Civilizational Sovereignty and the Future International Order

This paper examines such contradictory political elements as national civilization, political structure, and international order using a comprehensive, holistic approach. It explores the problems of the state as a bearer of civilizational sovereignty and the formation of the future international order, and analyzes the characteristics and trends of the restructuring of national civilization and political values. The study reveals the specific features of the development of civilizational interaction as a strategy. This paper proposes not to study these political science concepts in isolation; to more effectively address these issues, they must be considered holistically, analyzing and exploring the relationship and characteristics of civilizational sovereignty as a political entity with national civilization, international order, and political structure. Furthermore, using the examples of Russia and China, the reasons for the emphasis on civilizational sovereignty, as well as the political values and behavior patterns associated with its strengthening, are revealed. It is noteworthy that the main innovation of this article is the exploration of the correlation and hypotheses between the sovereignty of civilization and political rifts, which allows various epistemologies of civilization to demonstrate humanistic concern for the laws of national survival, thereby working together to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences of division and rifts.

1. Acharya A. Before the nation-state: Civilizations, world orders, and the origins of global international relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 2023;16(3):263–288. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poad011

2. Bettiza G., Bolton D., Lewis D. Civilizationism and the ideological contestation of the liberal international order. International Studies Review.2023;25(2);2-28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad006

3. Bonch-Osmolovskaya O.A., Tugarinov P.A. The civilizational approach in the philosophical and political discourse of the PRC. Bulletin of the State University of Education. Series: History and Political Sciences. 2025;2:77-90. (In Russ.). URL: https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5164-2025-2-77-90

4. Song Zhihao From the Concept of “Tianxia” to “Tianxiaism” and the Theory of the “Tianxia System”: Ideas of the ideal world in political-philosophical treatises of Chinese thinkers. Society: Politics, Economics, Law. 2024;(1):64–69. (In Russ.). URL: https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2024.1.8

5. Yijie Tang. On Confucianism and “Universal Values”. Chinese Culture Research. 2012;3:1-7. (In Chin.). URL: https:// doi.org/10.15990/j.cnki.cn11-3306/g2.2012.03.021

6. Yijie Tang. Looking forward to the era of the new axis: Philosophical thinking in the new century. Study Monthly. 2014;9:56. CNKI: SUN:YKXX.0.2014-09-036. (In Chin.)

7. Zhu Chenjing. The concept of civilization in the new era and the reconstruction of world order. Journal of Chongqing University: Social Sciences. 2018;24(6):78-91. (In Chin.). URL: https://doi.org/10.11835/j.issn.1008-5831.2018.06.019

8. Zhongbo Zhu. Global civilization initiative: Origin, сonnotation and сhinese practice. International Studies. 2023;5:19-47. CNKI: SUN:GJWY.0.2023-05-002 (In Chin.).

9. Caramani D.A cleavage-based conceptualisation of politicised global integration. Journal of European Public Policy. 2024;31(10):1-24. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2309197

10. Caramani D., Gurova S., Widmann T. The evolution of global cleavages: A historical analysis of territorial and functional world alignments based on automated text analysis, 1843-2020. Comparative Political Studies. 2025;58(1):1495-1532. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241271085

11. Robert W.H. Democratic Civility: The history and cross cultural possibility of a modern political ideal (1st ed.). Routledge. 1998;330. URL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351290609

12. Seyed M.K. Dialogue among civilizations: Contexts and perspectives. UN Chronicle. 2012;49(3):11-14. URL: https://doi.org/10.18356/a680f82d-en

13. Matsuura, K. Is the globalization of the economy creating values for a new civilization? Prospects. 2000;30:399–404. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736929

14. Davydov D.A. The temptation of civilizationism: Is it possible to resist the West without bias and simplified thinking? Russia in global affairs. 2025;23(4):30–43. (In Russ.). URL: https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2025-23-4-30-48

15. Zevelev I.A. The future of Russia: nation or civilization? Bulletin of the Russian Nation. 2009;6(8):94-109. URL: https://elibrary.ru/lmbmpx (In Russ.).

16. Luchina M.S. Russia and China in the Great strategic triangle. Russia in Global Affairs. 2025;23(4):118–133. (In Russ.). URL: https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2025-23-4-118-133

17. Graham T. China-Russia-US: Relations and strategic triangles. Polis. Political Studies. 2020;(6):62–72. (In Russ.). URL: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.05

18. Sahakyan M. China and Eurasian powers in a multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, diplomacy, economy and cyberspace (1st ed.) Routledge.2023;274. URL: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003352587

19. Самюэль Хантингтон. Столкновение цивилизаций. Москва: АСТ; 2016. 640 с. Samuel Huntington. Clash of civilizations. Moscow: AST; 2016. 640 p. (In Russ.).

20. Linklater A. Civilizing processes and international systems. In: The Problem of harm in world politics: Theoretical investigations. Cambridge University Press:2011;320. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790348.008