Polarity and world order | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Sep 29
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 60 minutes
This Polarity and world order A-Level Politics revision page explains how power is distributed within the international system. You need to distinguish unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity, understand the implications of each structure, and consider how world order has changed since 2000. The topic develops your understanding of different categories of powerful states [Great powers, superpowers and emerging powers] and provides an important foundation for analysing different systems and their effects on global order [Different systems of government].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define polarity, unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity.
Explain how power is distributed within each polar structure.
Compare the implications of unipolar, bipolar and multipolar systems for global politics.
Explain the relationship between US hegemony and unipolarity.
Analyse evidence of both unipolarity and multipolarity since 2000.
Evaluate how far world order has changed since 2000.
Revision Notes đź“š
Polarity and world order A-Level Politics revision: what is polarity?
Polarity describes the nature of the international system at a particular time according to how power is distributed.
Edexcel identifies three structures:
unipolarity
bipolarity
multipolarity.
A pole is therefore a major concentration of power within the international system.
Structure | Edexcel definition | Distribution of power |
Unipolarity | An international system in which there is one dominant pole. | One dominant centre of power |
Bipolarity | An international system revolving around two poles. | Two dominant centres of power |
Multipolarity | An international system revolving around three or more poles. | Power divided among several centres |
The central question is not simply how many states exist. It is how many major centres of power are sufficiently influential to shape the international system.
Understanding the different forms of military, economic, diplomatic and cultural influence [Hard and soft power] is therefore essential when deciding how polar the world is.
Unipolarity
Unipolarity exists where one dominant pole possesses considerably greater international influence than its competitors.
Edexcel's specification links unipolarity with hegemony.
A hegemon is the dominant power within an international system. In debates about contemporary world order, this usually means asking whether the United States has possessed sufficient economic, military, structural and cultural power to dominate global affairs.
The post-Cold War basis of unipolarity
Pearson's mark schemes present the end of the Cold War as an important starting point for understanding contemporary unipolarity.
The earlier Cold War system had been bipolar, centred on the United States and Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ceased to provide an equivalent rival pole, the United States was left in an exceptionally powerful position.
Pearson's 2019 mark scheme characterised the immediate post-Cold War period as one in which the USA could establish economic, cultural and political values with relatively little effective opposition.
This provides the background to the specification's requirement to consider how world order has changed since 2000.
What would make world order unipolar?
Evidence for a unipolar world can come from several dimensions of power.
Economic dominance
A dominant state may possess:
the largest economy
major transnational corporations
substantial leverage over the global economy
influence over international economic institutions
an internationally significant currency.
The 2025 mark scheme identified all of these as evidence supporting continued US economic dominance. It cited an International Monetary Fund estimate of approximately $25 trillion for US GDP in 2023Â and emphasised the continuing importance of the US dollar.
The important analytical point is:
exceptional economic power → ability to influence other actors and institutions → concentration of power in one dominant state → evidence of unipolarity.
Military dominance
Military superiority can also underpin a unipolar order.
The 2025 mark scheme identified:
very high US military expenditure
advanced military technology
an extensive aircraft-carrier fleet
the ability to project military power globally.
It cited estimated US military spending of $738 billion in 2022, more than the next ten largest military spenders combined.
The significance is global reach.
A state with military capabilities that substantially exceed those of all competitors has a stronger claim to being the single dominant pole.
Structural and diplomatic dominance
Polarity can also be assessed through influence within major international organisations.
The 2025 mark scheme identified US positions within:
the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
the Group of Seven (G7)
the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
the World Bank.
This form of influence can allow the USA to help shape the international institutions through which decisions are made.
This connects directly with political global governance [The United Nations] and economic international institutions [The IMF and World Bank].
Cultural and ideological dominance
A unipolar system does not have to rest entirely on hard power.
Pearson material also identifies:
US film
US music
technology brands
political values and institutions
as evidence of continued American cultural influence.
A state that combines economic, military, institutional and cultural dominance has a stronger claim to being a hegemon than a state that is dominant in only one area.
Implications of unipolarity
A unipolar world has several important implications for global politics.
One state possesses exceptional influence
Where one pole dominates, other states must take its preferences and capabilities seriously.
This can mean that the hegemon has substantial influence over:
security
economic relationships
international institutions
political norms and values.
The dominant power faces fewer equivalent rivals
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the second Cold War superpower pole.
Pearson's material therefore presents the immediate post-Cold War era as one in which US economic, military and structural power faced relatively limited opposition.
International rules may reflect the preferences of the dominant power
Pearson's 2019 mark scheme suggested that US or Western influence could be seen in:
free trade and economic globalisation
global political institutions
cultural globalisation.
This could allow the hegemon to shape aspects of world order.
However, dominance can stimulate challenges
If other states increase their capabilities, unipolarity may weaken.
The central contemporary debate is therefore whether the rise of China, India, Russia and regional bodies means US unipolarity has been replaced by a more multipolar system.
Bipolarity
Bipolarity is an international system revolving around two dominant poles.
The Cold War provides the key example in Pearson material. World politics revolved principally around:
the United States
the Soviet Union.
Other states still existed and retained influence, but the two superpowers were so significant that their relationship shaped much of global politics.
Characteristics of a bipolar system
Two dominant rivals
The defining feature is not simply that two states are powerful.
Both must represent major centres of power around which much of the international system revolves.
During the Cold War, Pearson material describes the USA and Soviet Union as possessing such extensive influence that other states' actions frequently had to take the positions of the two superpowers into account.
Strong alliance systems
Bipolarity may encourage other states to associate themselves with one of the two main poles.
Pearson material contrasts the more fixed alliances of the superpower era with the shifting alliances characteristic of an earlier multipolar great-power system.
Competition can become global
Where the two poles compete for influence, rivalry need not remain confined to their own territories.
Pearson's examples of Cold War confrontation include:
Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Berlin
Cuba.
The important point for this lesson is not detailed knowledge of each conflict. It is that rivalry between two poles can affect political and security relationships across the world.
Implications of bipolarity
Bipolarity creates a different international environment from unipolarity.
Global politics can become organised around one main rivalry
The actions of one superpower are interpreted partly through its relationship with the other.
This can create a relatively clear structure because there are two major centres of power.
Alliance patterns can become more fixed
States may align themselves with one of the two poles, making global divisions clearer.
Competition can spread across regions
Where the two poles compete for strategic influence, political disputes can acquire wider global significance.
Neither pole enjoys complete hegemony
Unlike a unipolar system, each dominant power faces a rival capable of limiting its freedom of action.
⚠️ Exam warning: If you argue that the contemporary world is dominated only by the USA and China, you are describing bipolarity, not multipolarity. This exact confusion was identified in the 2025 examiner report.
Multipolarity
Multipolarity is an international system revolving around three or more poles.
Power is therefore dispersed across several significant states or centres rather than concentrated in one or two.
Possible evidence of contemporary multipolarity identified in Pearson material includes the growing importance of:
China
India
Russia
the European Union (EU)
multiple permanent members of the UN Security Council
broader decision-making bodies such as the G20.
This builds directly on the rise of BRICS and other state classifications [Great powers, superpowers and emerging powers].
Characteristics of a multipolar system
Several states or centres possess significant power
No single state completely dominates the international system.
There are several actors capable of affecting outcomes.
Power may vary according to the issue
One pole may possess particular economic strength while another possesses substantial military, diplomatic or structural influence.
This means that identifying multipolarity requires consideration of several dimensions of power, not merely comparing the size of economies.
Relationships can be more fluid
Pearson's material contrasts the more fixed alliance system associated with bipolarity with the shifting alliances and agreements possible when several great powers exist.
International decision-making can involve more actors
The 2025 mark scheme points to institutions such as the G20 and the UN Security Council when arguing that influence is distributed among a wider range of states.
Implications of multipolarity
No single state can necessarily determine outcomes
Where several poles possess significant capabilities, powerful states may need to:
negotiate
compromise
form alliances
work through international institutions.
Several competing interests may shape international politics
This can make international relationships more complex than in a system based on one dominant power or two principal rivals.
Alliances may change according to circumstances
Where several states possess substantial influence, relationships between them may be more flexible.
Emerging powers gain greater influence
Multipolarity is closely associated with the rise of states that previously played a less important role in global affairs.
This means that globalisation and changing state relationships [Globalisation and the state system] can contribute to shifts in polarity.
Comparing the three polar structures
Feature | Unipolarity | Bipolarity | Multipolarity |
Number of dominant poles | One | Two | Three or more |
Distribution of power | Highly concentrated | Concentrated between two rivals | More widely dispersed |
Key relationship | Hegemon and other actors | Rivalry between two dominant poles | Relationships among several major centres |
Scope for a single dominant power | Very high | Limited by the second pole | Limited by several other poles |
Alliance relationships | Other actors may work with or challenge the hegemon | Often organised around two major blocs | Can be more varied and flexible |
Contemporary debate | Continued US hegemony | Possible USA-China dominance if only two genuine poles exist | Rise of China, India, Russia, EU and wider international decision-making |
World order since 2000
Edexcel explicitly requires consideration of the changing nature of world order since 2000.
The key debate is whether the largely US-led post-Cold War order has:
remained substantially unipolar, or
become increasingly multipolar.
A complete answer should consider evidence on both sides.
The case that world order has become more multipolar
The rise of China
China's economic development is one of the strongest challenges to the idea of permanent US unipolarity.
Pearson's 2025 mark scheme identifies China's rapid economic growth as evidence that the period of overwhelming US economic dominance may be weakening.
Economic growth also provides resources that can support:
military development
international investment
diplomatic influence
structural influence.
This connects to changing forms of state power and development [Power, development and global issues].
The rise of India and other emerging powers
China is not the only state whose importance has increased.
Pearson's 2025 mark scheme also identifies the growth of India as part of the argument that a broader range of states now possesses significant economic power.
The rise of emerging powers weakens unipolarity if they develop the capacity to influence outcomes that had previously been dominated by the USA.
Increased Chinese military capability
Economic growth has been accompanied by increased Chinese military expenditure and improvements in military capability.
The 2025 mark scheme uses this as evidence that US dominance is being challenged in more than the economic sphere.
This is an important analytical point:
economic rise alone may produce economic multipolarity, but growing economic and military capability provides a stronger argument for a broader shift in the international system.
Russia's continuing military significance
Pearson material also identifies Russia's willingness to use its military capabilities as evidence against an uncontested US-dominated system.
Russia therefore provides another centre of significant military power, even if its strength differs from that of other states across other dimensions.
The significance of the EU
The European Union provides another challenge to a simple state-centred unipolar model.
Pearson mark schemes identify the joint power of regional bodies such as the EUÂ as one factor that can reduce US dominance.
Its role as an international actor is examined more fully in the EU's global influence [The EU as a regional and global organisation].
Wider participation in international organisations
International institutions also provide evidence for a more dispersed distribution of power.
Pearson's 2025 mark scheme highlights:
the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto powers
the G7
the G20
growing influence by states such as China and Russia in international organisations.
The analytical argument is:
more significant actors participating in decision-making → reduced ability of one state to determine outcomes alone → stronger evidence of multipolarity.
Decline in aspects of US soft power
Polarity is not purely economic or military.
Pearson's 2025 mark scheme argued that US soft power has been weakened by controversies including:
the Iraq War
Guantanamo Bay
refusal to support the International Criminal Court (ICC)
aspects of Donald Trump's presidency.
Where US attraction and international leadership weaken while other actors gain influence, the case for continued hegemony becomes less straightforward.
The case that world order remains unipolar
The rise of challengers does not automatically mean the USA has ceased to dominate.
To prove multipolarity, several centres of power must be sufficiently significant to challenge the single dominant pole.
There is considerable evidence for continuing US advantages.
Continued US economic strength
The 2025 mark scheme emphasises:
the size of the US economy
ownership of major transnational corporations
the influence of the US economic model
the continuing international importance of the US dollar.
This suggests that the USA still possesses economic leverage on a scale that other individual states may struggle to match.
Continued US military superiority
The USA retains exceptionally large military resources and global military reach.
Its capacity to operate across different regions distinguishes it from states whose military power is more geographically restricted.
Pearson therefore presents US military superiority as a major argument for continued hegemony.
Continued US structural influence
The USA also maintains influential positions across several major international institutions.
Pearson's 2025 material argues that the combination of:
UNSC membership
G7 membership
influence in the IMF
influence in the World Bank
gives it an unusually broad position within global decision-making.
A challenger may rival the USA in one area without matching this combination of influence.
Continued cultural power
US culture and institutions remain globally recognisable.
Pearson material uses film, music, technology and US political influence as evidence that American soft power continues to operate on a global scale.
This links back to the distinction between hard and soft influence [Hard and soft power].
Has world order changed in ways beyond polarity?
The specification asks students to consider the changing nature of world order, not simply count poles.
Pearson's 2020 mark scheme identifies several wider developments since 2000.
September 11 and the War on Terror
The September 11 attacks in 2001 and the subsequent War on Terror are identified as potentially significant changes in world order.
Pearson material links these developments to:
changing relationships between states
war and instability
the overthrow of governments
challenges to shared values.
The analytical point is that world order can change because the issues shaping relationships between states change, even if the polar structure itself changes more slowly.
Globalisation
Pearson's 2020 material also identifies economic, political and cultural globalisation as forces capable of affecting:
state sovereignty
relationships between states
international institutions
the relative power of different states.
This builds on the multidimensional process of globalisation [The process of globalisation].
Globalisation may contribute to multipolarity by creating opportunities for emerging states to develop economically and increase their international influence.
International institutions and sovereignty
World order may also change as international institutions become more important.
However, Pearson's 2020 mark scheme provides an important counterargument: many international organisations remain intergovernmental and continue to respect state sovereignty.
This means that growing international co-operation does not automatically represent the disappearance of the traditional state-based order.
Continuity since 2000
There is therefore a significant case that important elements of world order remain unchanged.
Arguments for continuity include:
states remain central actors
sovereignty remains important
international organisations continue to depend heavily on states
the USA retains exceptional power
major international institutions established before 2000 remain significant.
The strongest analysis therefore distinguishes change in degree from complete transformation.
Has the world become bipolar instead?
A third possibility should not be ignored simply because debates often focus on unipolarity versus multipolarity.
If the USA and China became the only two genuinely dominant centres of power, the resulting structure would be bipolar.
The 2025 examiner report specifically identified candidates who argued that the USA and China dominated the world but incorrectly called that multipolarity.
Remember:
USA only = unipolar
USA + China = potentially bipolar
USA + China + several other significant poles = multipolar.
Whether the evidence actually establishes any of these structures is a matter for evaluation.
How should you judge contemporary polarity?
Do not assess polarity using only one measure.
Pearson's 2025 report notes that stronger answers assessed a range of factors, including:
political power
military power
economic power
cultural power
security power
structural power.
A useful method is therefore to compare the distribution of power across several dimensions.
Dimension | Evidence supporting unipolarity | Evidence supporting multipolarity |
Economic | Exceptional US economic resources and global leverage | Rise of China, India and other economies |
Military | US spending, technology and global reach | China's growing capability and Russia's military significance |
Structural | US influence in major global institutions | Several veto powers and wider multistate decision-making |
Diplomatic | Continued US leadership and alliances | Greater influence of alternative states and regional organisations |
Cultural | Extensive US global cultural influence | Growth of alternative sources of international influence |
This produces a more sophisticated judgement than relying solely on GDP.
Overall judgement on world order since 2000
The evidence provided by Pearson supports a genuine debate.
There is strong evidence that US relative dominance has declined as China, India, Russia and regional actors have become more significant. International decision-making also involves a wider range of states than a simple model of uncontested US hegemony suggests.
However, a reduction in US dominance is not automatically proof of full multipolarity. The USA continues to combine economic, military, structural and cultural influence on an exceptional global scale.
A defensible overall judgement is therefore:
World order since 2000 has moved towards greater multipolarity, but elements of US-led unipolarity remain. The degree of change depends on whether the growth of rival powers is judged sufficient to create genuinely separate poles of global influence rather than simply stronger challengers to a still-dominant USA.
How to analyse polarity in an exam
For a strong polarity paragraph, use this sequence:
Identify the polar structure.
State clearly whether the evidence supports unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity.
Identify the relevant dimension of power.
For example, military, economic, cultural or structural.
Give a precise example.
Use it as evidence rather than as a detached fact.
Explain the change since 2000.
Has the relevant actor become more or less powerful?
Connect the evidence to the number of poles.
Explain why this creates one, two or several significant centres of power.
Evaluate the counterargument.
Ask whether the challenger genuinely matches the dominant power across enough dimensions to alter the structure of world order.
For example:
China's economic growth supports the argument for multipolarity because it has created an additional major concentration of economic influence. However, economic strength alone does not establish a separate global pole if the USA retains much greater military, structural and cultural reach. The significance of China's rise therefore depends upon whether its growing influence extends across several dimensions of power.
That final comparison turns evidence into AO2 analysis and AO3 evaluation.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Polarity | The way power is distributed within the international system at a particular time. | Use it when judging the overall structure of global power. |
Unipolarity | An international system in which there is one dominant pole. | Apply it when assessing claims of US hegemony and continued American dominance. |
Hegemony | Dominance within the international system by a leading power. | Use alongside unipolarity when explaining a single state's exceptional influence. |
Bipolarity | An international system revolving around two dominant poles. | Apply to the Cold War or to an argument that two states dominate contemporary politics. |
Multipolarity | An international system revolving around three or more poles. | Use when analysing the rise of several states or centres capable of challenging a single hegemon. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Get the definitions absolutely right. The 2025 examiner report identified candidates who argued that the USA and China were the two dominant powers but then incorrectly labelled this multipolarity. Two dominant poles means bipolarity.
Examiner hint:Â Treat the date in the question as part of the task. Stronger responses to the 2025 world-order question explicitly identified development and change since 2000, rather than simply describing the present distribution of power.
Examiner hint:Â Use several dimensions of power. Stronger 2025 candidates assessed economic, political, military, cultural, security and structural strength when deciding whether the system was unipolar or multipolar.
Examiner hint:Â Maintain the exact relationship required by the question. In 2019, some candidates wrote extensively about globalisation without connecting it to polarity, while others discussed polarity without explaining its relationship to globalisation. Stronger answers maintained the required link throughout.
Examiner hint:Â Do not become distracted by a third concept unless it directly advances the argument. The 2019 report noted that some candidates spent too long discussing bipolarity in an essay specifically focused on unipolarity versus multipolarity.
Examiner hint:Â A 30-mark response requires more than accurate knowledge. Pearson reports repeatedly identify AO3 as an area where students lose marks. Build supported judgements throughout your answer and reach a focused conclusion rather than simply presenting two descriptive sides.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Calling a two-power system multipolar
Why this is incorrect: Multipolarity requires three or more poles. Two dominant centres create bipolarity.
How to improve: Before writing, count the number of poles implied by your argument.
Mistake: Treating every powerful state as a separate pole
Why this is incorrect: A pole must represent a sufficiently important concentration of power to help shape the international system. A state can be influential without being a genuine global pole.
How to improve: Assess economic, military, structural and soft power together and consider the state's global reach.
Mistake: Using GDP alone to decide polarity
Why this is incorrect: Polarity concerns the distribution of overall international power, not merely economic size.
How to improve: Use a multidimensional comparison including economic, military, institutional and cultural influence.
Mistake: Assuming the rise of China automatically proves multipolarity
Why this is incorrect: If only the USA and China were dominant, that would indicate bipolarity. If the USA still possesses much greater overall influence, the system could remain unipolar.
How to improve: Explain why three or more actors have enough power to function as meaningful poles.
Mistake: Ignoring the phrase "since 2000"
Why this is incorrect: The specification explicitly requires consideration of the changing nature of world order since 2000.
How to improve: Structure your answer around change: what was the distribution of power around 2000, what has changed, and what has remained continuous?
Mistake: Confusing reduced US dominance with the end of US power
Why this is incorrect: A state's relative advantage can decline while it remains the world's most influential individual power.
How to improve: Distinguish between absolute power and changes in relative power.
Mistake: Describing examples without explaining what they show about polarity
Why this is incorrect: A paragraph about Chinese economic growth or US military spending earns limited analytical credit unless it explains how that evidence affects the number and strength of poles.
How to improve: Finish the chain of reasoning: example → change in power → effect on distribution of power → effect on polarity.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define polarity. (2 marks)
Answer:
Polarity describes the international system at a particular time according to how power is distributed.
Question 2
State the difference between bipolarity and multipolarity. (2 marks)
Answer:
Bipolarity involves two poles.
Multipolarity involves three or more poles.
Award 1 mark for each accurate distinction.
Question 3
State A is economically and militarily more powerful than every other state and possesses exceptional global diplomatic and cultural influence.
Explain why this situation could be described as unipolar. (4 marks)
Indicative answer:
Unipolarity exists when the international system contains one dominant pole. State A's superior economic, military, diplomatic and cultural influence means that power is concentrated around one main centre. It could therefore be described as the hegemon within a unipolar system.
Question 4
Three states possess substantial economic and military capabilities. None can dominate the other two, and each influences international institutions and states outside its own region.
Explain why this represents multipolarity rather than bipolarity. (4 marks)
Indicative answer:
Multipolarity requires three or more significant poles. The scenario contains three important centres of international power, with no single state or pair of states dominating the system. It is therefore multipolar rather than bipolar, which would require two dominant poles.
Question 5
Examine the implications of bipolarity and multipolarity for global politics. (12 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Relevant knowledge may include:
bipolarity revolves around two dominant poles
multipolarity involves three or more poles
bipolarity may produce two major rival blocs
alliances can become closely associated with the two dominant powers
rivalry between two poles can influence conflicts across different regions
multipolarity disperses influence among several actors
alliances and relationships may become more varied
several powers may need to negotiate, compete or co-operate over international outcomes.
Analysis should directly compare the consequences.
A strong response might explain:
In a bipolar system, most strategic calculations are shaped by one principal rivalry, so alliance relationships can become relatively fixed. In a multipolar system, several centres of power must be considered, producing more varied relationships and limiting the capacity of any one state to dominate the system.
Question 6
Examine the evidence that contemporary world order remains unipolar. (12 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Relevant evidence could include:
exceptional US economic strength
international significance of the US dollar
major US transnational corporations
very high US military expenditure
technologically advanced armed forces
global US military reach
US influence within the UNSC, G7, IMF and World Bank
extensive American cultural and soft power.
Analysis should explain how these factors concentrate power in a single dominant pole.
For example:
US military expenditure is relevant not merely because it is large, but because it supports worldwide military reach. If no rival possesses equivalent global capabilities, this supports the argument that the USA remains the single dominant pole.
Question 7
Examine the evidence that world order has become increasingly multipolar since 2000. (12 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Relevant evidence could include:
China's economic rise
India's growing economic importance
increased Chinese military expenditure
Russia's military significance
growth in the international role of emerging powers
the EU's collective influence
several veto-wielding states in the UNSC
multistate decision-making through organisations such as the G20
challenges to aspects of US soft-power dominance.
Analysis should connect each development to the distribution of power.
For example:
China's economic and military rise creates an additional concentration of international power. When combined with the influence of India, Russia and the EU, this provides evidence of several significant poles and therefore supports the argument for multipolarity.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that world order since 2000 is more multipolar than unipolar. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting greater multipolarity may include:
rapid economic development in China
increasing significance of India and other emerging powers
growing Chinese military capability
Russia's continuing military importance
the EU's collective economic and political influence
a wider distribution of influence in institutions such as the UNSC and G20
declining aspects of US soft power
greater ability of other actors to oppose or constrain US preferences.
Arguments supporting continued unipolarity may include:
continued exceptional size and influence of the US economy
importance of the US dollar and US transnational corporations
unmatched US military expenditure and global reach
major US structural influence in international institutions
extensive diplomatic influence
continuing worldwide US cultural and ideological influence
the inability of any single challenger to match the full range of US capabilities.
AO1:Â Accurate knowledge of polarity and developments in world order since 2000.
AO2:Â Analysis explaining how changes in economic, military, structural and cultural power affect the distribution of power.
AO3:Â Sustained evaluation of whether these developments create several genuine poles or merely reduce the extent of US dominance.
Possible overall judgement: World order has moved substantially towards multipolarity because a broader range of actors can now influence global outcomes. However, the USA retains an unusual combination of global economic, military, structural and cultural reach. The strongest conclusion is therefore that unipolarity has weakened significantly since 2000, while the transition to an entirely multipolar order remains contested.
Comments