Abstract
This paper (the third in this miniseries) explores the evolving international system shaped by both state and non-state actors, emphasising the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI). It outlines the fragmentation of global power into six major geopolitical dominions and highlights the growing influence of non-state actors, including multinational corporations (MNCs), NGOs, and violent non-state actors, challenging traditional state-centric views.
MNCs wield significant economic, political, and security influence, shaping global governance and conflict dynamics. Furthermore, AI is presented as a disruptive power multiplier that enhances capabilities across military, economic, and informational domains, while democratising power among non-state actors and introducing new security risks. This paper argues that AI may emerge as a geopolitical actor, reshaping the infrastructure of global power through its integration into networks.
Finally, the concept of a ” multiplex ” world order is introduced, characterised by decentralisation, cultural diversity, regionalism, and a complex interplay of conflict and cooperation among diverse actors.
Key Words: Non-state actors, Multinational corporations (MNCs), Artificial Intelligence (AI), International system, Multiplex world order
Introduction
The second part of this miniseries on the future of the international system (available here) examines the emerging fragmentation of the international system into six major geopolitical dominions: the United States, Germany-led Europe, Russia, China, India, and Iran. Each dominion leverages its unique geography-enabled advantages, combined with strategic tools such as military power, economic statecraft, and soft power to assert regional influence and compete globally.
The third and final segment of this miniseries will explore the role of non-state actors (transnational companies) in shaping the evolving international system, with particular focus on the influence of artificial intelligence. The paper will conclude by invoking the ” multiplex ” hypothesis.
Non-state actors
The contemporary international system is characterised by a plurality of actors beyond sovereign states. Globalisation has strengthened non-state actors in relation to state actors, enhancing their ability to spread influence and shape preferences across borders.[1]
Although states remain the primary makers of international law, the rise of non-state actors reflects a more complex, multicentric world in which international relations increasingly reflect plural power structures. Understanding the types and roles of these actors is essential for comprehending the emerging international system.
Non-state actors encompass a wide spectrum of entities operating across political, economic, and security domains. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) represent private, non-profit, issue-oriented advocacy organisations that have experienced phenomenal growth and have become a major force in international politics.[2] Prominent examples include Amnesty International, Greenpeace International, and Transparency International, which operate in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and governance.[3]
Multinational corporations (MNCs) and transnational corporations (TNCs) constitute another critical category, wielding significant economic influence by shaping markets and policies beyond national borders.[4] These corporate actors control substantial shares of world trade and influence global economic development.
Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), although created by states, develop independent agencies through their secretariats and play roles in security, trade, and peace negotiations.[5]
The darker spectrum includes violent non-state actors (VNSAs), such as terrorist organisations, insurgent groups, warlords, and transnational criminal organisations. These actors challenge state authority, control territory, and pose significant security threats to global peace.[6]
Transnational networks encompass epistemic communities, religious groups, social movements, and digital advocacy organisations that operate across borders.[7]
Non-state actors perform diverse functions that fundamentally shape international relations. Their agenda-setting and advocacy roles are particularly prominent, as they influence international negotiations, define foreign policy objectives, and mobilise public opinion.[8] NGOs and advocacy networks excel at norm diffusion, promoting human rights standards, environmental protection, and governance reforms.
In terms of service provision, non-state actors fill governance gaps by distributing aid, providing refugee assistance, offering disaster relief, and implementing international agreements.[9] They also serve as compliance watchdogs, monitoring state behaviour and evaluating adherence to international standards.[10] Economic influence represents another crucial role, with MNCs and TNCs exerting pressure on states through revenue generation, employment, and control over global supply chains.[11]
Conversely, violent non-state actors pose security threats by using violent and non-violent tactics to weaken states, win constituency allegiance, and challenge state legitimacy. Terrorist groups and criminal organisations exploit globalisation for hostile objectives, creating geopolitical networks that disrupt the international security.[12]
In summary, non-state actors have become indispensable players in international relations, operating across multiple domains and performing functions ranging from constructive contributions to governance to destabilising security threats. Their influence on agenda-setting, policymaking, norm development, service provision, and economic dynamics demonstrates that the international system can no longer be understood through a purely state-centric perspective.
Multinational corporations (MNCs)
Multinational companies (MNCs) are among the most influential non-state actors in the contemporary international system. Operating across borders with revenues that often exceed the GDP of many nation-states, MNCs transcend purely economic functions to exert political, military, and security influence. While their economic dominance drives globalisation, their political lobbying and entanglement in security dynamics reshape global governance, foreign policy, and conflict calculus.
– Economic Role
MNCs serve as primary engines of global economic integration. They account for approximately half of world exports, one-fourth of global employment, and significant shares of foreign direct investment (FDI) and technology transfer.[13] Through intricate global value chains, firms such as Apple, Toyota, and ExxonMobil coordinate production, supply, and distribution across continents, fostering efficiency gains and innovation diffusion. Their scale enables them to influence market structures, set de facto standards in industries ranging from electronics to energy, and drive capital flows that can stabilise or destabilise national economies.
However, this economic power has structural implications for the international system. MNCs often prioritise profit maximisation over national interests, leading to offshoring, tax optimisation, and asymmetric bargaining leverage with host governments. As noted in broader analyses of global production networks, their activities have contributed to the ” globalisation of production,” dispersing manufacturing and services in ways that bind economies together but also create dependencies.[14] Think-tank perspectives, including those from Brookings, highlight how MNCs’ economic footprint—contributing over 20% of U.S. private-sector value added and dominating trade—amplifies their systemic weight beyond mere commerce.
– Political Role
MNCs actively shape political landscapes and international norms. Far from being passive economic entities, they engage in lobbying, agenda-setting, and norm entrepreneurship that influence foreign policy and global governance. A seminal Brookings Institution analysis by Kim and Milner (2019) empirically demonstrates this: using a novel dataset of U.S. public firms’ lobbying from 1999 to 2019, the authors find that firms becoming MNCs increase lobbying expenditures by approximately 50% within two years and lobby on a broader array of foreign policy issues, including trade, defense, energy, and appropriations. MNCs’ transnational operations lower the relative cost of political engagement while raising the marginal benefits of influencing policies on tariffs, investment protections, and regulatory harmonisation.
Classic scholarship reinforces this view. Nye (1974) outlined three channels of MNC influence in foreign affairs: direct economic coercion or inducement, indirect effects via host-country dependencies, and unintended roles in intelligence or policy alignment.[15] More recently, Babic et al. (2017) reframed state-corporate relations as networked power dynamics, where MNCs challenge state-centric IR theories by operating as quasi-autonomous actors in transnational spaces.[16] They co-shape rules in areas like trade agreements (e.g., via input into WTO or bilateral deals) and environmental standards, sometimes bypassing or pressuring governments. Think tanks, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, have echoed concerns about MNCs’ role in foreign influence operations, noting how economic incentives can lead to self-censorship or policy advocacy favouring corporate interests. This political agency raises sovereignty concerns: MNCs can extract concessions from developing states or align with great-power agendas, blurring the lines between private profit and public diplomacy.
– Military and Security Realm
MNCs’ involvement extends deeply into military and security domains, altering conflict incentives and state capabilities. Stephen G. Brooks argues that the geographic dispersion of MNC production — distinct from mere trade — fundamentally shifts the security environment. By integrating supply chains across potential adversaries, globalisation raises the costs of war among great powers, acting as a force for peace; however, it can exacerbate tensions in developing regions through resource competition or unequal gains. Brooks’ analysis, grounded in extensive data on production networks, shows how MNC strategies have made interstate conflict more disruptive to interdependent firms, thereby deterring aggression.[17]
In zones of violent conflict, MNCs play direct operational roles. A RAND Corporation study on counterinsurgency (Rosenau et al., 2009) examines cases in Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Nigeria’s Niger Delta, where extractive MNCs protect assets, engage local actors, and inadvertently shape security dynamics—sometimes stabilising environments through infrastructure investment or exacerbating grievances. The report cautions against over-reliance on corporate actors because of accountability gaps, yet acknowledges their de facto influence alongside private military and security companies (PMSCs). Defense-oriented MNCs, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, further blur the lines by supplying technologies and influencing procurement policies that define military alliances.
In cybersecurity and emerging domains, tech MNCs (e.g., Microsoft, Huawei) control critical infrastructure, data flows, and standards, intersecting with state intelligence and espionage. Their dual-use innovations can enhance or undermine national security, as seen in supply-chain vulnerabilities or platform governance debates. Overall, MNCs contribute to a hybridised security landscape in which private capabilities complement—or complicate — state power.
In summary, MNCs profoundly shape the international system by intertwining economic interdependence with political leverage and security recalibration. While fostering growth and, in some cases, stability, their influence challenges traditional state sovereignty and raises normative questions regarding accountability in global governance. [18]
The AI – the great disruption
Artificial intelligence (AI) is broadly understood as the ability of a digital computer or robot to perform tasks commonly associated with human intellectual processes, such as reasoning and discovering meaning.[19] This section examines the transformative power of AI in three distinct areas that are likely to shape the emerging international system.
– AI as a power multiplier
Artificial intelligence (AI) functions as a transformative power multiplier in international relations, amplifying the capabilities of both states and non-state actors while reshaping the global balance of power. Unlike traditional military technologies, AI acts as an enabling technology — comparable to the internal combustion engine or electricity—enhancing data processing, decision-making speed, and operational coordination across military, economic, and informational domains.[20] For states, AI intensifies great-power competition, particularly between the United States and China, by enabling asymmetric advantages in surveillance, autonomous systems, and predictive analytics. Leading states invest heavily in AI to bolster military effectiveness, such as through swarm drones or battle-management algorithms that favour quantity and speed over costly platforms. However, success here depends heavily on organizational adaptation; bureaucratic inertia in established militaries risks relative decline if adoption lags. Diffusion dynamics further complicate this: commercial, dual-use AI spreads rapidly via open-source tools and global firms, potentially levelling capabilities among states but heightening security dilemmas and arms-race pressures. Think tank analyses underscore that nations harnessing AI effectively may experience a rise in relative power, while laggards face economic and strategic erosion, with AI itself emerging as a geopolitical actor capable of independent influence.[21]
Non-state actors equally benefit from the multiplier effect of AI, democratising capabilities that were once reserved for states. Advanced models lower barriers for malicious uplift, empowering terrorists, criminal networks, and individuals to conduct sophisticated cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, biological weapon design, and autonomous operations at an unprecedented scale and speed.[22] For instance, AI facilitates the rapid exploitation of vulnerabilities, personalised phishing, or pathogen engineering, enabling non-experts to inflict state-level harm. Big tech companies and other private entities also gain quasi-state influence through control over data and dominance in innovation, challenging traditional sovereignty and contributing to polarisation or regime instability.[23] This proliferation fragments authority, as non-state actors exploit AI’s borderless, low-cost nature to evade attribution and regulation.
In summary, AI redefines power in IR by accelerating capability diffusion while concentrating strategic advantages among early adopters. States must navigate adaptation and alliances to maintain dominance; however, non-state empowerment introduces new vulnerabilities and hybrid threats. Effective governance, including bilateral U.S.-China coordination on safety protocols and multilateral resilience-building, will determine whether AI stabilises or destabilises the international system. Without proactive measures, AI risks exacerbating anarchy rather than mitigating it.
– AI as an international system transformer
As Silverio Allocca rightly observes, AI has the potential to become a pivotal part of a new geopolitical infrastructure, a cognitive infrastructure of contemporary power.[24] Drawing from network theory, Allocca posits that in complex systems (an international system is certainly one), what determines influence and power is not only the strength (a tangible source of state power) but also the position of actors within the network and their ability to control it. Consequently, contemporary geopolitics should no longer be understood as straightforward competition between states. Rather, it should be seen as the ability to control global infrastructures. (This explains why I wrote in the second part of this miniseries on Iran as a geopolitical dominion). Therefore, control of a port, energy infrastructure, digital platform, or global supply chain can have an impact greater than that of the military occupation of a territory. In this sense, traditionally understood sovereignty and power, which is expressed by territorial control, armies, stability, and independence of state institutions, or the ability to protect the borders, has to be complemented with the capacity of actors to influence interconnected networks of information, energy, finance, and technology. In other words, the core concept is the interdependence of the material and virtual. The tangible and intangible. AI is potentially a game-changer here as it becomes the backbone of emerging interdependent networks that are forming the emerging international system.
With the rapid development of AI technology, the potential emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence and perhaps even a Super Artificial Intelligence, AI has the potential to not only add to the existing interdependent networks but also become the very core on which such networks will run. This, in turn, means that AI may become an actor in its own right in the future.
– AI as Weapons of Mass Destruction
When talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), most scholars seem to think of AI as a variable that affects the conceptualisation and use of WMDs. I claim, however, that AI may be considered a WMD in its own right. This is due to eight features that distinguish this technology from all other existing technologies created by humans.
WMDs are categorised into four primary types, each with distinct technical characteristics and the potential for mass destruction. Nuclear weapons derive their destructive power from nuclear reactions, either by fission or fusion. They release vast amounts of energy, causing catastrophic damage through blasts, heat, electromagnetic pulses (EMP), and radiation. Biological weapons utilise pathogens or toxins to cause disease and death. Chemical weapons use toxic chemicals to cause harm or even death. These weapons were extensively used during World War I and have been employed in regional conflicts, such as the Iran–Iraq War. Finally, radiological weapons (‘dirty bombs’) disperse radioactive materials without causing a nuclear explosion. These weapons can cause long-term environmental contamination and adverse health effects.
AI is characterised by eight distinguishing features that, combined with the emergent nature of this technology, have the potential to be massively destructive. These features are distraction, disinformation, distribution, distress, ambiguity, discomprehension, disattribution, and dehumanisation.
- Distraction–AI-driven technologies, particularly personalised content and notifications, have been shown to significantly impact individual behaviour, often leading to digital addiction and decreased productivity.[25]
- Disinformation–AI-generated disinformation can significantly influence political outcomes by spreading false and misleading information. For instance, deepfakes—AI-generated videos or images that can manipulate reality—pose a significant threat to electoral processes. These technologies can create convincing yet false content, such as fake speeches or endorsements, which can influence public opinion and erode trust in political leaders and institutions.[26]
- Distribution – AI is being integrated into nearly every aspect of our lives, from healthcare to education and finance, as well as cyber and national security. Most of us, especially in the developed world, use AI algorithms in one way or another and have adapted to new digital environments effectively.
- Distress–AI technology adds to the ongoing arms race significantly, not only through the integration of this new and emerging technology into existing WMD systems, but also by establishing a new level of the AI race, led by the US and China, the outcome of which is likely to establish its dominant position in the international system.
- Ambiguity – AI has become a critical component of modern military strategies to enhance decision-making, operational efficiency, and battlefield capabilities. Autonomous weapons systems powered by AI can process vast amounts of data and make decisions in real time, thereby enabling faster and more precise military operations.
- Discomprehension refers to the fact that AI systems can perpetuate and amplify biases present in the data used to train them. If the training data are biased or incomplete, the AI system may produce outputs that are systematically incorrect or misleading. This can lead to a situation in which the biases of the AI system distort the commander’s understanding of the battlefield.[27]
- Disattribution: AI has become a double-edged sword in the context of misinformation. AI can be used to detect and mitigate misinformation by analysing patterns in text, images, and social media activities. In contrast, adversaries can exploit AI to generate convincing disinformation at scale using techniques such as deepfakes, bots, and algorithmic manipulation.[28]
- Dehumanisation − AI dehumanises war through several interconnected mechanisms. Most importantly, AI systems, by design, lack human emotions, such as empathy, fear, and remorse, which are integral to human decision-making in conflict situations. This absence can lead to decisions that prioritise strategic efficiency over ethical considerations
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is difficult to disagree with the hypothesis that the actors and factors shaping the emerging international system are more complex than those shaping previous systems. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult to make sense of the international environment, especially regarding international security and interstate relations. The idea of “Multiplex” by Amitav Acharya might serve as a reference. Accordingly, the emerging multiplex world order is anticipated to have several key characteristics:
- Post-hegemonic structure: there will be no globally dominant country or bloc, no single dominant ideology, and no unified global institution. Instead, power and influence will be more distributed across multiple actors.
- Cultural and political diversity: the future world order will be culturally and politically diverse, incorporating elements from various civilisations, such as Chinese communitarianism, Western liberalism, Indian eclecticism, and the worldviews of Islam and other civilisations.
- Interconnected yet Regionalised: While the world will remain interconnected, there will be a greater emphasis on regional orders, which may include formal organisations, such as the European Union or ASEAN, as well as informal arrangements among regional powers. These regional orders may either exclude or limit the influence of extra-regional powers.
- Pluralized Global Governance: Global governance will become more complex and pluralistic, involving regional and plurilateral institutions and hybrid arrangements among states and non-state actors, such as corporations, foundations, and social movements. This will complement, but not replace, existing state-centric structures, such as the UN and groups such as the G-7 or G-20.
- No ” end of history “: unlike the notion that liberal democracy represents the final form of government, the multiplex world will be shaped by ongoing competition and coexistence among diverse political and cultural systems.
- Potential for Conflict and Cooperation: The new world order will not be free from conflict; however, conflicts are expected to occur both within and between civilisations. There is also a likelihood of coexistence and cross-civilizational cooperation, as evidenced by current alliances and political alignments.
- Europe as an Epicentre of Disorder: Europe might return to being a centre of global disorder, a contrast to the Cold War period, when it was relatively peaceful while conflicts were more prevalent elsewhere.
- Survival of the Liberal International Order in a Reduced Form: the LIO may continue to exist but in a truncated form, focused more as a club of Western nations rather than a global framework.
Overall, the multiplex world order will be marked by decentralization of power, diversity of values and governance models, increased regionalism, and a complex mix of conflict and cooperation among a variety of actors [29]
References
