Published Online:January 2026
Product Name:The IUP Journal of International Relations
Product Type:Article
Product Code:IJIR010126
DOI:10.71329/IUPJIR/2026.20.1.7-24
Author Name:Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi
Availability:YES
Subject/Domain:Arts and Humanities
Download Format:PDF
Pages:7-24
The paper posits that the nature of the institutionalized global order is pivotal to peace and conflict. The dawn of the 21st century marked a period of relative tranquillity in human history, attributed to the establishment of institutions and a rule-based order, which was hailed as one of the greatest political triumphs. Nonetheless, the waning legitimacy of multilateral institutions calls for an adaptation to the evolving global order. The hierarchical system of multilateral institutions, based on unilateralism, does not adequately represent the needs and realities of the complex alignments and minilateralism that exist among emerging, aspiring, and established powers. A diverse range of actors challenge traditional authority and direct global society towards an increasingly decentralized future. This undermines the Hegemonic Stability Theory, demonstrating that the hegemon can no longer effectively stabilize the global order. Peace is understood as more than just the absence of war; it is considered a virtue, a mindset, and a strategy for managing and mitigating the devastating effects of conflict. Approaches such as multilateralism, minilateralism, and multi-alignment are employed as strategies to achieve peace by managing wars and conflicts through intricate arrangements among nation-states. These strategies aim to prevent sovereign nations from creating alliances that could lead to a bloc mentality. For example, India’s involvement in QUAD and BRICS helps balance its relationships with both the US and China, thereby avoiding the necessity of forming adversarial alliances.
In the 19th century, Great Britain saw itself as a “balancing force” and a “global benefactor,” justifying worldwide colonial expansion with the “white man’s burden” ideology.