The world order in focus today reveals a system in profound transformation, characterized by shifting power dynamics and escalating tensions between established and emerging powers. As we navigate through 2025, a critical perspective on these developments becomes essential for understanding the complex interplay of forces reshaping our global landscape. The post-World War II international system, long dominated by Western liberal democratic values and American hegemony, faces unprecedented challenges from multiple directions, creating both perils and possibilities for the future of international relations. This transformative period demands careful analysis of how traditional powers adapt to change, how rising powers assert their influence, and how the global community collectively responds to shared challenges in an increasingly interconnected yet fragmented world.
The Twilight of American Hegemony
The notion of American decline has been debated for decades, but current developments suggest a more concrete shift in the global balance of power. Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 has accelerated trends that were already underway, with his “America First” policy prioritizing national interests over global leadership1. This represents a significant departure from the post-WWII consensus where the United States served as the primary architect and guarantor of the international order.
Historically, American hegemony was built upon unmatched economic strength, technological innovation, and cultural influence following World War II. At its peak, the US accounted for approximately 50% of global GDP, a figure that has now declined to roughly 15% when adjusted for purchasing power parity6. This economic rebalancing has coincided with growing internal challenges, including political polarization, income inequality, and infrastructural decline that undermine America’s capacity to project sustainable global leadership.
Trump’s presidency has further complicated America’s international position through his approach to longstanding alliances and multilateral institutions. His administration’s threats of tariffs have prompted unprecedented responses, even from close allies like Canada. In British Columbia, for example, the provincial government has sought emergency powers to address potential economic disruptions resulting from Trump’s trade policies5. This illustrates how American unilateralism is forcing adaptations at multiple levels of governance globally.
The decline of American hegemony is not merely a matter of relative power shifts but reflects deeper structural changes in the international system. As one historian predicted back in 2010, American dominance might end by 2025 “not with a bang but with a whimper”6, through a gradual erosion rather than a dramatic collapse. This prediction appears increasingly prophetic as we witness the United States struggling to maintain its traditional role while domestic divisions deepen and rival powers rise to challenge its authority.
The Emergence of a Multipolar World Order
As American hegemony wanes, a more complex multipolar system is taking shape. This transformation is driven not by a single challenger but by multiple centers of power asserting their influence in different domains and regions. Unlike the bipolar structure of the Cold War, today’s emerging order features a diverse array of state and non-state actors with varying degrees of power and influence.
Russia, China, and Iran have been fostering an alliance aimed at displacing American global dominance, united by “a shared vision of a world free from imperialist oppression, where sovereignty and self-determination replace exploitative foreign policies, military interventions, and colonialist practices”2. This alliance represents not merely a power bloc but an ideological challenge to Western liberal values and institutions.
China’s rise represents perhaps the most significant shift in global power dynamics. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road, China has cultivated influence particularly in the Global South, offering an alternative development model that contrasts with Western approaches1. Unlike America’s often interventionist foreign policy, China has built influence through infrastructure investments, soft power campaigns, and state-sponsored media6. This strategic approach has resonated with developing nations, where perceptions of Chinese leadership are increasingly favorable.
Brazil’s assumption of the BRICS presidency in 2025 further illustrates the growing importance of Global South cooperation in shaping the new world order. Under the motto “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” Brazil has outlined priorities including global health cooperation, trade and investment, and climate change initiatives8. This reflects how emerging powers are not merely seeking to disrupt the existing order but to reform it in ways that better serve their interests and values.
The multipolar system brings both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it creates space for a greater diversity of voices in global governance, potentially leading to more representative and legitimate international institutions. On the other hand, it introduces new complexities in coordinating responses to transnational challenges and increases the risk of miscalculation in international conflicts.
Regional Dynamics and Geopolitical Hotspots
The broader transformation of world order manifests differently across regions, creating distinct patterns of cooperation and conflict. The Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Indo-Pacific represent particularly important theaters where great power competition intersects with local dynamics and historical tensions.
In the Middle East, the dynamics have been profoundly shaped by ongoing conflicts and tensions. Some observers have described Palestinian resistance as aligned with a broader global movement against traditional power structures, connecting it to Russia’s military actions and the emergence of powers like China, Iran, and Russia2. This framing reflects how regional conflicts increasingly interface with great power competition and ideological contests.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to influence global politics well into 2025. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 triggered economic disruptions, including high inflation, that have contributed to political instability worldwide4. President Putin has repeatedly framed Russia’s actions as part of a broader challenge to American hegemony, suggesting that fundamental transformations are reshaping the global landscape2. The conflict has also exposed divisions within the Western alliance and raised questions about the future of European security architecture.
In the Indo-Pacific, competition between the United States and China has intensified. American policymakers, both Republican and Democrat, have portrayed China as a “revisionist power” seeking to “overturn the existing world order, to rewrite international rules to its advantage and build a sphere of influence through economic and military dominance”1. This characterization has informed US strategy in the region, including efforts to strengthen alliances and counter Chinese influence. However, Trump’s return to the White House has complicated this approach, creating uncertainty about American commitments and opening space for China to expand its influence.
Ideological Contestation in a Changing World
The transformation of world order is not merely geopolitical but ideological. Traditional liberal democratic values face challenges from various directions, including authoritarian models, religious influences, and populist movements. This ideological contestation shapes both domestic politics and international relations.
The rise of populist and far-right movements globally represents a significant challenge to the liberal international order. These movements have gained momentum amid economic challenges such as inflation and inequality, alongside perceptions of geopolitical instability4. In Austria, for example, the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) has been tasked with forming a coalition government after capitalizing on “widespread frustration with the previous coalition’s inability to address pressing issues such as inflation and immigration”4. Similar trends are evident in Germany and other European countries, reflecting a broader shift away from centrist politics.
Religion is reemerging as a significant force in international relations, challenging secular assumptions that have long dominated the field. The passing of influential religious figures like Roman Catholic theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez and Aga Khan IV in recent months serves as “a reminder that faith is not merely a private belief system but also a force that shapes the world”3. Traditional IR theories realism, liberalism, and constructivism—have often marginalized religion, treating it as either a stabilizing force or a source of conflict rather than a central driver of political and social change3. This oversight limits our understanding of how religious actors and values influence global politics.
The ideological dimension of world order extends to competing visions of development and governance. China’s model of state-led development challenges Western assumptions about the relationship between economic liberalization and political democratization. Similarly, the BRICS countries are advancing alternative approaches to global governance that emphasize sovereignty and non-interference over liberal interventionism. These competing models reflect deeper philosophical differences about the nature of international society and the proper relationship between states and peoples.
Economic Dimensions of the New World Order
Economic power remains central to world order, with trade, investment, and financial systems serving as key arenas of competition and cooperation. The economic dimension of global politics has become increasingly complex as globalization processes encounter nationalist reactions and geopolitical tensions.
Globalization, initially championed by the United States, has redistributed industrial power globally, with China emerging as a key beneficiary6. This redistribution has altered economic networks, particularly in the Global South, where China’s infrastructure investments have created new patterns of dependency and opportunity. The Belt and Road Initiative represents China’s most ambitious effort to reshape global economic geography, creating physical and digital connections that bypass traditional Western-dominated networks1.
The international financial system is also evolving, with challenges to dollar dominance becoming more pronounced. The BRICS countries have prioritized “the governance and reform of financial markets, local currencies, and payment instruments”8, seeking alternatives to a system centered on Western institutions and the US dollar. While the dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency, these efforts reflect growing dissatisfaction with an economic order perceived as advantaging established powers at the expense of emerging ones.
Trade tensions have intensified, particularly following Trump’s return to office. His tariff threats have prompted unusual responses from trading partners, including British Columbia’s seeking of emergency powers to address potential economic disruptions5. These tensions reflect deeper questions about the future of globalization and whether the trend toward greater economic integration will continue or reverse amid geopolitical competition and domestic political pressures.
Climate change presents both challenges and opportunities for economic cooperation. Brazil’s BRICS presidency has highlighted climate change as a priority area, seeking to “mobilize financing to combat climate change”8. This reflects how environmental challenges necessitate collective action even as geopolitical competition intensifies in other domains. The response to climate change will be a critical test of whether the emerging world order can balance competitive dynamics with cooperative necessities.
Nuclear Weapons and Global Security
In the evolving world order, nuclear weapons continue to play a pivotal role in shaping power dynamics and security calculations. The nuclear dimension of international relations has grown more complex as traditional arms control frameworks erode and nuclear technology spreads to new actors.
The relationship between nuclear powers like the United States and Russia has deteriorated amid broader geopolitical tensions. Putin’s rhetoric regarding Russia’s nuclear capabilities has raised concerns about nuclear escalation, particularly in the context of the Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, Trump’s return to the White House introduces uncertainties about American nuclear policy and commitment to existing arms control agreements.
Beyond the traditional nuclear powers, the proliferation landscape continues to evolve. Iran’s nuclear program remains a source of international concern, with implications for regional security in the Middle East. North Korea continues to advance its nuclear and missile capabilities, posing challenges for stability in Northeast Asia. These developments highlight the difficulties of enforcing non-proliferation norms in a more contested international environment.
The potential for nuclear use, whether deliberate or accidental, represents one of the most serious threats to global security. As great power competition intensifies and communication channels weaken, the risk of miscalculation increases. This underscores the importance of maintaining crisis management mechanisms even as other aspects of the international order undergo transformation.
Technology and the Changing Nature of Power
Technological innovation is fundamentally altering the nature of power in international relations, creating new vulnerabilities and opportunities for state and non-state actors alike. Artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, space technologies, and biotechnology are emerging as critical domains of competition and potential sources of conflict.
Elon Musk’s growing influence at the intersection of technology and geopolitics exemplifies how non-state actors can shape the international landscape. His companies spanning space launch, satellite internet, social media, and artificial intelligence—have implications for national security, information flows, and strategic competition. This blurs traditional boundaries between state and corporate power, creating new governance challenges in the international system.
The digital domain has become a principal arena for geopolitical contestation, with state-backed cyber operations targeting critical infrastructure, electoral systems, and information environments. These activities occur beneath the threshold of conventional conflict but can have significant consequences for national security and social stability. The absence of clear international norms governing cyber activities further complicates efforts to maintain stability in this domain.
Control over advanced technologies increasingly defines competitive advantage in both economic and security terms. China’s efforts to achieve technological self-sufficiency and leadership in strategic sectors like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and semiconductor manufacturing represent a direct challenge to traditional Western technological dominance. This technological competition has resulted in export controls, investment restrictions, and other measures aimed at limiting technology transfer, reflecting a broader trend toward “securitization” of economic relations.
The Future of World Order: Critical Scenarios
Looking ahead, several possible trajectories for world order merit consideration. Rather than predicting a single outcome, a critical perspective recognizes multiple possibilities shaped by the complex interaction of structural forces and human agency.
One scenario envisions a “G-Zero” world characterized by a leadership vacuum where no single power or coalition of powers provides effective global leadership. In this scenario, international institutions weaken, cooperative mechanisms falter, and transnational challenges like climate change and pandemics receive inadequate responses. Regional powers dominate their immediate neighborhoods, leading to a more fragmented international system with higher transaction costs for cross-regional cooperation.
An alternative scenario foresees a reformed multilateralism where established and emerging powers negotiate new arrangements that better reflect current power realities while preserving core elements of the rules-based order. This would involve significant reforms to institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to give greater voice to emerging powers while maintaining commitment to certain universal principles. Brazil’s BRICS presidency, with its focus on “more inclusive and sustainable governance”8, points toward this possibility.
A third scenario envisions intensified great power competition leading to a new Cold War-like division, potentially between a US-led bloc and a China-Russia axis. This scenario would see increased militarization, economic decoupling, and ideological polarization. The warning from analysts that “overseas Chinese interests were likely to face continued challenges, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and Latin America”1 suggests how regional competition could feed into broader systemic rivalry.
A fourth possibility is a more radical transformation where the fundamental organizing principles of the international system shift. This could involve moving beyond the Westphalian state system toward new forms of global governance that better address transnational challenges and reflect the interconnected nature of contemporary problems. While currently less likely than other scenarios, structural pressures from climate change, technological disruption, and other forces could eventually necessitate such fundamental rethinking.
Concluding Reflections: Critical Challenges for a World in Transition
The transformation of world order represents both peril and possibility. As traditional structures erode and new ones emerge, the international community faces critical challenges that will shape our collective future. How these challenges are addressed will determine whether the emerging order is more peaceful, just, and sustainable than its predecessor.
One central challenge concerns the management of great power relations in a multipolar context. History suggests that periods of power transition often increase the risk of major conflict, as rising powers challenge established ones and security dilemmas intensify. Avoiding such conflict requires both institutional innovation and diplomatic skill to create frameworks that accommodate China’s rise and Russia’s assertiveness while preserving core international norms against aggression and coercion.
A second challenge involves reforming global governance to make it more representative and effective. Current institutions largely reflect power realities of the mid-20th century rather than the 21st. As Xi Jinping has suggested, a “transformed global order will be superior to the current one”7, but the nature of that transformation remains contested. Will reforms preserve liberal values of human rights, democracy, and rule of law, or will alternative principles like absolute sovereignty and non-interference predominate?
A third challenge concerns addressing transnational threats that no nation can solve alone. Climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence risks, and other challenges require collective action even as geopolitical competition intensifies. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the necessity of cooperation and the difficulties of achieving it amid nationalist reactions and great power tensions. Future crises will test whether the international community can balance competition in some domains with cooperation in others.
Finally, there is the challenge of constructing narratives and identities that foster peaceful coexistence amid diversity. The rising influence of religious actors in international relations3 and the resurgence of nationalist movements worldwide indicate a hunger for meaning and belonging that purely material or secular frameworks fail to satisfy. A sustainable world order must accommodate different civilizational perspectives while identifying common ground for cooperation on shared challenges.
As we navigate this period of transition, maintaining a critical perspective means recognizing both constraints and possibilities, structural forces and human agency. The emerging world order will not be determined by any single power or event but by the collective choices of states, societies, and individuals responding to rapidly changing circumstances. By understanding these dynamics more clearly, we can work toward an international system that better serves human needs and aspirations while managing the inevitable conflicts that arise in a diverse and interconnected world.
