Since the end of the Cold War, concerns have grown about the changing world order as it transitions from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a more fragmented multipolar world. The rise of new powers, including China, India, Turkey, and Iran, has ushered in what many call the era of multipolarity. For some, this raises hopes for a more balanced international system, while others worry that multipolarity will spark instability as competing interests clash without a single leadership. The question is not just whether multipolarity is inevitable. Whether it is inherently unstable or not. The history of multipolar systems is mixed at best and often characterized by conflict and competition. But the historical precedent of the “European Concert” provides an interesting model for managing today’s emerging multipolarity through balance of power, cooperation, and, crucially, deterrence. Modern power struggles can help the world’s leading countries coexist without the endless interventionism that threatens to turn multipolarity into a dangerous melee.
To understand today’s instability, it is worth considering the unique conditions that emerged after the Cold War, when the United States became the world’s leading superpower. America’s unipolar era spread liberal democratic values and market capitalism around the world, fueled by optimism about a new world order. But while the West celebrates the ‘end of history’, these values have met resistance in many parts of the world. Efforts to universalize Western norms, from open markets to democratic governance, have often clashed with traditional or authoritarian structures, provoking a backlash from countries that saw these changes as incompatible with their national interests.
This cultural wave of globalization has provoked complex reactions. In the developing world, some embraced Western symbols of success, while others saw them as foreign impositions. Nationalist movements have gained traction, often in response to the perception that global integration disproportionately benefits elites while leaving others behind. The Internet has deepened these divisions and empowered leaders to unite their people around nationalistic or anti-Western narratives. This has resulted in a collapse of the global environment, bringing the world closer to a multipolar configuration. The problem is that, as history shows, multipolarity often leads to instability. With multiple factions vying for position without a single dominant leader, competition intensifies, alliances form, and miscalculations become costly. The tangled alliances that led to World War I are a classic example. The complex web of bilateral commitments between great powers such as Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Britain created a fragile system in which a single event – the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand – triggered a global war. Today, similar bilateral arrangements are emerging, with increasing risk, as countries like China and Russia favor selective, strategic partnerships over universal alliances.
But history also provides a model for managing multipolarity without falling into the trap of inevitable conflict: the European Concert. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, European powers established a framework for balance of power and conflict resolution to prevent any single power from dominating. For nearly 100 years, the Concert of Europe has maintained relative peace on the continent by providing a forum for nations to negotiate interests and resolve conflicts without resorting to war. The concert was not perfect and they eventually disbanded. But it shows that multipolarity can be managed if great powers commit to cooperation, balance, and mutual respect. This concept of a “concert of power” is very relevant to today’s world where centers of power are proliferating and competition is becoming more complex. Modern power struggles rooted in self-restraint can provide a practical framework for multipolar stability. Rather than relying on global institutions or ideological crusades, it will emphasize cooperation between great powers and encourage countries to respect each other’s spheres of influence and avoid unilateral intervention. In this model, restraint becomes the guiding principle, limiting conflict and encouraging diplomatic solutions.
One of the key challenges of multipolarity is that international organizations often have difficulty keeping pace with fragmented power structures. The United Nations and the European Union were designed to serve a world of shared commitments, but as powers prioritize their national interests, these institutions become less effective. For example, during the Syrian civil war, competing agendas among states overrode multilateral solutions, and within the EU, countries such as Hungary and Germany deviated from collective policies to protect their national interests. A consensus of powers would recognize these limitations, providing a forum for the most influential countries to negotiate directly and balance their interests without expecting all actors to adhere to universal standards.
Multipolarity also fosters new kinds of cultural competition as emerging powers assert their values and priorities. For example, China’s actions in the South China Sea are rooted in a drive to assert regional dominance, while Turkey’s military action against the Kurds shows that national interests often override broader stability. In a system of cooperative powers, restraint means that each power respects the core interests of the other and avoids policies that arouse hostility. An open-ended multipolar system risks escalating these cultural and territorial conflicts, but a collaborative approach can mitigate that risk by emphasizing pragmatic boundaries. Another destabilizing factor in multipolarity is the tendency of states to legitimize their rule by framing external forces as threats. For example, Turkey’s balance between NATO and BRICS is strengthening its regional influence while also casting a skeptical eye on its Western allies. China’s rhetoric about sovereignty over Taiwan and the South China Sea strengthens nationalist support by framing foreign powers as existential threats. But a collaborative approach to power would encourage transparency and dialogue between major countries, reduce the need for adversarial attitudes and help maintain stability.
Historically, multipolarity has often led to large-scale conflict, but consensus on power offers a way to break this vicious cycle. By promoting direct communication and collaborative problem-solving between the world’s leading countries, concerts can prevent competition from spiraling out of control. The goal is not to avoid competition altogether (competition is inevitable in international relations), but to manage it without allowing tensions to escalate into open conflict. In this context, deterrence means limiting intervention to events of clear national interest, rather than reacting reflexively to every global crisis. Cooperation allows major powers to focus on supporting regional stability without encroaching on each other’s spheres of influence. This requires a fundamental shift away from the global policing reflex that characterized much of the post-Cold War era and toward a more deliberate, locally focused strategy.
Modern power struggles will also encourage strategic flexibility in alliances. Rather than being bound by rigid commitments, countries can form partnerships that allow room for compromise and retrenchment. China’s foreign policy provides an example of what this could look like. It works with countries on a case-by-case basis to maintain relationships without being bound by any disputes. In a multipolar era, this flexibility prevents the formation of hostile blocks and provides breathing space to manage tensions.
Multipolarity, balanced by coordination of forces and the will to deter, may create new avenues for cooperation. The idea that one country must decline for another to grow is an outdated idea. Multipolarity suggests that multiple forces can coexist and develop simultaneously. Research in game theory and international relations shows that multipolar systems can promote cooperation when countries recognize mutual interests. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed both the risks and opportunities of interdependence. By working together to solve shared problems like the global health crisis or climate change, cooperation in power can transform multipolarity into a stabilizing force rather than a catalyst for competition.
Multipolarity poses real risks, but it also offers opportunities to build a more balanced international system. The alternative, an ever-increasing cycle of competition and intervention, is likely to return us to the instability that characterized the previous multipolar era. With the right approach, multipolarity can evolve into an era of constructive engagement where great powers balance ambition and responsibility. At this critical time, the world’s leading countries face a choice. Will we throw multipolarity into chaos, or will we revive the spirit of the European Union by fostering inter-power cooperation based on moderation and mutual respect? In a multipolar world, the measure of great power is not its dominance but its willingness to exercise restraint.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
