Competing Visions of International Order: A Systematic Literature Review of Liberal, Multipolar, and Global South Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53905/Veritas.v2i02.6Keywords:
international order, Liberal International Order, multipolarity, Global South, global governance, postcolonialism, International RelationsAbstract
Purpose of the study: This systematic literature review examines competing conceptualizations of international order by synthesizing three dominant perspectives in International Relations: the Liberal International Order (LIO), the multipolar/realist perspective, and the Global South/postcolonial perspective. The study aims to compare their theoretical foundations, assumptions regarding governance, power, sovereignty, and international institutions, while identifying major debates, areas of convergence, and research gaps in contemporary scholarship.
Methodology: The review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure a transparent and systematic selection process. Literature published between 2000 and June 2026 was retrieved from Scopus- and Web of Science-indexed journals through major publisher platforms. Following screening, eligibility assessment, and duplicate removal, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using a qualitative narrative framework synthesis, organizing findings into four comparative dimensions: governance, power distribution, sovereignty, and institutional order.
Results: The findings reveal that conceptions of international order have evolved from relatively stable paradigms toward increasingly contested and pluralistic interpretations. Liberal scholarship increasingly attributes challenges to endogenous institutional dynamics, while multipolar scholarship remains divided over whether global power has genuinely shifted toward a multipolar configuration. In contrast, Global South scholarship reframes international order as a historically unequal and hierarchical structure requiring structural transformation rather than incremental reform. Despite their differences, all three perspectives recognize growing contestation of the post-1945 international order, although they diverge significantly in explaining its origins and proposing future trajectories.
Conclusions: The review demonstrates that liberal, multipolar, and Global South perspectives should be understood as complementary analytical lenses rather than mutually exclusive paradigms. A comprehensive understanding of contemporary international order requires integrating material power dynamics, institutional design, and normative legitimacy. Future research should expand comparative empirical analyses, incorporate underrepresented regional scholarship, and develop integrated theoretical frameworks capable of explaining the multidimensional transformation of global order.
References
Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/s089267941700020x
Acharya, A. (2018). Constructing Global Order. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756768
Adler‐Nissen, R., & Zarakol, A. (2020). Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents. International Organization, 75(2), 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000454
Alter, K. J., & Nelson, S. C. (2024). Global Governance in Time: Institutional Sequences, International Regime Complexes, and the Politics of Global Governance. World Politics, 76(2), 379–416. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2024.a924510
Anagba, J. O., Adamu, B. M., & Olotu, T. I. (2026). BRICS and the Politics of Multi-Polarity: Rethinking Global Governance. Journal of Contemporary International Relations and Diplomacy, 6(2), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.53982/jcird.2025.0602.02-j
Bajpai, A., & Sharma, P. (2026). Emerging Forms of Multipolarity: Rethinking Global Stability and Governance. Global Geopolitics, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.64901/29778271.2026.010
Barnett, M., & Zarakol, A. (2023). Global international relations and the essentialism trap. International Theory, 15(3), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971923000131
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Asselt, H. van, & Zelli, F. (2009). The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14
Block, E. (2021). The role of actors in the legitimation or delegitimation of MLG structures : A claims-making analysis of the politicisation and depoliticisation of EU state aid policy. In HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe). Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03407655
Bogale, B., Scambler, S., Khairuddin, A. N. M., & Gallagher, J. E. (2024). Health system strengthening in fragile and conflict-affected states: A review of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305234
Börzel, T. A., & Zürn, M. (2021). Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism. International Organization, 75(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000570
Chachane, H. (2025). Global Governance And The Challenge of Multipolarity. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v13.i10.2025.6443
Chakrabarti, D. (2023). Urban theory of/from the Global South: a systematic review of issues, challenges, and pathways of decolonization. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2023.1163534
Eilstrup‐Sangiovanni, M., & Westerwinter, O. (2021). The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance. The Review of International Organizations, 17(2), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-021-09449-7
Fierke, K. M., & Jabri, V. (2019). Global conversations: Relationality, embodiment and power in the move towards a Global IR. Research Portal (King’s College London), 8(3), 506–535. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381719000121
Fisher‐Onar, N. (2023). From Realist Billiard Balls and Liberal Concentric Circles to Global IR’s Venn Diagram? Rethinking International Relations via Turkey’s Centennial. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 20(78), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1298208
Flonk, D., Jachtenfuchs, M., & Obendiek, A. S. (2020). Authority conflicts in internet governance: Liberals vs. sovereigntists? Global Constitutionalism, 9(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381720000167
Goddard, S. E., Krebs, R. R., Kreuder‐Sonnen, C., & Rittberger, B. (2024). Contestation in a World of Liberal Orders. Global Studies Quarterly, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae026
Gurol, J., Hernandez, A. M., Prys-Hansen, M., & Marques, T. C. de A. (2026). Reimagining Global Governance: Strategic Pluralism, Normative Blending, and the Emergence of a Polycentric Order. Global Studies Quarterly, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksag003
Harig, C., & Jenne, N. (2022). Whose rules? Whose power? The Global South and the possibility to shape international peacekeeping norms through leadership appointments. Review of International Studies, 48(4), 646–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210522000262
Huang, Q. (2020). The Pandemic and the Transformation of Liberal International Order. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-020-09698-0
Hurrell, A. (2018). Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 32(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679418000126
Husain, L., Greenhalgh, T., Hughes, G., Finlay, T., & Wherton, J. (2022). Desperately Seeking Intersectionality in Digital Health Disparity Research: Narrative Review to Inform a Richer Theorization of Multiple Disadvantage. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(12). https://doi.org/10.2196/42358
Ikenberry, G. J. (2010). The Liberal International Order and its Discontents. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 38(3), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829810366477
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241
Kostova, T., Beugelsdijk, S., Scott, W. R., Kunst, V. E., Chua, C. H., & Essen, M. van. (2019). The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00294-w
Lake, D. A., Martin, L. L., & Risse, T. (2021). Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections onInternational Organization. International Organization, 75(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000636
Lesch, M., Zimmermann, L., & Deitelhoff, N. (2024). Contestation from Within: Norm Dynamics and the Crisis of the Liberal International Order. Global Studies Quarterly, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksae022
LIESBET, H., & GARY, M. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055403000649
McKeil, A. (2022). Order without Victory: International Order Theory Before and After Liberal Hegemony. International Studies Quarterly, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqad002
Moore, M., & Tjörnbo, O. (2012). From coastal timber supply area to Great Bear Rainforest: exploring power in a social–ecological governance innovation. Ecology and Society, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05194-170426
Naim, C. A., & Hasanah, F. (2024). Deconstructing the Empire: BRICS and the Rise of a Multipolar World. Andalas Journal of International Studies (AJIS), 13(1), 80–80. https://doi.org/10.25077/ajis.13.1.80-90.2024
Nexon, D. H., & Neumann, İ. B. (2017). Hegemonic-order theory: A field-theoretic account. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 662–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117716524
Önіş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2020). The New Age of Hybridity and Clash of Norms: China, BRICS, and Challenges of Global Governance in a Postliberal International Order. Alternatives Global Local Political, 45(3), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375420921086
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E., Mayo‐Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pandey, H., & Chaudhary, S. (2026). Global Order in Transition: Major International Crises and the Strains of Multipolarity. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i01.67735
Raymond, M., & DeNardis, L. (2015). Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution. International Theory, 7(3), 572–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971915000081
Risse, T. (2024). Order-Making through Contestations. 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198924241.003.0006
Robinson, G. M. (2023). Globalization futures. Research in Globalization, 7, 100146–100146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100146
Safadi, Z. A. M. A. (2026). Middle Powers and the Global South in a Multipolar Era: Reconfiguring the Liberal International Order. The Scientific Journal of Oxford College for International Education. https://doi.org/10.65709/001011
Schoeman, M., & Alden, C. (2024). The rise of multiplexity and a future of world order/s. In LSE Research Online (pp. 183–203). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003460459-11
Schweller, R. L. (2011). Emerging Powers in an Age of Disorder. Global Governance A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 17(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01703002
Senyo, P., Gozman, D., Karanasios, S., Dacre, N., & Baba, M. (2022). Moving away from trading on the margins: Economic empowerment of informal businesses through FinTech. Information Systems Journal, 33(1), 154–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12403
Stephen, M. D., & Skidmore, D. (2018). The AIIB in the Liberal International Order. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 12(1), 61–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poy021
Tan, C. (2019). Beyond the ‘Moments’ of Law and Development: Critical Reflections on Law and Development Scholarship in a Globalized Economy. The Law and Development Review, 12(2), 285–321. https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2019-0014
Trownsell, T., Tickner, A. B., Querejazu, A., Reddekop, J., Shani, G., Shimizu, K., Behera, N. C., & Arian, A. (2020). Differing about Difference: Relational IR from around the World. International Studies Perspectives, 22(1), 25–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekaa008
Zhang, J., Zamani, E. D., Gerli, P., & Mora, L. (2024). Co‐constructing cooperative value ecosystems: A critical realist perspective. Information Systems Journal, 35(2), 504–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12549
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
