143810/
  127. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68612367
  128. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1511913/epub
  129. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/JF-23/Bolton/bolton-military-power-is-insufficient-v1.pdf
  130. https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/10/whats-driving-bigger-brics-and-what-does-it-mean-us
  131. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/no-one-s-world-global-south-navigating-post-american-order
  132. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/dollar-dominance-and-trump-administration
  133. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ISEAS_Perspective_2019_21.pdf
  134. https://blogs.soas.ac.uk/china-institute/2023/06/22/tianxia-under-xi-jinping-is-china-a-revisionist-or-reformist-power-of-the-liberal-international-order/
  135. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf
  136. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/50/1/46/132729/What-Does-China-Want
  137. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/debt-distress-road-belt-and-road
  138. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy
  139. https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/3-years-later-what-russias-aggression-ukraine-has-cost-it-and-what-its-gained
  140. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/10/great-powers-competition-cold-war-china-russia-united-states
  141. https://merics.org/en/comment/china-russia-alignment-shared-vision-without-fully-seeing-eye-eye
  142. https://www.cfr.org/report/no-limits-china-russia-relationship-and-us-foreign-policy
  143. https://securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report-2025/introduction/
  144. https://www.clingendael.org/publication/brics-and-emerging-order-multipolarity
  145. https://brics.br/en/news/brics-is-a-channel-for-dialog-and-a-space-to-defend-the-multipolar-world
  146. https://www.securityincontext.org/posts/the-global-south-and-the-russia-ukraine-war-nonalignment-and-western-responses-on-cusp-of-multipolar-world
  147. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/rise-nonaligned-multipolar-world-matias-spektor
  148. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/piece-by-piece-the-brics-really-are-building-a-multipolar-world/
  149. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/in-a-multipolar-world-global-south-finds-its-moment
  150. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0083.xml
  151. https://samuelbhfaure.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf
  152. https://www.cato.org/commentary/accepting-spheres-influence-21st-century
  153. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/understanding-spheres-of-influence-in-international-politics/9E75C61DEF10F1DDD2CDF9974BE511F3
  154. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
  155. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-119
  156. https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/spheres-of-influence-in-a-multipolar-world/
  157. https://www.cfr.org/china-global-governance/
  158. https://www.nbr.org/program/chinas-vision-for-a-new-regional-and-global-order/
  159. https://scsp222.substack.com/p/xis-four-global-initiatives-chinas
  160. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
  161. https://greenfdc.org/ten-years-of-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-evolution-and-the-road-ahead/
  162. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/11/china-belt-road-initiative-trade-bri-silk-road/
  163. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/the-belt-and-road-initiative-what-impact-on-china-and-the-global-economy
  164. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2377740023500033
  165. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-belt-and-road-initiative/
  166. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/competing-visions-international-order/02-china-balancing-us-increasing-global-influence
  167. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/sr83_chinasvision_jan2020.pdf
  168. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/what-eurasian-economic-union
  169. https://geopoliticalcompass.com/asian-conceptions-of-international-order-what-asia-wants/
  170. https://merics.org/en/comment/china-and-russia-are-using-shanghai-cooperation-organization-push-alternative-global-order
  171. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-xi-pushes-new-global-order-flanked-by-leaders-russia-india-2025-09-01/
  172. https://behorizon.org/tianjin-test-what-the-2025-sco-summit-reveals-about-eurasias-emerging-order/
  173. https://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en
  174. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15387216.2022.2163414
  175. https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview
  176. https://ecdpm.org/work/carving-out-africas-role-emerging-global-order
  177. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/10/in-a-changing-global-order-africa-is-embracing-its-agency/
  178. https://www.gcc-sg.org/ar/MediaCenter/DigitalLibrary/Documents/27848330-555a-4a7d-9a6c-206b797fd2f9.pdf
  179. https://agsi.org/analysis/the-gulf-cooperation-council-at-40-finally-ripe-for-a-regional-security-system/
  180. https://kalam.chathamhouse.org/articles/understanding-the-gcc-collective-security-mindset/
  181. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/american-leadership-good-global-south
  182. https://gji3.scholar.princeton.edu/document/132
  183. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/reform-or-realignment-bretton-woods?lang=en
  184. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022-10-05wolff.pdf
  185. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/competing-visions-international-order/13-envisioning-future-international-order
  186. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025-03-27-competing-visions-international-order-vinjamuri-et-al.pdf
  187. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/geopolitical-tensions-and-international-financial-fragmentation-28th-geneva-report
  188. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/from-pax-americana-to-pax-multipolaris-the-rise-of-a-fragmented-global-order/
  189. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2025/09/24/the-us-led-world-order-is-breaking-heres-what-history-tells-us-may-come-next/
  190. https://www.cigionline.org/documents/2800/Scenarios_of_Evolving_Global_Order.pdf
  191. https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/the-world-today/2025-09/decline-west-and-rise-rest-will-lead-new-world-order
  192. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/destined-war-can-america-and-china-escape-thucydidess-trap
  193. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2020.1799739
  194. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2024
  195. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-war-in-ukraine-changed-russias-global-standing/
  196. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA3141-1.html
  197. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-russia-relationship-xi-putin-taiwan-ukraine
  198. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2726/RAND_RR2726.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.