
What makes ‘great powers' great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world?
Many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the 'great power rivalry' currently playing out between China and the U.S.
But what makes a power 'great' in the realm of international relations?
Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.
The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.
Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.
This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state's control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.
From great to 'super'
Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.
In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.
During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era's two 'superpowers,' dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.
Toward a multipolar world
The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.
This era was marked by the expansion of liberal internationalism, economic globalization and U.S.-led-and-constructed multilateralism.
However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.
In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.
And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.
Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.
Challenging greatness
Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today's great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.
Instead, today's great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.
Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.
As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.
Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.
Andrew Latham is Professor of Political Science, Macalester College.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
External Link
https://theconversation.com/what-makes-great-powers-great-and-how-will-they-adapt-to-a-multipolar-world-260969
© The Conversation

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Yomiuri Shimbun
6 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
India Pauses Plans to Buy U.S. Arms after Trump's Tariffs
NEW DELHI, Aug 8 (Reuters) – New Delhi has put on hold its plans to procure new U.S. weapons and aircraft, according to three Indian officials familiar with the matter, in India's first concrete sign of discontent after tariffs imposed on its exports by President Donald Trump dragged ties to their lowest level in decades. India had been planning to send Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to Washington in the coming weeks for an announcement on some of the purchases, but that trip has been canceled, two of the people said. Trump on Aug. 6 imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods as punishment for Delhi's purchases of Russian oil, which he said meant the country was funding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That raised the total duty on Indian exports to 50% – among the highest of any U.S. trading partner. The president has a history of rapidly reversing himself on tariffs and India has said it remains actively engaged in discussions with Washington. One of the people said the defense purchases could go ahead once India had clarity on tariffs and the direction of bilateral ties, but 'just not as soon as they were expected to.' Written instructions had not been given to pause the purchases, another official said, indicating that Delhi had the option to quickly reverse course, though there was 'no forward movement at least for now.' Post publication of this story, India's government issued a statement it attributed to a Ministry of Defence source describing news reports of a pause in the talks as 'false and fabricated.' The statement also said procurement was progressing as per 'extant procedures.' Delhi, which has forged a close partnership with America in recent years, has said it is being unfairly targeted and that Washington and its European allies continue to trade with Moscow when it is in their interest. Reuters is reporting for the first time that discussions on India's purchases of Stryker combat vehicles made by General Dynamics Land Systems and Javelin anti-tank missiles developed by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin LMT.N have been paused due to the tariffs. Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in February announced plans to pursue procurement and joint production of those items. Singh had also been planning to announce the purchase of six Boeing P8I reconnaissance aircraft and support systems for the Indian Navy during his now-canceled trip, two of the people said. Talks over procuring the aircraft in a proposed $3.6 billion deal were at an advanced stage, according to the officials. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics referred queries to the Indian and U.S. governments. Raytheon did not return a request for comment. RUSSIAN RELATIONS India's deepening security relationship with the U.S., which is fueled by their shared strategic rivalry with China, was heralded by many U.S. analysts as one of the key areas of foreign-policy progress in the first Trump administration. Delhi is the world's second-largest arms importer and Russia has traditionally been its top supplier. India has in recent years however, shifted to importing from Western powers like France, Israel and the U.S., according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think-tank. The shift in suppliers was driven partly by constraints on Russia's ability to export arms, which it is utilizing heavily in its invasion of Ukraine. Some Russian weapons have also performed poorly in the battlefield, according to Western analysts. The broader U.S.-India defense partnership, which includes intelligence sharing and joint military exercises, continues without hiccups, one of the Indian officials said. India also remains open to scaling back on oil imports from Russia and is open to making deals elsewhere, including the U.S., if it can get similar prices, according to two other Indian sources. Trump's threats and rising anti-U.S. nationalism in India have 'made it politically difficult for Modi to make the shift from Russia to the U.S.,' one of the people said. Nonetheless, discounts on the landing cost of Russian oil have shrunk to the lowest since 2022. India's petroleum ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. While the rupture in U.S.-India ties was abrupt, there have been strains in the relationship. Delhi has repeatedly rebutted Trump's claim that the U.S. brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after four days of fighting between the nuclear-armed neighbors in May. Trump also hosted Pakistan's army chief at the White House in the weeks following the conflict. In recent months, Moscow has been actively pitching Delhi on buying new defense technologies like its S-500 surface-to-air missile system, according to one of the Indian officials, as well as a Russian source familiar with the talks. India currently does not see a need for new arms purchases from Moscow, two Indian officials said. But Delhi is unlikely to wean itself off Russian weapons entirely as the decades-long partnership between the two powers means Indian military systems will continue to require Moscow's support, one of the officials said. The Russian embassy in Delhi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Yomiuri Shimbun
6 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Israel Faces Backlash at Home and Abroad over Gaza War Escalation Plan
JERUSALEM, Aug 8 (Reuters) – Israel's security cabinet approved a plan to take control of Gaza City, a move expanding military operations in the shattered Palestinian territory that drew strong fresh criticism at home and abroad on Friday over its pursuit of the almost two-year-old war. Germany, a key European ally, announced it would halt exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza, a decision Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called disappointing. Britain and other European allies urged Israel to reconsider its decision to escalate the Gaza military campaign. However, U.S. President Donald Trump's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, told Reuters that some countries appeared to be putting pressure on Israel rather than on the militant group Hamas, whose deadly attack on Israel in 2023 ignited the war. In Israel, families of hostages held by militants in Gaza, and opposition leaders blasted Netanyahu for a decision that they said would put hostages' lives at risk. Far-right allies in the prime minister's coalition have been pushing for a total takeover of Gaza as part of his vow to eradicate Hamas militants, though the military has warned this could endanger the lives of remaining hostages held by militants. Opposition leader Yair Lapid called the decision to send Israeli forces into Gaza City a disaster, saying it defied the advice of military and security officials. He accused far-right ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich of dragging Netanyahu into a prolonged campaign that would result in the deaths of hostages and soldiers. Netanyahu told Fox News Channel's Bill Hemmer in an interview that aired on Thursday that the military intended to take control of all of Gaza. He said Israel did not want to keep the Gaza Strip, but to establish a 'security perimeter' and to hand over the territory to Arab forces. The announcement from the prime minister's office early on Friday, following Thursday's security cabinet meeting, said the military would take Gaza City, but did not say if Israeli forces would take all of the enclave. Israel's cabinet is expected to endorse the Gaza City plan. Netanyahu spoke with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Friday to express disappointment over Berlin's suspension of weapons exports to Israel, the prime minister's office said. Netanyahu told the chancellor that Israel's goal was to 'free Gaza from Hamas' so a peaceful government could be established there, and that Israel does not intend to take it over, it said. 'HEART OF GAZA' The military has said that it controls around 75% of Gaza. Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli brigadier general, estimated that if the military did take Gaza City, it would give Israel control of about 85% of the strip. 'Gaza City is the heart of Gaza. It's really the centre of government. It has always been the strongest and even in the eyes of Hamas, the fall of Gaza City is pretty much the fall of Hamas,' said Avivi. 'Taking over Gaza City is a game changer.' Israeli media have said 900,000 people now live in Gaza City, including many who have been displaced by the military. 'Where should we go? Do we throw ourselves in the sea?,' said Maghzouza Saada, a displaced Palestinian from Gaza's north. Before the war, Hamas' most powerful fighting units were believed to operate in northern Gaza, including Gaza City. There are 50 hostages still held in Gaza, of whom Israeli officials believe 20 are alive. Most of those freed so far emerged as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Talks toward a ceasefire that could have seen more hostages released collapsed in July. CONDEMNATION FROM ABROAD European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was among foreign leaders urging Israel to reconsider its decision to advance into Gaza City. Regional power Saudi Arabia, which has said it could not normalise ties with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state, condemned any move to occupy Gaza. Asked in an interview with Reuters about criticism of Israel's decision to escalate the war, U.S. Ambassador Huckabee questioned why some nations were 'once again' placing 'all the pressure on Israel' instead of on Hamas. Huckabee said Trump was frustrated that Hamas is unwilling to reach 'any kind of reasonable settlement', adding the president insists that the militant group cannot remain in power and must disarm. Israel had already come under mounting pressure at home and abroad over the war in Gaza, including over the humanitarian disaster in the enclave. In recent weeks, Britain, Canada and France said they could recognise a Palestinian state at the U.N. General Assembly next month. DOMESTIC PRESSURE Netanyahu has said there will be no end to the war until Hamas is disarmed. Opinion polls have shown that a majority of Israelis believe he should end the war immediately in a diplomatic agreement that would see the release of remaining hostages. The Hostages Families Forum, which represents many families of captives in Gaza, said the pursuit of occupying Gaza means abandoning the hostages all while ignoring public support to immediately end the war in a deal that releases the hostages. It said in a statement the security cabinet had chosen to 'embark on another march of recklessness, on the backs of the hostages, the soldiers, and Israeli society as a whole'. 'I think it's a death sentence to all the hostages that are still being held there. And it's the wrong decision to do it at this time,' Danny Bukovsky, a hotelier in Tel Aviv, said of the announcement that Israeli forces would move into Gaza City. A full occupation of Gaza would reverse a 2005 decision in which Israel withdrew thousands of Jewish settlers and its forces, while retaining control over its borders, airspace and utilities.


Yomiuri Shimbun
8 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
US Has ‘No Plans' to Recognize Palestinian State, Vance Says before Talks with UK Foreign Secretary
LONDON (AP) — U.S. Vice President JD Vance met with U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Friday at a stately home south of London, with the two leaders saying the agenda includes global economics and the Israel-Hamas war and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Taking questions from reporters before their talks, Vance addressed the U.K. decision to recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza, saying he wasn't sure what such recognition would even mean, 'given the lack of a functional government there.' Asked whether Trump had been given a heads up on Israel's announced intent to occupy Gaza City, Vance said he wouldn't go into such conversations. 'If it was easy to bring peace to that region of the world, it would have been done already,' he said. The meeting comes amid debates between Washington and London about the best way to end the wars between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Israel and Hamas. It's also taking place as the United Kingdom tries to come to favorable terms for steel and aluminum exports to the U.S., and the two sides work out details of a broader trade deal announced at the end of June. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that he hoped to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump next week, comments that came a day before Trump's deadline for Moscow to show progress in ending the nearly 3½-year war in Ukraine. While Trump has focused on bilateral talks with Putin, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other European leaders have stressed that Ukraine must be part of any negotiations on ending the war. The U.S. and Britain, which have historically close ties known as 'the special relationship,' have also disagreed on their approach to ending the war in Gaza. The meeting took place at Chevening, an almost 400-year-old mansion surrounded by 3,000 acres (about 1,200 hectares) of gardens that serves as the foreign secretary's official country residence. About two dozen protesters were spotted on the road before the turnoff to the stately home. A few were wearing keffiyeh scarves and another held up a round sign that had a meme making fun of Vance printed on it. Vance and Lammy come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but have made a personal connection through their hardscrabble childhoods and Christian faith, While Lammy is a member of the left-leaning Labour Party and Vance is a conservative Republican who supports Trump's 'America First' agenda, the two men have bonded in recent months. Lammy told the Guardian newspaper that the two men can relate over their 'dysfunctional' working class childhoods and that he considers Vance a 'friend.' Lammy attended a Catholic Mass at the Vance home in Washington earlier this year, and the two men met again at the U.S. Embassy in Rome when he and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner attended the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV in May. 'I had this great sense that JD completely relates to me and he completely relates to Angela,' Lammy told the Guardian. 'So it was a wonderful hour and a half.' After spending a few days at Chevening, Vance and his family will head to the Cotswolds, an area that has become popular with wealthy American tourists because of its quaint villages, stone cottages and rural countryside that hark back to old England. The Vance family's trip will include official engagements, fundraising, visits to cultural sites and museums and meeting with U.S. troops, according to a person familiar with Vance's trip who wasn't authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. A host of celebrities descended on the area two weeks ago for the wedding of Eve Jobs, the daughter of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, and Harry Charles, a member of the British equestrian team at last summer's Olympic Games in Paris. The Cotswolds cover about 800 square miles (2,000 square kilometers) and parts of five counties in the west of England. Vance and his family have reportedly rented a house in the village of Charlbury, 12 miles (20 kilometers) west of Oxford, according to British media outlets. 'That area is very fashionable,' Plum Sykes, a socialite and journalist, told London-based newspaper The Times. 'If you wanted to be in the super-hot, super-social Cotswolds, that's where you'd go,' she said. 'There's been this mass exodus from America to the Cotswolds. Americans just cannot get over the charm. Then power and money attract power and money.'