From Unipolarity to Multipolarity: A New World Order

America’s position as the sole great power within the international system has come to an end. The future of the liberal world order has become precarious.

Photo edited by Frank Faiola | Russian President Putin (left) by Kremlin | U.S. President Biden (middle) by Lisa Ferdinando | Chinese President Xi (right) by U.K. Gov. | Russian flag by RainbowSilver2ndBackup | U.S. flag by Henrik Hansen | Chinese flag by Haisollokopas | CC

Brief History & Theoretical Concepts in International Relations

The balance of power within the international system during the Cold War was bipolar, meaning there were only two great powers — the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR).

A great power is a state powerful enough to influence other states and withstand their force in the international system. 

Free-market democracies in the West were in opposition to the one-party communist states that existed in Eastern Europe. Western European states aligned themselves with the United States within the NATO military alliance, whereas the satellite allies of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe were consolidated under Soviet leadership in the Warsaw Pact.

The fear of mutually assured destruction in a worldwide nuclear catastrophe introduced a noticeable aspect of restraint into the foreign policies of both the United States and the Soviet Union. A direct military conflict between the two great powers and their allies on European land was a likely pathway to nuclear warfare.

The fear of a nuclear holocaust acted as a deterrent that stopped the two great powers from ever engaging in direct military conflict, hence it was a cold war, rather than a hot war. 

Lower case “cold war” refers to intense economic, political, military, and ideological competition among states that does not escalate into direct military conflict, also known as hot war.

Hot war was avoided between America and the USSR for the duration of the USSR’s existence. The USSR officially dissolved on December 26, 1991, ending the Cold War and an era of bipolarity. The era of unipolarity (one great power) consisted of the United States as the sole pole. 

In the field of political science, classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, tend to hold the belief that multipolar systems (more than two great powers) are more stable in comparison to bipolar systems. They provide two arguments in support of their claim. 

Firstly, they argue that having more great powers is beneficial because it makes deterrence easier. In a multipolar world, multiple states can unite to confront an aggressive state. Secondly, they contend that there is less animosity among the great powers as their focus is more dispersed.

Proponents of neorealism, also known as structural realism, such as John Mearsheimer and Thomas Christensen, tend to assert that bipolar systems are more stable and have three supporting arguments for this notion.

Firstly, in a multipolar world, there exists a higher chance for great powers to engage in conflict with one another. Secondly, the amount of power between these states tends to be more proportionate, thus facilitating the act of balancing, owing to a relative equilibrium in terms of affluence and populace, the foundational elements for military might. Thirdly, within multipolarity, a greater propensity for miscalculations among states is apparent.

Classical liberals and neoliberals tend to favor a unipolar balance of power per hegemonic stability theory (HST). HST asserts that the international system is more likely to remain stable when there is one great power. In this situation, the single great power is considered a global hegemon since it is the most powerful state in the system.

A state can achieve regional hegemony or global hegemony. A regional hegemon is the most powerful state in a region compared to neighboring states. While a global hegemon is the most powerful state globally. In 2024, most political scientists still consider the U.S. a global hegemon, but with a recent relative decline in power as great powers, mostly China, rise.

Russia is generally also considered a regional hegemon, but its hegemonic status has come into question recently with America balancing the power by aiding Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Scholars still debate whether China is a regional hegemon or simply a great power. Many argue China is not a regional hegemon given the U.S. is balancing the power in East Asia by maintaining alliances with states like Japan and South Korea.

Classical and neoliberal theorists tend to favor unipolarity when there is a liberal hegemonic sole pole.

The term “liberal” in this context relates to the political and economic doctrine known as liberalism; which is associated with English philosopher John Locke, who is known as “the father of liberalism.”

Liberalism “is essentially a doctrine devoted to protecting the individual's rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Plattner 2008: 60).

A liberal democracy encompasses the values of liberalism, as well as some degree of a free market economy. Liberal democracies also consist of some form of representative democracy that has universal suffrage but also protects minority rights. (Meyer 2020: 2). 

While classical liberalism values liberty from government regulation, economic liberalism extends this to the economy. Economic liberalist ideology supports a free market economy that allows for private property. It opposes governmental intervention in the economy, including industry regulation or public ownership of any sector. 

America and other states fall on a spectrum of how free the market is and how much governmental intervention is imposed. No state has a completely free market, nearly all states encompass a mixed economy. 

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy grand strategy that supports international institutions (such as the U.N., W.T.O., and I.M.F.), free markets, collective security, and liberal democracy.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2016 | He is frequently remembered for serving near the start of the unipolar moment | Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr | CC BY-SA 2.0

The United States is known for being the most powerful liberal democracy that has ever existed. At least in terms of hard power (military influence on other states), America’s soft power (cultural and economic influence on other states) declined significantly after Bush invaded Iraq. 

The United States had free rein during the unipolar moment, which began after the Cold War.

Liberal thought tends to adhere to democratic peace theory, which posits that democratic states rarely go to war with each other — an assertion that is considered a historical fact. Thus, liberals assert that the world will be safer as more states turn into liberal democracies. Former President George Bush used democratic peace theory as one of his justifications for illegally invading Iraq in 2003.

Realist scholars do not agree with the theory of democratic peace, but for the most part, the United States has had many elements of a liberal internationalist foreign policy since the Cold War.

Neorealist John J. Mearsheimer | “The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony” | 80 Minute Lecture

Note: for the purposes of reading time, this article is only a brief overview of some aspects of certain relevant theories in international relations.

After the Cold War in the 1990s, America’s core foreign policy objective shifted to spreading liberal democracy abroad. The United States wanted to remake the world in its image. 

Once the USSR collapsed, the liberal world order officially began. The liberal world order, also known as the liberal international order or rules-based international order — is a set of global, rules-based, structured relationships founded on economic liberalism, political liberalism, and liberal internationalism. 

Former U.S. President Trump (left) | Chinese President Xi (right) | Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead via Flickr | Public Domain

Current Threats to the Liberal International Order

When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, the rest of the West felt the liberal world order could be under threat and that they could no longer rely on the United States given Trump’s open hostility towards globalization and global governance. 

Ultimately, the president’s rhetoric changed but U.S. foreign policy largely remained the same. Some political scientists contend that this is because U.S. foreign policy runs itself via the foreign policy establishment, also known as the “blob.” 

In the realm of international relations, revisionist states are the main threat to the liberal world order. Per power transition theory, a revisionist state is a state that intends to end or alter the current world order. A state is classified as either a revisionist state or a status quo state, the latter being a state that strives to maintain the current system. 

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Japan are examples of status quo states that enjoy their place in the current liberal world order. While Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are examples of states that are revisionist powers who are discontented with their place in the international system. 

There is no consensus among scholars on exactly when the balance of power shifted from unipolarity towards multipolarity. In fact, a minority of scholars would argue unipolarity never ended and an even smaller minority would argue it never truly existed at all. 

John Mearsheimer argues that the system became multipolar as recently as 2017. Presumably, this is because China’s economy grew at a historic rate of 6.9% that year. Russia also increased bilateral trade ties and military and security cooperation in 2017. Some scholars believe that the United States is still in the process of this transformation. Other scholars view the era of multipolarity as beginning after the 2008 financial crisis.

Regardless of when the era of multipolarity began, it is clear that China and Russia are the only two states that have any chance of changing the liberal world order at this time.

The New Cold War

More recently, some scholars and experts have been referring to this great power competition between the U.S., China, and Russia, as a cold war. 

The first Cold War was a battle between free-market democratic ideology and communism. 

The new cold war is a battle between liberal democracy and autocratic authoritarianism. 

Most states in the West have sided with the United States, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Canada, and more.

While some states, such as India and Brazil, are not strongly siding with either side, maintaining ties with the West and revisionist great powers. 

Much of the Global South, especially states in Africa, have accepted massive infrastructure loans from China and is expected to side with revisionist states or attempt to appease both sides. 

Many scholars believe that from Russian President Putin’s point of view — the Cold War never ended. There is a debate regarding whether NATO expansion was the primary cause of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin had warned against expanding NATO closer to Russia for decades and many predicted his invasion would occur as NATO expanded closer to Russia. 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg | Photo by NATO | Flickr | CC

“President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a joint committee meeting of the European Parliament on September 7, 2023.

“That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not [invading] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that,” he added. 

“He went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite,” Stoltenberg noted, referring to the fact that Sweden and Finland joined the alliance in response to Putin’s invasion. Their entry, he later claimed, “demonstrates that when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he’s getting the exact opposite.”

If Putin truly thought NATO expansion was a threat to Russia, some scholars argue this is evidence the Cold War never really ended in his eyes.

Since Putin invaded Ukraine, the United States has imposed strict economic sanctions against Russia that have been largely ineffective.

In terms of China, the new cold war is evident in that the United States is balancing power distribution by strengthening ties with states in Asia, such as Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and more. 

The United States is also attempting to stop or delay Chinese development in the tech industry to ensure U.S. technology is superior. This is in stark contrast to America’s supposed World Trade Organization commitment to free trade, given it has imposed various protectionist measures.

U.S. President Biden and G7 leaders pose for a group photo in front of the torii gate at Itsukushima Shrine, Friday, May 19, 2023, on Miyajima Island in Japan. | Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz | Flickr | Public Domain

The Group of Seven (G7) is a group of economic powers adhering to the liberal world order, who meet annually regarding monetary cooperation. The G7's members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Russia initiated the creation of a new economic group that is composed of emerging and established revisionist powers. This bloc is known as BRICS, or Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

A White House document outlining America’s national security strategy was made public in 2022.

That document states:

“The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy. It is their behavior that poses a challenge to international peace and stability — especially waging or preparing for wars of aggression, actively undermining the democratic political processes of other countries, leveraging technology and supply chains for coercion and repression, and exporting an illiberal model of international order. Many non-democracies join the world’s democracies in forswearing these behaviors. Unfortunately, Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) do not.”

The document devoted two whole sections regarding America’s plan to stop Russia and China from ending the current liberal world order and creating a new illiberal world order.

“Our strategy toward the PRC is threefold: 1) to invest in the foundations of our strength at home — our competitiveness, our innovation, our resilience, our democracy, 2) to align our efforts with our network of allies and partners, acting with common purpose and in common cause, and 3) compete responsibly with the PRC to defend our interests and build our vision for the future,” the document reads. 

In other words, the United States will use protectionism to limit Chinese development and create allies to balance the power in America’s favor. 

“Alongside our allies and partners, America is helping to make Russia’s war on Ukraine a strategic failure. Across Europe, NATO and the European Union are united in standing up to Russia and defending shared values. We are constraining Russia’s strategic economic sectors, including defense and aerospace, and we will continue to counter Russia’s attempts to weaken and destabilize sovereign nations and undermine multilateral institutions. Together with our NATO Allies, we are strengthening our defense and deterrence, particularly on the eastern flank of the Alliance. Welcoming Finland and Sweden to NATO will further improve our security and capabilities,” the document reads.

In other words, the United States will continue to aid Ukraine, encourage states to balance the distribution of power against Russia by joining NATO, and continue to impose economic sanctions against Russia. 

The 2018 10th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa | From left: Indian Prime Minister Modi, Chinese President Xi, South African President Ramaphosa, Russian President Putin, Brazilian President Temer | Photo by DIRCO | Flickr | CC BY-ND 2.0

The Future of American Liberal Hegemony

Nearly all scholars used to believe that the erosion of the liberal order would be a result of rising revisionist powers. More recently since Trump’s 2016 victory, many scholars are concerned this erosion will be a result of the forces residing within the United States. That is one perspective, that Russia and China will not end the current world order, but right-wing anti-globalist, neo-isolationist forces from within the U.S. will. 

New data since Trump’s administration has also shown that much of the Western world has started to view the United States not as the promoter of freedoms and liberties, but rather as the suppressor of these principles.

Scholars predict that China’s economy could surpass the U.S. by 2030. However, others believe China’s growth will slow and will not surpass the U.S. until the mid-2040s and only by a small margin. 

Some scholars simply do not believe America will lose its status as a global hegemon anytime soon. 

Although there is no scholarly consensus regarding when American global hegemony will end, most agree other great powers will not directly attack the United States if that occurs.

Rather, the rules-based international order will cease to exist. Liberal democracy will fall throughout the world. War will ignite as revisionist states attempt to dominate weaker neighboring states. 

If the United States stood by its commitments to defend states like Taiwan in this situation, World War III would likely break out. 

The common belief that even with weakened American power “the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive,” as the political scientist John Ikenberry has explained, is a hopeful mirage. If America truly declines — the world will be different for everyone.

Benign Hegemony?

To conclude, from America’s point of view, the United States is generally considered a benign hegemon. This term refers to a benevolent hegemonic state that only militarily intervenes in certain circumstances in defense of universal values such as the protection of human rights. 

There is much scholarly debate as to whether the United States is a benign hegemon. As previously noted, the rest of the Western world is starting to lose that view. Most of the non-Western world never viewed American hegemony as benign.

Due to America’s previous war crimes and other violations of international law, some argue that American hegemony is not compatible with the rules-based international order. 

Economic radicals (a variant of Marxist ideology), per Modern World-Systems Theory, view the current liberal world order as a tool for capitalist states to perpetuate neocolonialism.

Sociologist and economic historian, Immanuel Wallerstein, developed Modern World-Systems Theory, which asserts states can be categorized into three economic classes: core, semi-periphery, and periphery.

According to the theory, core states are wealthy capitalist countries that exploit poor and weak periphery states. Core states tend to exploit former colonies. While semi-periphery states are those that are transforming into a core state.

Neocolonialism represents the perpetuation of imperialist governance by one state over another state, which is, in theory, autonomous. It is frequently characterized as a subsequent progression of capitalism, enabling capitalist states to exert dominance over subordinate states via international capitalism.

Economic radicals likely would see the fall of the liberal world order as a positive change.

However, it is unclear how economic radicals would view a new world order led by revisionist powers.

Regardless of America’s hypocrisy regarding international law, most scholars agree that a Chinese or Russian-led world order would entail widespread human rights abuses and authoritarian rule.

An illiberal world order would threaten human rights and international law globally | Photo edited by Frank Faiola | Chinese President Xi (left) by GCIS | Russian President Putin (right) by Sergei Bobyev | Illustration of Earth by Kevin Gill | Creative Commons