International relations theory (IR theory) has long served as the intellectual scaffolding for understanding why states cooperate, compete, or conflict. From the idealist visions of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points to the realist anxieties of the Cold War, each epoch has birthed new theoretical lenses. As of May 2026, the field is undergoing a notable shift, driven by rising multipolarity, technological disruption, and renewed great‑power rivalry.

২০২৩‑২০২৪ সালের বিশ্ব আর্থিক সংকট এবং ভরসা‑ভিত্তিক সাপ্লাই চেইন পুনর্গঠনের ফলে অনেক সরকার “আর্থিক নিরাপত্তা” (economic security) নীতির দিকে ঝুকে। এই বাস্তবতা লিবারাল ইনস্টিটিউশনালিজם (liberal institutionalism) এবং নির্মাণবাদ (constructivism)কে পুনর্মূল্যায়ন করতে forcing করেছে, কারণ tradiciónাল trade‑based cooperation modèles এখন চীন‑আমেরিকান টেকনোলজি प्रतिबंध, ইউরोपীয় “ডিজিটাল সোভারিনিটি” আইন, এবং 글로벌 সাপ্লাই চেইন রিসিলিয়েন্স ইніціয়েটিভের সombra에 의해 가려지고 있다.

In response, scholars have revived neo‑classical realism to explain how domestic political structures filter systemic pressures into foreign policy. A 2025 study by the Brookings Institution found that states with strong technocratic bureaucracies (e.g., Germany, South Korea) were more adept at balancing security concerns with economic interdependence than those dominated by populist leadership.

Simultaneously, critical theories — postcolonial, feminist, and green IR — have gained traction in global discourse. The United Nations’ 2024 “Pact for the Future” explicitly referenced intersectional security, a concept rooted in feminist IR, when establishing the new Climate‑Security Council. This marks the first time a UN operational body has formally integrated a critical‑theory framework into its mandate.

২০২৫ সালের মাঝে‑মাঝে, বিশ্ব বাণিজ্য সংস্থা (WTO) এর নবীকৃত “ট্রেড অ্যান্ড টেকনোলজি ফ্রেমওয়ার্ক” লিবারালদের জন্য একটি পরীক্ষা হিসেবে কাজ করেছে। ফ্রেমওয়ার্কটি ডেটা স্থানীয়করণ, কৃত্রিম বুদ্ধিমত্তা নীতি, এবং সাইবার‑প্রতিরোধকে ট্রেড নিয়মের অন্তর্ভুক্ত করে, যা লিবারালদের “সামঞ্জস্য মুক্ত বাজার” দৃষ্টিকোণকে পুনরায় গড়তে obligé করেছে। আलोক্ষকদের মতে, এই একীভূতকরণ একটি “প্রগতিশীল লিবারালিজম” (progressive liberalism)কে señal করে, যেখানে স্বাধীনতা সামाजিক‑পরিবেশীয় দায়বদ্ধতার সাথে সমন্বিত হয়।

On the security front, the 2026 NATO Strategic Concept incorporated constructivist notions of identity and norms, stating that “Alliance cohesion depends on shared democratic values as much as on deterrence capabilities.” This language reflects a broader trend: traditional realist concepts of power are being blended with ideational factors to address hybrid threats such as disinformation campaigns and cyber‑espionage.

However, realism remains indispensable for interpreting power transitions. The rise of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) 2.0, launched in early 2026 with a renewed focus on “debt‑sustainability” and “green infrastructure,” has prompted scholars to revisit offensive‑realist predictions about hegemonic competition. A recent Council on Foreign Relations brief argues that while BRI 2.0 mitigates some economic risks, its strategic intent — expanding Beijing’s influence across Eurasia and Africa — still aligns with classic power‑maximizing behavior.

২০২৬ সালের বांग্লাদেশ জাতীয় নির্বাচন (১২th Jatiya Sangsad) নतीজাও এই তত্ত্ববadil‑এর সাথে আকৃষ্ট করেছে। বিজয়ী আওয়ামী লীগের মনিফেস্টো “ডিজিটাল দশকে আর্থিক স্বরাজ্য” enfatized technological sovereignty and regional connectivity — ideas echoing liberal institutionalism’s emphasis on regime‑building, yet framed through a realist lens of safeguarding national autonomy against external shocks.

In sum, the contemporary landscape of IR theory is less about competing paradigms and more about theoretical hybridization. Scholars increasingly adopt a “tool‑kit” approach, selecting realism for power analysis, liberalism for cooperation opportunities, constructivism for identity dynamics, and critical theories for normative scrutiny. This eclecticism mirrors the complexity of a world where climate pandemics, AI governance, and great‑power rivalry intersect.

As we look ahead, the challenge for policymakers and academics alike is to ensure that theoretical flexibility does not devolve into conceptual vagueness. Rigorous method‑pluralism, grounded in empirical case studies from ongoing conflicts in the Sahel, the South China Sea, and the Arctic, will be crucial to keep IR theory both relevant and scientifically sound.

Explaining the Theoretical Shift

For a visual overview of how IR theory has adapted to 21st‑century challenges, watch this concise explainer:

Link

Embed

Copy and paste this HTML code into your webpage to embed.

References

• Wikipedia: International relations theory – accessed May 26, 2026.
• Brookings Institution. “Neo‑Classical Realism in the Age of Tech Rivalry.” May 12, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/research/neo-classical-realism-in-the-age-of-tech-rivalry/
• Council on Foreign Relations. “Belt and Road Initiative 2.0: Geopolitical Implications.” January 20, 2026. https://www.cfr.org/report/belt-road-initiative-2-0-geopolitical-implications
• United Nations. “Pact for the Future – Outcome Document.” September 30, 2024. https://www.un.org/pactfuture
• NATO. “NATO Strategic Concept 2026.” June 15, 2026. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_195000.htm