Conditional Hybrid Organization in Constrained Multipolarity: Middle Powers and System Stabilization in the 21st Century

Authors

  • Aaron Ayeta Mulyanyuma Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda Author

Keywords:

Conditional Hybrid Agency, middle powers, constrained multipolarity, institutional embeddedness, structural constraints, system stability, great-power rivalry, international relations theory

Abstract

This article develops the concept of Conditional Hybrid Agency to analyze middle-power agency within a composite system of constrained multipolarity that entails simultaneous great-power rivalry and economic interdependence. Approaches to structural realism, liberal institutionalism, and hedging theory help explain middle-power behavior; however, they insufficiently address the enablers and constraints of agency across strategic contexts. To fill this void, the article proposes a formal analytical model in which middle-power agency (A) is a function of the interplay between institutional embeddedness (I) and structural constraints (C). In contrast, system stability (S) is modeled as a function of great-power rivalry (R). The study utilized a qualitative comparative analysis design, informed by analytical modeling and a most-similar systems logic. It analyzed the selected case studies of Japan, Australia, Canada, and South Korea. The study shows that middle-power agency is not predetermined and is equally available across all policy areas. Rather, it is contingent, fragmented, and at its most powerful when institutionalized coordination and multilateral platforms can counterbalance structural weaknesses stemming from reliance on major powers. The results also suggest that middle powers can have the greatest impact on system stability in an environment conducive to promoting cooperation and managing tensions, with strong institutionalization. Increased competition, on the other hand, restricts agency and limits middle powers' ability to play stabilizing roles. The article develops a new theoretical synthesis that reconciles competing schools of thought in international relations theory by articulating the connection among institutional embeddedness, structural constraints, and systemic outcomes. It engages with the literature on middle-power diplomacy by outlining the mutually constitutive relationship between state-level agency and system-level stability in contemporary multipolar orders.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

2. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations: Origins and evolution of IR at its centenary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647672

3. Ahmed, S. (2025). UN peacekeeping: Challenges and reforms for civilian protection and human rights. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(2), 245–254. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.2.19

4. Ali, P. (2025). Shaping security beyond arms: The Quad and human futures in the Indo-Pacific. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(2), 215–226. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.2.16

5. Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides's trap? Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

6. Beckley, M. (2018). Unrivaled: Why America will remain the world's sole superpower. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.

7. Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2015). The global transformation: History, modernity and the making of international relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565075

8. Chapnick, A. (1999). The middle power. Canadian Foreign Policy, 7(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212

9. Ciorciari, J. D., & Haacke, J. (2019). Hedging in international relations: An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz017

10. Cooper, A. F., Higgott, R. A., & Nossal, K. R. (1993). Relocating middle powers: Australia and Canada in a changing world order. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

11. Cvetković, V. M., Lipovac, M., Renner, R., Stanarević, S., & Raonić, Z. (2025). A predictive framework for understanding multidimensional security perceptions among students in Serbia: The role of institutional, socio-economic, and demographic determinants of sustainability. Sustainability, 17(11), 5030.

12. Cvetković, V. M., Renner, R., Aleksova, B., & Lukić, T. (2024). Geospatial and temporal patterns of natural and man-made (technological) disasters (1900–2024): Insights from different socio-economic and demographic perspectives. Applied Sciences, 14(18), 8129.

13. Cvetković, V. M., Tanasić, J., Renner, R., Rokvić, V., & Beriša, H. (2024). Comprehensive risk analysis of emergency medical response systems in Serbian healthcare: Assessing systemic vulnerabilities in disaster preparedness and response. Healthcare, 12(19), 1962.

14. Cvetković, V., Andrić, K., & Ivanov, A. (2023). Comparative analysis of disaster risk management systems in Germany, USA, Russia and China. Security Dialogues / Bezbednosni dijalozi, 14(2), 65–88.

15. Farag, M. I. H. (2025). Middle powers in a multipolar world: The case of Turkey’s foreign policy repositioning. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(2), 175–188. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.2.13

16. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351

17. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18. Gerring, J. (2017). Case study research: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316848595

19. Goh, E. (2016). Rising China's influence in developing Asia. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20. Hanspal, M. S., Cvetković, V. M., Lipovac, M., & Popović, D. J. (2026). Regulating emerging technologies in disaster management: A comparative analysis of security governance and legal liability in India and Serbia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 8(1), 147–162. doi:10.66050/5jedtn66

21. Hurrell, A. (2007). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

22. Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241

23. Ikenberry, G. J. (2020). A world safe for democracy: Liberal internationalism and the crises of global order. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

24. International Monetary Fund. (2024). World economic outlook 2024. Washington, DC, USA: International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org

25. Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282

26. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson.

27. Kuik, C. C. (2010). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore's response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1355/CS30-2A

28. Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one's world: The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

29. Lake, D. A. (2009). Hierarchy in international relations. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.

30. Lake, D. A., Martin, L. L., & Risse, T. (2021). Challenges to the liberal order: Reflections on international organization. International Organization, 75(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000636

31. Lamminparras, N. (2025). Putin, Finland, and NATO in Far North in 2024–2025. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(2), 189–202. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.2.14

32. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton.

33. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. New York, NY, USA: PublicAffairs.

34. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). OECD economic outlook 2024. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org

35. Patrick, S. (2023). The sovereign war: Strategic autonomy and international order in the twenty-first century. Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press.

36. Petrović, T. (2025). (Re)constructing Europe: Has a common identity integrated Europe? International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(1), 139–148. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.1.10

37. Ping, J. H. (2005). Middle power statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

38. Porel, T. (2025). A nuclear policy framework: Identifying challenges and ways to solutions. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(2), 9–24. doi:10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.2.2

39. Posen, B. R. (2014). Restraint: A new foundation for U.S. grand strategy. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.

40. Robertson, J. (2017). Middle-power definitions: Confusion reigns supreme. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(4), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1268371

41. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). Constructing the world polity: Essays on international institutionalization. London, UK: Routledge.

42. Schweller, R. L. (2016). Maxwell's demon and the golden apple: Global discord in the new millennium. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

43. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2024). SIPRI yearbook 2024: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://www.sipri.org

44. United Nations. (2024). United Nations statistical yearbook 2024. New York, NY, USA: United Nations. https://unstats.un.org

45. Vidović, N., Cvetković, V. M., & Beriša, H. (2024). Optimising disaster resilience through advanced risk management and financial analysis of critical infrastructure in the Serbian defence industry. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 6(2), 183–200.

46. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.

47. World Bank. (2024). World development indicators 2024. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org

48. World Trade Organization. (2024). World trade statistical review 2024. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization. https://www.wto.org

49. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

Downloads

Published

12.06.2026

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies (First Online - Accepted Papers)

Section

International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Aaron Ayeta Mulyanyuma (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

By submitting a manuscript to the International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, authors acknowledge and agree to the following copyright terms and conditions:

  1. Author Rights and Ownership

    • Authors retain the copyright to their submitted work. However, by submitting their manuscript, authors grant the International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies a non-exclusive right to publish, distribute, and archive the work in any format (print, digital, or electronic).
    • Authors are free to share, reproduce, and distribute their published work, provided proper credit is given to the original publication in this journal.

  2. Licensing and Open Access Policy

    • The journal publishes under the [insert applicable license, e.g., Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)], which allows others to share and adapt the work with appropriate attribution.
    • Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submission complies with the journal's licensing terms and does not violate any third-party rights.

  3. Originality and Permissions

    • The submitted work must be original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere.
    • If the manuscript includes copyrighted materials (e.g., figures, tables, excerpts), authors must obtain the necessary permissions for reproduction and provide appropriate attribution.

  4. Author Warranties

    • By submitting, authors confirm that their work does not infringe on any intellectual property rights, is free from plagiarism, and adheres to ethical publishing standards.
    • The journal is not responsible for any legal disputes arising from copyright infringement, misrepresentation, or unauthorized use of third-party materials.

  5. Editorial and Publication Rights

    • The International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies reserves the right to make editorial modifications to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance with journal standards.
    • If accepted, the manuscript will be published online and made publicly available according to the journal’s open-access policy.

By proceeding with submission, authors confirm that they have read and agreed to the terms outlined in this Copyright Notice.

How to Cite

Mulyanyuma, A. A. . (2026). Conditional Hybrid Organization in Constrained Multipolarity: Middle Powers and System Stabilization in the 21st Century. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 2(1), 179-194. https://contemporarysecuritystudies.com/journal/article/view/73

Similar Articles

21-30 of 34

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.