Concerns about the changing global order have increased as we move from a unipolar world, dominated by the United States since the end of the Cold War, to a more fragmented multipolar landscape. The rise of new powers – including China, India, Turkey and Iran – ushered in what many see as an era of multipolarity. For some, this raises hopes for a more balanced international system, while others fear that multipolarity will trigger instability, as competing interests clash without a single hand guiding them. The question is not only whether multipolarity is inevitable; rather, it’s a question of whether it’s inherently destabilizing. The history of multipolar systems is mixed to say the least, often marked by conflicts and competitions. However, the historical precedent of the “Concert of Europe” offers a fascinating model for managing today’s emerging multipolarity through a balance of power, cooperation and, above all, restraint. A modern concert of powers could help the world’s major states coexist without endless interventionism that risks transforming multipolarity into a dangerous melee.
To understand the current instability, it is worth reflecting on the unique conditions that emerged after the Cold War, when the United States emerged as the world’s unrivaled superpower. America’s unipolar moment has spread liberal democratic values and market capitalism across the world, fueled by optimism for a new world order. But as the West celebrated the “end of history,” these values were met with 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, sparking resistance from states that view such changes as incompatible with their own interests.
This cultural wave of globalization has produced complex reactions. In developing countries, some have adopted Western symbols of success, while others have seen them as foreign impositions. Nationalist movements gained ground, often reacting to the sense that global integration disproportionately benefited elites while leaving others behind. The Internet has intensified these divisions, allowing leaders to rally their populations around nationalist or anti-Western discourses. This has fractured the global landscape, pushing the world towards a multipolar configuration. The problem, as history suggests, is that multipolarity often invites instability. When multiple powers vie for position without a single dominant leader, rivalries deepen, alliances form, and miscalculations become costly. The tangled alliances that led to World War I are a classic example. A complex web of bilateral engagements between powers like Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France and Britain created a fragile system in which a single incident – the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand – started a world war. Today, similar bilateral agreements are emerging as states like China and Russia favor selective strategic partnerships over universal alliances, increasing risks.
Yet history also provides a model for managing multipolarity without falling into the trap of an inevitable conflict: the Concert of Europe. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, the great powers of Europe established a framework for balancing power and resolving disputes, with the aim of preventing a single power from dominating. For nearly a century, the Concert of Europe preserved relative peace on the continent, providing a forum where states negotiated their interests and resolved conflicts without resorting to war. The concert was not perfect – it ultimately collapsed – but it shows that multipolarity can be managed if powers commit to cooperation, balance and mutual respect. This concept of “concert of powers” is well adapted to today’s world, with its diffusion of centers of power and its complex rivalries. A modern concert of powers, anchored in restraint, could offer a pragmatic framework for multipolar stability. Rather than relying on global institutions or ideological crusades, this would emphasize cooperation among major powers, encouraging states to respect each other’s spheres of influence and avoid unilateral interventions. In this model, restraint would become a guiding principle, limiting conflict and encouraging diplomatic solutions.
One of the main challenges of multipolarity is that international institutions often struggle to keep pace with fragmented power structures. The United Nations and the European Union were designed for 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 between states pushed aside multilateral solutions, and within the EU, countries like Hungary and Germany strayed from collective politics aimed at protecting their national interests . A concert of powers would recognize these limits, providing a forum where the most influential states negotiate directly, balancing interests without waiting for all actors to adhere to a universal standard.
Multipolarity also fosters a new type of cultural competition, as emerging powers assert their own values and priorities. China’s actions in the South China Sea, for example, are rooted in a desire to assert regional dominance, while Turkey’s military actions against Kurdish groups show how national interests often trump broader stability. In a concert of powers framework, restraint would mean that each power respects the fundamental interests of the others, avoiding policies that provoke antagonism. An unrestrained multipolar system risks exacerbating these cultural and territorial conflicts, but a concerted approach could mitigate these dangers by emphasizing pragmatic borders. Another destabilizing factor of multipolarity is the tendency of states to legitimize their power by presenting external powers as threats. Turkey’s balance between NATO and BRICS, for example, strengthens its regional influence while casting a skeptical eye on Western alliances. Chinese rhetoric on sovereignty in Taiwan and the South China Sea consolidates nationalist support by presenting foreign powers as existential threats. A joint powers approach would, however, encourage transparency and dialogue between key states, thereby reducing the need for contradictory attitudes and helping to maintain stability.
Historically, multipolarity has often led to large-scale conflict, but a concert of powers offers a way to break this cycle. By fostering direct communication and cooperative problem-solving among the world’s major states, a concert could prevent rivalries from spiraling out of control. The goal would not be 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, restraint involves limiting intervention to cases of clear national interest, rather than reacting reflexively to every global crisis. In concert, major powers could focus on supporting regional stability without encroaching on each other’s spheres of influence. This would require a fundamental shift in the global policing reflex that characterized much of the post-Cold War era, toward a more measured, regionally focused strategy.
A modern concert of powers would also encourage the strategic flexibility of alliances. Rather than locking themselves into rigid commitments, states could form partnerships that allow room for compromise and de-escalation. China’s foreign policy provides an example of what this might look like; it engages with states on a case-by-case basis, maintaining relationships without tying itself to every dispute. In a multipolar era, such flexibility prevents the formation of hostile blocs and gives powers the room to maneuver necessary to manage tensions.
Multipolarity, counterbalanced by a concert of powers and a commitment to restraint, could even create new avenues of cooperation. The idea that one state must decline so that another can rise is outdated; multipolarity suggests that several powers can coexist and advance simultaneously. Studies in game theory and international relations suggest that multipolar systems can foster cooperation when states recognize mutual interests. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed both the risks and opportunities of interdependence. By coordinating to address common challenges such as global health crises or climate change, a concert of powers could transform multipolarity into a stabilizing force rather than a catalyst for competition.
Multipolarity presents real risks, but it also offers the possibility of building a more balanced international system. The alternative – an escalating cycle of rivalry and intervention – will likely return us to the instability that characterized previous multipolar eras. With the right approach, multipolarity could evolve into an era of constructive engagement, where powers balance their ambitions with a sense of responsibility. At this critical moment, the world’s major players face a choice: will they let multipolarity descend into chaos, or will they revive the spirit of the Concert of Europe, favoring a concert of powers based on restraint and mutual respect ? In a multipolar age, the measure of a great power may lie not in its ability to dominate, but in its willingness to exercise restraint.
Further reading on international electronic relations