Is a stable international order best maintained when one single superpower dominates the global system, or when power is evenly distributed among multiple competing nations?
The world is either frozen by the giant’s will or vibrating with the chaos of many. Post-Cold War USA acted like a giant, while the pre-World War I Triple Entente and Triple Alliance, along with their subsidiaries, vibrated the world. Throughout history, peace has hinged not merely on the absence of power, but on its distribution. The distribution of power shapes who can deter aggression, enforce rules, and prevent conflicts. Stability relies on how responsibly power is balanced and exercised. From Thucydides’ accounts of rival powers to modern international relations theory, thinkers have repeatedly asked: does peace arise from dominance, or from balance? International peace and stability are the conditions in which global relations are characterised by the absence of conflict and the presence of cooperative governance (TRT World Research Centre, n.d.). One powerful nation could impose order on the rest, while in a multipolar world deliberation and hesitation would play a significant role.
I argue that Hegemonic Stability better fits the world. Hegemonic Stability Theory states that the presence of a hegemon (say, Britain in the 19th century and the US after the Cold War) generates patterns of stability within the international system (Kindleberger, 1973). Unipolarity makes the system more stable; due to its immense power, it can prevent discord. Furthermore, international projects would improve, as the nation would be able to furnish funds for the undertaking. The post-WWII USA coordinated efforts for a global organisation and played a huge role in the UN’s and NATO’s early years. John Ikenberry (2019) argues that the USA constructed a constitutional order based on institutionalised strategic restraint, rather than through direct, coercive empire. Frankly, a hegemon has the military, economic, and political power to influence the world. The Marshall Plan demonstrates that a hegemon can transform material superiority into international stability by providing public goods that other states cannot easily provide individually. The US showed it could support smaller, financially vulnerable nations.
A multipolar world can encourage caution among leaders, as coalitions may form against aggressors—like the Quadruple Alliance after the Congress of Vienna; it was formed to counter the ambition of Napoleon’s France, which grew into a state that seemed threatening. In a multipolar system, major powers practice mutual restraint, aware that escalation risks global instability; strategic caution prevails, as no single state dictates outcomes. Both systems have their flaws. A multipolar world order would lead to multiple coalitions and further instability; strategic restraint was present in the Cold War, but the two superpowers continued through proxies.
In this world, when a threat emerges, states try to pass the buck to other great powers rather than confronting the threat directly, as explained in Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (Waltz, 1979). The Hegemonic Theory raises the question: If one state possesses enough influence to shape the international system, who can effectively restrain it when it makes a mistake? A hegemon wields unchecked power but can be regulated by international institutions; however, shouldering global stability imposes immense burdens that risk overextension and challenge sustained accountability. In the end, it all boils down to constraint and the driver behind the wheel. A unipolar world can bring about stability and peace when there are rules in place and the hegemon is constantly regulated.
References
Ikenberry, G.J. (2019) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Revised edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kindleberger, C.P. (1973) The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.
TRT World Research Centre (n.d.) International peace and stability. Available at: https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/dictionary/international-peace-and-stability/ (Accessed: 19 September 2026).
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Leave a Reply