Authors: Vanshika Jain, Harmanjot Singh, Bhavika, Aayushi Chowdhury

Acknowledgement: Prateek Pawan Singh, Meghna Mukhopadhyay, Rakhi Kumari, Guturu Amrutha, Shivendra Shukla, Anibijuwon Faith

Abstract

The twenty-first Century has been expressing quite a movement in the International system due to the emerging geopolitical alliances. It goes beyond traditional power elements such as Security, technology, military capability, and ideological rivalry. While theories such as the structural theory, classical theory strives to explain the constant change. While states’ alliances, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), climate vulnerability, and economic dependence, have raised the state on how to form new alliances. This is evident in the United Nations General Assembly, where the roll-call voting pattern is being recorded. This study has sought to determine whether emerging variables contribute to a new pattern of geopolitical alliances. With the UNGA voting pattern. This Study draws evidence from the UNGA roll-call voting pattern to the theoretical framework, such as Realism, liberal institutionalism, Constructivism, Complex interdependence, dependency theory and network theory. This Study also treats traditional elements and contemporary emerging elements as a mutual study rather than a single one, as the main reasons for new geopolitical alliances are multidimensional. The paper adopts the use of multiple research designs to explain the new geopolitical alignment using the United Nations General Assembly as a study. This study combines the use of both qualitative analysis and empirical analysis to identify these voting patterns.

Keywords

Geopolitical alliance, UNGA, network analysis, Climate vulnerability, economic dependence, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Introduction

The post-Cold War era has witnessed a new turn in the international system. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not actually bring about the liberal (Ideal) state that the world anticipated, nor did it eradicate the competitive nature of the state. However, the emerging geopolitical era is being characterised by multiple dimensions such as Defence, economic, and technological. Ideology continues to influence state relations. As a result of this, the study of geopolitical alliances has shifted beyond the understanding of traditional power policies to a new multidimensional pattern of diplomacy.

Scholars remain divided on what now drives alliance formation. Classical realists such as Morgenthau (1948) treat the pursuit of power as the primary explanatory variable, while structural realists such as Waltz (1979) instead emphasise the systemic distribution of material capabilities over individual state motives a distinction that matters because the former predicts alliance behaviour driven by leadership and ideology, while the latter predicts it driven by polarity and relative capability, regardless of leadership. Liberal institutionalists (Keohane, 1984) challenge both variants by arguing that institutions independently reduce the transaction costs of cooperation, implying that alliance patterns should track institutional membership rather than power distribution alone. Constructivists (Wendt, 1999) reject the materialist premise shared by realists and liberals altogether, arguing that shared norms and identities not calculations of power or institutional efficiency determine which states align. None of these three traditions, however, was developed to account for technological governance, climate vulnerability, or asymmetric economic dependence as independent sources of alignment, which is precisely the gap this study investigates: not by discarding these competing perspectives, but by testing which of their respective predictions best fits contemporary UNGA voting patterns once emerging variables are introduced.

The twenty-first Century has introduced new factors that influence contemporary geopolitical alliances. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the factors that have shaped the world, not just its military capabilities. The fight over nuclear weapons, semiconductors, algorithmic governance, and AI regulations was positioning technology as a pressing variable in geopolitical alliances. After AI, states have increased their development in employing technological partnerships and digital infrastructure development as an instrument of foreign policy. Also, the diplomatic shifts in the later national arena are often reflected in the technological dependence and governance practices, rather than military alliances alone. Climate within instability, otherwise known as green politics, is also a force that affects international corporations. Climate change trends that have transitioned to a state and are being addressed as a national problem that needs a sustained multilateral approach to deal with. Rising sea levels, extreme changes in weather, food insecurity, and resource scarcity have also influenced the geo-diplomatic balance of environmental governance. These indicate that environmental changes can also create a diplomatic Shift that can cross geopolitical divisions. Economic globalisation has also pushed another lens in the emerging geopolitical alliances. such as trade investments, financial development, and assistance, have created the avenue for international coalition and sources of Strategic vulnerability. Rather than seeing economic variables as elements of trade and wealth, recent research emphasises economic dependence, thereby generating political influence and diplomatic leverage.

Among International Institutions, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) offers one of the arenas for studying the voting pattern of International alignment. Also, scholars have treated the United Nations voting analysis as a reliable proxy for foreign policy and geopolitical alignment.Most existing scholars continue to explain voting patterns through the traditional geopolitical elements such as military, economic, Ideology, and trade. While other elements remain relevant, they do not capture the influence of AI (Artificial Intelligence, Climate vulnerability and economic dependence. This study examines how AI diplomacy, economic interdependence, and climate vulnerability—considered key independent variables—are linked to geopolitical alignment in the UNGA. Geopolitical alignment is a dependent variable identified based on similarities in the voting behavior of states in the United Nations General Assembly. To assess newly emerging factors influencing voting trends, traditional geopolitical factors—such as regional affiliations, great-power rivalries, military alliances, and ideological alignment—have been retained as a comparative baseline. Rather than rejecting the existing classical international relations theories, the paper argues that they remain relevant but incomplete.

The study utilizes network-based analysis to recognize voting similarities, country clusters, central actors, and bridge states within the UNGA voting system. It interprets these patterns through traditional and modern International Relations viewpoints to see if emerging factors offer further explanations for geopolitical alignment. Understanding this not only clarifies emerging UNGA voting behaviour but also illuminates the evolving landscape of global governance in an era characterised by technological transformation, climate change, and economic interdependence.

Research Objectives:

The study has three principal objectives:

• Measuring geopolitical alignments between countries by the voting behavior of the United Nations General Assembly
• It will also be examined how economic dependence, AI diplomacy, and climate vulnerability are associated with the geopolitical alignments within the United Nations General Assembly.
• Comparing the impact of all these emerging factors with traditional geopolitical factors such as regional affiliations, military alliances, great power rivalry, and ideological proximity.

Literature Review

From Traditional Power Politics to Multidimensional Geopolitical Alignment

Traditionally, the study of geopolitical alliances and international relations has been grounded on the primary assumptions and focus that survival, security, and power are the main drivers of the global arena, as well as that there is anarchy in the international system. These views are primarily propagated by the traditional classical realist thinkers such as Hans J. Morgenthau and E. H. Carr. For them, the national interest is defined in terms of power, whereas there are a few other scholars, such as Kenneth Waltz, according to whom power, along with structure, is the key driver, thus providing a new theory, which is called structural realism. These thinkers laid special emphasis on the views that alliance formation, distribution of material capabilities, military strain, deterrence, balance of power, and geography are the key drivers and the principal determinants of interstate alignment. These theories were the primary drivers and the key players during World War II and the Cold War, and thus was at the forefront in ideological as well as military bloc formation during the 20th century. However, after the end of the Cold War, there were various limitations that were exposed in the international arena. The traditional alliances and the old theories are no longer the absolute ideas behind alliance formation and bloc formation. On the other hand, the bipolarity that thinkers considered the most stable has now disappeared with the fall of the USSR. Furthermore, geopolitical competition did not disappear. A new form of rivalry emerged, and this rivalry is more fluid and based on the rise of regional powers and issues where economic globalisation, specific cooperation, and expanding institutional interdependence were the main focus areas. Furthermore, instead of committing to a single power or single bloc, countries tried to diversify their interests by allying with multiple powers and multiple countries. Now they have started something which is called strategies of hedging and strategic autonomy as a key driver for their own sovereignty. This is what they call a flexible partnership of strategic autonomy without going against a single power, bloc, or country. So, one can say contemporary geopolitics reflects both continuity and change. Continuity as it still focuses on military power, but change as now technological innovation, environmental challenge, economic interdependence, climate issues, migration, institutional development, and other cooperations are also the key drivers. Thus, this biggest evolution challenges the idea of a strict hierarchy and theories that we used during the Cold War and World War II for alliance formation. Now, it’s not a purely material conception of power or an economic conception. Now it has different perspectives and different lenses, and it is more comprehensive and holistic. And thus, there is a need to analyse all these new emerging aspects to know what the true idea is behind alliance formation and the country’s sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

UNGA Voting as a Measure of Geopolitical Alignment

In the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) acts as a primary body that is often studied to understand the current scenario of international alliances and how countries are aligning themselves with other powers. The reason behind this is that countries can easily be studied through the empirical setting, which is often seen in the United Nations General Assembly and is publicly available as a systematic record of the state by diplomatic preferences. Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, recorded roll call votes reveal the governments and countries’ official position and how they use sovereignty and security as a key driver for their alliance formation. The main issues that can be seen in UNGA for alliance formation, as well as for asserting their sovereignty, are human rights, development, sanctions, international laws, environmental climate, technological developments and many more. These are the key drivers, along with some other issues, which are traditionally military or trade, or one can say, security or trade. Furthermore, thinkers such as Voeten showed that this transformation is very much visible in UNGA voting as it reflects a

multidimensional nature and instead of a merely traditional conflict and traditional economy and military domain. He showed this using a spatial model of voting behaviour, which is directly focused on post-Cold War voting patterns. Furthermore, he explained how, through a single dimension, we cannot analyse this new emerging geopolitical context. Also, new studies such as ideal point estimation, dyadic similarity indices, and network analysis have consistently shown that United Nations General Assembly voting patterns do have some meaningful patterns of diplomatic cooperation rather than some random political behaviour. Moreover, the recent rise of powers such as Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa, and their coordination through the different platforms, especially regional platforms such as BRICS, has been highlighted by thinkers such as Binder and Payton. They argued that these new blocs do not contend for military alliances and military security. Instead, they discuss the various issues and challenges that are emerging in this new world order. Likewise, thinkers such as Narulayev and Papa find that BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Group of 77 (G77) are the rising powers and rising blocs. And thus, these blocs are something which are determining the alliance formation in the United Nations General Assembly through their votes or through their ideological and interest symmetry. Together, all these ideas and views of thinkers provide a new way for analysing the current UNGA voting pattern through various lenses rather than focusing on a traditional one.

Artificial Intelligence Diplomacy and the Emergence of Techno-Blocs

In contemporary times, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a specific technological field to something defining geopolitical issues, especially in the 21st century. Beyond these traditional military and security applications, AI is also recognised as a general-purpose technology shaping economic competitiveness, digital governance, scientific research, and international regulations. Furthermore, governments have incorporated AI as a new emerging field for leadership and broadened their foreign policy strategies. In recent times, it is also seen that scholars argue that AI governance is reshaping international relations through various competitions and emerging challenges. Areas such as the semiconductor supply chain, cloud computing, algorithmic standards, digital platforms, regulatory frameworks, as well as the use of AI in nearly every aspect of human life, development, and governance have become a new arena to be studied in global politics and International relations. Major powers are increasingly competing in order to have a strong hold on AI governance and AI norms. Because these are things that result in a new concept, such as digital sovereignty, technological diplomacy, techno-nationalism, and techno-blocs. Scholars such as Bode argued that AI extends beyond security and it also has a role in governance, economics, ethics, and diplomacy. Whereas other scholars, such as Veale, Matus, Gorwa have made a special emphasis on AI governance that involves private players, international organisations, and other bodies. Thus, creating a new form of geopolitical competition beyond the traditional interstate relations. Furthermore, we have witnessed an emerging and intensifying rivalry between the US and China in the technological and, especially, AI areas. Despite these advances, existing scholarship rarely examines whether the technological dependence translates actually into a diplomatic convergence within the United Nations General Assembly, or whether there are some more loopholes that have to be explored. Consequently, the relationship between AI diplomacy and UNGA voting alignment remains insufficiently explored by the various thinkers and needs to be paid a unique and new attention.

Climate vulnerability and environmental diplomacy

Climate change has evolved from an environmental concern into an emerging central challenge for global governance, development and human life. Unlike the conventional security threats which often transcend national borders and create a collective action problem, special multilateral cooperation among states with diverse political, economic, and strategic interests is often required. But environmental problems are different, and it is often seen as the environmental diplomatic aspect that has become an increasingly important dimension of contemporary international relations, especially to tackle the environmental challenges and the upcoming threats. Furthermore, existing scholarship shows that climate negotiations have often encouraged the formation of small or large issue-based coalitions that frequently transcend the traditional geopolitical division that has been seen during the 20th century. Also, small island developing states (SIDS), the least developed countries (LDCs) group, and other climate vulnerable development technologies have often coordinated their diplomatic position on adaptation of finances, mitigation commitment, technology transfer, loss and damage mechanism, and as well as other important aspects through which they can mitigate these climate impacts as well as have cooperation and alliance with other powers for development and autonomy. These coalitions, one can say, are not military-driven or ideological affinity, but rather a shared concern towards environmental vulnerability and development priorities. Thus, suggesting that climate risks can foster a new form of diplomatic cooperation within the multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, is a new arena to be studied and is being studied on a large scale. But despite this progress, the relationship between climate vulnerability and broader diplomatic cooperation has remained insufficiently explored. Most studies that focused on environmental negotiation and climate-specific agreements were comparatively fewer and have not been examined in a particularistic manner, but in a generalised context. Furthermore, the voting influence in the UNGA is also not on a specific issue of climatic importance, but rather on their shared interest, which is often a troublesome task to be analysed by upcoming scholars. Whether shared exposure to climate risks shapes the long-term diplomatic alignment across multiple policy domains, therefore, remains a key area to be answered, a key area and thus an unanswered question.

Economic dependence and asymmetrical interdependence

Economic interdependence has long been central to international relations scholarship. Many theories, especially liberal theories, view trade and economic integration as a foundation for cooperation and peace. Whereas there are theories such as dependency theories, which emphasize an unequal pattern of exchange that reinforces the structural hierarchies between the developed and developing countries. Furthermore, more recent scholarship tries to bridge this perspective by focusing on asymmetrical economic dependence rather than overall trade volume. However, recent empirical research shows that foreign aid sanctions, development finances, investment, and trade dependence significantly shape the diplomatic behaviour of the countries within the international organisation as well as in the international arena. LaktZian and Biglaiser demonstrate that economic sanctions, particularly when combined with aid dependence, influence the voting as well as alliance formation in the United Nations General Assembly. Thus, highlighting how the economic leverages affect the diplomatic choices and the voting pattern between the countries and the power blocks. Similarly, further studies of international trade networks indicate that states embedded in a comparable economic structure are often likely to exhibit a similar pattern of voting convergence, highlighting the close relationship between economic interdependence and political cooperation. However, despite these findings, economic variables are often treated as a control variable rather than an independent driver of alliance formation. As a result, limited attention has been given to how asymmetric economic interdependence interacts with technological governance, climate vulnerability, traditional geopolitics factor, and other emerging aspects in shaping the multidimensional diplomatic alignments.

Network analysis and the changing nature of alliances

Traditional studies of international relations, alliance formation and alliance politics primarily focus on interstate relations through bilateral or dyadic interactions. However, network analysis offers a broader perspective by viewing the whole international system as an interconnected web of relations in which every state occupies a different, unique position with the evolving patterns of cooperation and competition. When this is applied to United Nations General Assembly voting, network analysis enables researchers to identify the cluster of aligned states, which countries connect separate communities, and shifts in the alliance structure over the period of time. Network analysis, rather than assuming a fixed geopolitical bloc, tries to capture the dynamic nature of diplomatic relationships, recognising that every state often participates in a unique overlapping coalition depending on the issues and the challenges it has. Thus, this makes it particularly well-suited to analyse contemporary international politics where strategic autonomy, hedging, and issue-based cooperation increasingly shape the states’ behaviour and the international outcome. Thus, when taken together, literature suggests that while traditional power politics remains the centre in explaining geopolitical alignment, technological change, climate governance, economic interdependence, and network diplomacy have become increasingly significant aspects to be studied in a much broader and deeper way. However, this perspective largely remains separate, and very few studies try to integrate them into a unified framework of explaining how these traditional and emerging determinants jointly shape the UNGA voting behaviour. Addressing this gap provides a foundation for the present study and thus is a matter to be discussed and researched.

Research gap

The current literature on United Nations General Assembly voting has greatly enhanced the knowledge of geopolitics, alliances, foreign policy preferences, and international politics. Existing researches that have utilised spatial analysis, ideal point estimation, dyadic similarity measures, and network analysis have constantly shown that UN General Assembly voting involves substantive patterns of diplomatic convergences rather than just political posturing. On the other hand, the research on the new frontiers like AI governance, climate diplomacy, and economic interdependence has greatly expanded the field of international relations by pointing to new dynamics of global governance and geopolitical issues. However, the literature is still lacking in terms of theoretical coherence, empirical integration, and methodological sophistication in explaining the multidimensionality of modern alliance behaviour.

Theoretical gaps

A significant theoretical weakness involves the nature of alliance formation itself. Theories like realism, liberal institutionalism, constructivism, and dependency theory all describe alliances through the lenses of military strength, ideology, institutional dynamics, or economic structures. All these theories are quite important, but they have tended to look at each of these factors independently and found it difficult to consider the role of AI governance, digital sovereignty, and climate security as factors of alignment. While some researches consider all these elements in recent times, very few theories combine all these elements to form an overarching model.

Empirical Gap

One of the key empirical gaps concerns whether AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence have an impact on UNGA voting behavior. Currently, the existing literature mainly considers military alliances, regime type, ideology, regional organizations, sanctions, trade, and great power competition. However, despite growing awareness of the geopolitical significance of AI, digital diplomacy, and climate diplomacy, little attention has been paid to studying the presence of convergence in voting due to these variables.

Methodological Gap

As far as methodology is concerned, current research uses dyadic voting similarity, ideal point estimation, and regression methods, which reflect network diplomacy to some extent. However, the methodological approach of network analysis would be much more appropriate in order to identify voting communities, bridge states, key players, and the coalition formation process. Yet few studies apply network analysis while considering AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence together.

Integrative gap

Another research gap concerns the interaction between traditional and novel determinants of geopolitics. The recent literature tends to view technology competition, climate diplomacy, and economic interdependence as substitutes for power politics, whereas the realist literature focuses on the role of military capabilities and great power rivalries. However, countries engage in military, technological, environmental, and economic practices at the same time, but their interaction and effect on alliance building through UNGA voting have not been sufficiently examined yet.

Statement of the research gap

Combining all of these issues, it is possible to see one main limitation, which consists in the lack of a theoretical framework that could model both traditional and novel factors in one analytical model in terms of a voting network. Since previous literature views the listed factors independently in theory, examines them separately from each other in empirical studies, and applies analytical methods based on bilateral rather than relational analysis of data, this approach does not enable us to analyze how the emergence of new technologies, increasing climate insecurity, and growing economic interdependence affect geopolitical alignments in combination with power politics.

Theoretical Framework

Liberal Institutionalism and Complex Interdependence

Traditionally, geopolitical alliances have been analysed on the basis of the military power and strategic interaction of independent states, while alliance formation is considered to be an outcome of intrinsic variables like ideology, national interests, and economic structures (Waltz, 1979; Morgenthau, 1948). While those variables continue to be essential, the rise of AI governance, global warming, and economic asymmetry makes it impossible to analyze alliances on the basis of normative variables only (Nye, 2011; Keohane & Nye, 1977). Contrary to replacing the traditional framework, in this research, the traditional and emerging factors are seen as a part of the same complex system (Ruggie, 1993; Hafner-Burton & Montgomery, 2006). Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Constructivism, Dependency Theory, and Network Theory are used for explaining UNGA voting behavior. The following lenses include both conceptual perspective and set of variables of the empirical model.

Realism: The Enduring Logic of Power Politics

According to realism, a state’s quest for power is the point of departure for analysis and an increase in influence in international organizations drives rivalry and competition (Morgenthau, 1948). Structural realists maintain that the unevenness in material capabilities is what makes up the international order and UNGA voting demonstrates a state’s concern about its sovereignty and alliances (Waltz, 1979; Mearsheimer, 2001; Voeten, 2000). Current rivalries, for example, US-China tensions, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, or battles for regional dominance, show once again that military capability plays a role in state behavior (Mearsheimer, 2001; Walt, 1987). But if voting were determined by military capabilities alone, states should follow purely military alliances, which is not always the case – states work together on the issue of artificial intelligence regulations or climate change governance regardless of their alliances (Voeten, 2000; Thacker, 1999; Nye, 2011).

Realism supplies the model’s baseline covariates military alliance ties, defence pacts, and great-power rivalry as controls against which the added explanatory value of emerging factors is tested.

Liberal Institutionalism and Complex Interdependence

Whereas liberal institutionalism transcends conflict by looking at how institutions mitigate uncertainty and ensure cooperation based on common norms (Keohane, 1984; Ruggie, 1993), complex interdependence goes further and demonstrates that the growing role of economic and technological interdependencies rather than military strength determines the actions of states (Keohane & Nye, 1977). In the context of UNGA voting, it follows that states with similar institutional interests vote in concert regarding certain issues (sustainable development, AI governance, climate negotiation), creating cross-cutting cleavages (Voeten, 2000; Ruggie, 1993; Nye, 2011).

Thus, empirically speaking, there is justification for treating issue-specific voting blocs (AI governance, climate, digital governance) as separate variables and testing for the effect of institutional affiliation, independent from alliances.

Constructivism and Politics of Norms

Constructivism lies between realism and liberal institutionalism, maintaining the anarchical nature of the international order while stating that state behavior is determined by ideational factors such as identity and shared norms, not material interests only (Wendt, 1992; Wendt, 1999; Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Cooperation is a matter of obtaining legitimacy within a norm community, which is why there can be voting agreement on emerging issues despite lack of material connections – on AI governance, human rights or climate justice (Wendt, 1999; Voeten, 2000).

From the empirical point of view, it implies using identity- and norm-related variables, such as regional identity, respect for human rights, and position taken in General Debate statements, as predictors of issue alignment.

Dependency Theory and Economic Dependence in Asymmetry

Dependency theory views the economy as the main source of hierarchy, as a result of which one state dominates over the other in terms of political behavior through trade asymmetry, financial dependence, aid flows, and infrastructural investments (Cardoso & Faletto, 1979; Wallerstein, 1974). Highly dependent states tend to modify their diplomatic behavior to ensure continued market and financial access especially to small and developing states (Dreher et al., 2008; Flores-Macias & Kreps, 2013; Thacker, 1999).This translates the economic dimensions of the model concentration in trade, aid dependence, and financial debt as the determinants of voting consistency with the dominant partner.

Network Theory: Alliances as Dynamic System

While traditional academic analysis focuses on bilateral relationships between states, network theory takes international politics to be an interdependent system in which states have different community affiliations and structural positions depending on the particular issue (Hafner-Burton & Montgomery, 2006; Maoz et al., 2006). Network theory accounts for the multiple affiliations that states have at once in the realm of development, technology, human rights, and environmental governance as well as the emergence of bridging states and shifting alliances (Dorussen & Ward, 2008; Voeten, 2000).

The methodological justification for the creation of the UNGA voting networks and application of the community detection and centrality metrics lies in the analytical dimension – that is, in showing how both traditional and new determinants of alliance behavior affect coalition structure through their interaction rather than by way of correlations between pairs of variables.

An Integrated Multidimensional Alliance Framework

The most important contribution of this paper consists in combining these five lenses in a framework that views contemporary alliances as multidimensional in nature: traditional power politics continues to be the structural base of international relations, while AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability and economic dependence condition the issue-specific networks in which states collaborate despite their rivalry. All in all, these five lenses find themselves integrated in the model’s framework: realism and dependency theory provide the material covariates (alliance, trade/aid dependence), while liberal institutionalism and constructivism provide the institutional/normative covariates (membership, identity, rights record). Network theory provides the analytical technique (community detection and centrality analysis).

Methodology

Having established, in the Literature Review, that no single theoretical tradition adequately accounts for the interaction between traditional and emerging drivers of alignment, and having shown, in the Theoretical Framework, how each tradition generates a distinct and testable expectation about UNGA voting behaviour, this section translates those expectations into an empirical research design. Specifically, the realist and liberal-institutionalist expectations regarding military alliance and institutional membership are tested through the quantitative and network-analytic components of the design described below, while the constructivist expectation regarding normative convergence is addressed through the qualitative interpretation component. This sequencing from theoretical expectation to empirical test is what justifies the mixed-methods approach adopted here.

Research Design

This study employs a ‘mixed-method explanatory research design’ to understand how emerging geopolitical factors such as economic interdependence, artificial intelligence (AI) diplomacy, and climate sensitivity help elucidate geopolitical patterns within the United Nations General Assembly’s voting networks that extend far beyond the realm of traditional power politics. Instead of treating these variables as distinct explanations, this research will examine how they interact with established factors such as ideological leanings, great-power rivalry, and military alliances to shape diplomatic behaviour within multilateral institutions (Binder & Payton, 2021; Lektzian & Biglaiser, 2023).

This study employs three methods: network analysis, descriptive quantitative analysis, and qualitative interpretation. Among these, quantitative analysis helps identify long-standing voting patterns and groups of countries that vote in a similar manner in the United Nations General Assembly. Subsequently, qualitative analysis employs international theories to explain these patterns. A mixed-methods approach proved useful here; while geopolitical alignments can be observed through voting behavior, they could not be understood through numbers alone; theoretical explanations were also required.

Research Philosophy

This research employs a practical approach known as pragmatism. It does not rely solely on numbers and interpretation; instead, it utilizes various methods because international politics is complex. Voting records from the United Nations General Assembly reveal how countries behave, international theories explain why they vote in specific ways, and network analysis demonstrates how countries are connected within broader voting blocs.

Therefore, instead of relying on just one method, geopolitical alliances can be better understood by using all three methods. This approach is also significant because it enables the researcher to select the most suitable method for each part of the study. Consequently, these findings are evidence-based and theoretically meaningful.

Data Sources

This study primarily uses publicly available United Nations General Assembly’s voting records. It is based on two datasets; the first includes 869,937 votes from various countries spanning 1946 to 2019, specifically, the Bailey-Strezhnev-Voeten dataset available on Harvard Dataverse (Bailey et al., 2017). The second dataset extends the analysis to 2025; it includes 916,554 entries of country-level voting on United Nations General Assembly resolutions adopted between December 11, 1946, and September 5, 2025 (United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library, 2025). Votes are categorized into ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Abstain’, and ‘Absent’. Votes classified as ‘Absent’ or those where a member did not participate are treated as ‘missing observations’ rather than being included in the voting results.

Both datasets provide comprehensive historical information on voting behaviours in the United Nations General Assembly (Bailey et al., 2017; Voeten, 2013). Academic studies on UNGA voting, geopolitical alignment, climate diplomacy, and AI governance have been used to explain and provide context for the voting patterns identified in the data.

Unit of Analysis

This study treats countries as the primary unit of analysis and uses their voting behaviour in the UNGA to understand how they operate diplomatically. Each vote has been viewed as an indicator of a country’s stance, and if two countries have voted in the same way, it has been assumed that they might be politically aligned (Bailey et al., 2017; Voeten, 2000). Voting similarity between two countries was calculated based only on resolutions where both countries cast a valid vote. Combinations of ‘Yes-Yes’, ‘No-No’, and ‘Abstain-Abstain’ were treated as instances of agreement, whereas absent votes were excluded from the calculation.

By combining all these voting similarities, this study creates a global network that illustrates relationships between countries; it highlights groups of like-minded nations, countries that bridge different groups, and the changes in these patterns over time.

Variables

The dependent variable is geopolitical alignment, defined as voting similarity and membership in common voting clusters between pairs of countries within the UNGA network (Bailey et al., 2017; Voeten, 2000). Countries that vote on the same side in most instances are considered diplomatically closer. It incorporates independent variables comprising both traditional and emerging factors. Traditional factors include great-power rivalry, regional membership, military alliances, and formal commitments (Binder & Payton, 2021). Emerging factors include economic interdependence, AI diplomacy, and climate vulnerability. These are measured through digital infrastructure, technological partnerships, environmental cooperation, exposure to climate risks, trade, investment, aid, and supply chain dependencies. These distinct factors explain how the country votes similarly on some issues and differently on others. They allow for a comparison between traditional methods of coalition-building and the new sources of international influence.

Network Analysis

Instead of just using typical statistical methods, the study uses network analysis. This means it treats countries like points in a network and connects them based on how similarly they vote (Magu et al., 2017). This makes it easier to see groups of countries that vote alike, really influential countries, ones that act as bridges between groups, and those that are more on the outside. It also shows that countries are not stuck in fixed alliances, but can be part of different groups depending on the issue.

In this network, each country is considered a node, and the edges represent the degree of similarity in voting between two countries. Community-detection or clustering have been used to identify groups of countries with similar voting behavior. Central countries have been identified based on the number and strength of their connections while bridge states are considered to be those countries that connect different voting groups with one another.

Analytical Strategy

The analysis took place in five stages. First, we cleaned and standardized the UNGA voting data. Second, we calculated voting similarity between country pairs using the valid votes that were jointly observed (Magu et al., 2017). Third, we used these similarity scores to create voting networks. Fourth, we applied clustering methods to point out voting communities, central countries, and bridge states. Finally, we simplified the recognized patterns through traditional International Relations theories and differentiated them with evidence related to AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence.

Network analysis fits this study well because geopolitical alignment is not limited to simple bilateral relationships. It allows us to look at the UNGA voting system as a whole and to find broader voting communities, key players, bridge states, and overlapping coalitions. This approach is particularly useful for determining modern alliances that can be different across technological, environmental, economic, and security issues.

Scope, Delimitations, and Limitations

The study only focuses on UNGA voting and does not look at things like military actions, Security Council decisions, or direct negotiations. UN voting is useful for showing general alignment, but it does not explain everything about a country’s foreign policy or the reasons behind each vote (Voeten, 2000, 2013). Also, newer factors like AI diplomacy are difficult to measure properly. Just because countries vote the same way does not mean they are formal allies, and while network analysis shows patterns, it does not prove cause and effect. Even with these limitations, the study still helps us understand how global political relationships are changing. Moreover, measuring AI diplomacy remains limited, as comparative and standardized data across different countries is unavailable for the timeframe covered in this study.

Analysis

The following analysis proceeds by testing, in turn, each of the expectations generated in the Theoretical Framework and operationalised in the Methodology: beginning with the traditional (realist/liberal) variables, before turning to the emerging (AI, climate, economic) variables, and concluding with a synthesis of how these two variable sets interact within the UNGA voting network.

The Persistence of Traditional Power Politics in UNGA Voting

The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. When we look at how countries actually vote in the UNGA, the data shows that traditional power politics plays a major role in it. In the end, the military alliances, strategic rivalries, shared ideologies, and big powerful countries are still the main forces shaping international relations. Instead of fading away, these traditional drivers have adapted to a more complex geopolitical environment, defined by multiple centers of power and countries teaming up only on specific issues (Hurrell, 2007).

Looking back at the history of UNGA voting, the countries were divided on the basis of voting behaviour. During the cold war, diplomatic alliances were mainly formed due to ideological differences between the United States and the Soviet Union (Voeten, 2000). After the collapse of the superpowers, scholars think that these ideological splits would fade away. Instead, later research showed the emergence of new issues like national sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, global governance and the distribution of power around the world. While the main characters in the global arena shift over time, the underlying survival instinct of “us versus them” rivalry remains fundamentally unchanged.

After tracing these historical trends, recent studies on UNGA voting show that in today’s world there is a competition between the western countries and the emerging powers such as China, Russia and various coalitions of developing countries (Nurullayev & Papa, 2023). For example, NATO members almost always vote the same way as the United States. On the other side, countries in groups like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Group of 77 (G-77) take the side of China and Russia. All of these findings still show that traditional political friendships and rivalries still influence how countries vote, even though the modern world has become multipolar and there are many centres of power.

The actual data from this study strongly backs up these points. When we look at both the old voting records from 1946 to 2019 and the newer data running since then, it shows the similar voting patterns even though the world has gone through massive changes (Bailey et al., 2017; Voeten, 2013). While overall agreement stays pretty high across many areas, certain clear groups of countries constantly vote the exact same way over long periods of time. This continuity shows that long-term political friendships still shape how countries act on the world stage, even when new issues emerge.

That being said, just because things are consistent doesn’t mean they are completely stuck in place. Today’s political partnerships look very different from the Cold War days. Instead, put themselves into a single group. Countries are choosing to protect their own independence, play both sides, and get into a team when the things benefit them. For example, countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and several nations across Africa and Southeast Asia regularly work with different partners according to the needs and issues at hand. This growing flexibility shows that while old-school alliances still exist, they now share the stage with case-by-case teamwork instead of controlling every single piece of a country’s foreign policy.

Taken altogether, realism is still a great tool for explaining how countries become self-centered but cannot help in how diplomacy works in today’s world (Keohane, 1984; Keohane & Nye, 2012). The ongoing strategic competition creates the background where there is a birth of new types of cooperation. Therefore, to understand the emerging ideas and trends, we have to go beyond military power and the ideological arguments.

AI Diplomacy and the Emergence of Techno-Blocs

One of the changes which have had the greatest impact on international relations is Artificial Intelligence (AI) that has been turned into a new field of competition between countries. Unlike previous revolutions in technologies, AI revolution impacts such areas as military affairs, economic efficiency, science, industry, cyber policy, and international law all at once. Thus, this technological development became one of the crucial elements of national power and made governments incorporate AI into foreign policies and national security strategies (Wu, 2020).

The importance of AI goes beyond inventions. The competition over advanced computer chips, cloud computing infrastructure, supercomputers, rare minerals, online platforms, and algorithms has made technology an instrument of international power competition. Instead of using power politics only, many countries today seek to create international rules, regulate digital domains, limit the use of technology, and form groups of trusted partners. This trend has been called the formation of “techno-blocs” or “digital alliances,” based on the control over access to AI and regulation of domestic digital infrastructures (Weymouth, 2025).

The dynamic is clearly seen in voting patterns within UNGA, for a complex picture that does not lend itself to a straightforward blocs interpretation. In fact, on 21 March 2024, the General Assembly passed its first resolution ever concerning artificial intelligence – A/78/L.49 “Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development”. This resolution was initiated by the US, and it has been negotiated with more than 120 states, including such countries as Russia, China and Cuba. It was co-sponsored by about 123 member states and passed by consensus of all 193 members through voting without dissent (UN General Assembly, 2024; EJIL:Talk!, 2024). Near-consensus of all states, however, does not quite fit into a pure techno-bloc framework – after all, under such a conception one should see a dispute rather than consensus in the voting pattern.

On 25 June 2024, the Assembly passed its second AI resolution, which had been proposed by the People’s Republic of China and pertained to international cooperation on AI capacity-building in developing countries. This resolution too passed by consensus, and more importantly, the United States backed a resolution drafted by its arch-rival in AI (Pam, 2024; American Journal of International Law, 2024). In the same year, both rival powers each drafted a resolution supported by the other in the Assembly. This constitutes concrete proof for the general hypothesis of the study in terms of how AI diplomacy yields convergence on specific issues above great power rivalry. The same two countries that are bitter rivals in chip export controls and platform regulation manage to co-write cooperative mechanisms in the UNGA on the issue of capacity building.

Combining these observations does not mean that AI diplomacy has superseded how states vote in the UNGA on the whole. What is demonstrated here is rather that AI governance serves as an issue-specific forum for convergences – states can still diverge and compete outside the Assembly in terms of security policies, trade relations, and regional politics but cooperate within the assembly when it comes to adopting texts on AI governance, pursuing the common goal in relation to a particular technological issue. This means that such an analysis provides a better understanding of the emerging alliances in the field of AI. These alliances do not supersede existing political and power blocs but rather overlap them and emerge within them based on shared technological objectives (Weymouth, 2025).

Climate Vulnerability and the Emergence of Environmental Coalitions

Climate change has evolved from being merely an environmental issue to becoming one of the most significant challenges in contemporary international politics. It transcends national boundaries and therefore requires sustained multilateral cooperation (Held & McGrew, 2007). Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, food insecurity, biodiversity loss, and climate induced displacement have resulted in climate vulnerability, thereby increasingly shaping environmental negotiations and also broader patterns of cooperation within institutional organisations (World Economic Forum, 2024).

Interstate cooperation is primarily explained through military alliances, balance-of-power considerations, or strategic diplomatic advantages by traditional theories of International Relations (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). However, climate diplomacy proves that state cooperation is often driven by shared environmental vulnerabilities rather than traditional geopolitical rivalries (Keohane, 1984). Despite vast differences in military capability, regional location, or values and principles, many influential diplomatic coalitions such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and climate vulnerable developing economies frequently cooperate on issues of climate justice, technology transfer, and the Loss and Damage agenda. Such cooperation demonstrates that shared vulnerability can generate diplomatic convergence independently of traditional alliance structures (Hurrell, 2007; Keohane & Nye, 2012).

The United Nations serves as an important forum in which these forms of cooperation become visible. Climate vulnerability often includes broader debates concerning sustainable development, technology access, economic justice and international responsibilities. Therefore, states that share similar climate priorities may demonstrate voting alignment across various issue areas instead of exclusively on environmental resolutions (Bailey, Strezhnev, & Voeten, 2017; Voeten, 2013). Thus, climate diplomacy leads to cooperation extending beyond narrowly defined environmental policy.

Disaggregating the roll‑call data by issue area lends concrete empirical support to this claim of cross‑domain alignment, particularly within the macroeconomic and development sphere. On the UNGA resolution promoting a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, an initiative aimed at counterbalancing the OECD’s dominance over international tax standards and curbing the loss of sovereign wealth from the Global South, the climate‑vulnerable grouping within the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the LDC Group, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) voted together in support, overcoming opposition from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. A similar pattern of convergence is visible in the December 2024 resolution “Towards a New International Economic Order,” adopted 133 in favour to 51 against with 2 abstentions, which called for cooperation against illicit financial flows and addressed the risks posed by rising debt and restrictive global financial conditions for developing and climate‑vulnerable economies. Economically vulnerable states supported the resolution as a bloc, while opposition clustered among wealthy creditor and donor states reluctant to endorse structural change to the financial order. Both cases indicate that shared climate exposure translates into durable diplomatic cohesion precisely where economic vulnerability and climate vulnerability intersect, even when doing so places climate‑vulnerable states in direct opposition to major developed economies (Bailey, Strezhnev, & Voeten, 2017; Voeten, 2013).

Climate vulnerability also alters states’ strategic priorities by influencing diplomatic negotiations (Baldwin, 2016). The climate-vulnerable developing countries prioritise securing international finance, technological assistance, and institutional support for their survival, which encourages coalition building among them. These coalitions are often issue-specific rather than permanent geopolitical blocs, highlighting how contemporary alliances emerge due to shared policy objectives (Keohane & Nye, 2012).

However, climate vulnerability cannot replace traditional geopolitical considerations. Climate diplomacy involves both cooperation and competition, where major powers focus on geopolitical influence, shaping global standards and technological competitiveness; on the other hand, developing countries emphasise developmental concerns, burden-sharing and historical responsibilities (Acharya, 2014; Allison, 2017). Therefore, International power dynamics continue to influence climate politics (Haas, 1992).

This bifurcation between cooperation and competition becomes especially visible when the climate‑vulnerable coalition’s voting behaviour is disaggregated by issue area rather than treated as a single undifferentiated bloc. On UNGA Resolution ES‑11/1, which demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops and upheld Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders, AOSIS states voted almost unanimously in favour, reflecting the importance small island states attach to the international legal order underpinning their own sovereignty. By contrast, several highly climate‑vulnerable LDC and CVF states with continental geographies abstained, a divergence attributable to bilateral cooperation agreements, energy financing, or security ties with external major powers that these states weighed more heavily than coalition solidarity. A related fracture appeared in the September 2025 draft resolution endorsing the New York Declaration on Palestine. Most LDC and CVF members in Africa and Asia voted in favour, consistent with a broader post‑colonial and Westphalian sovereignty‑based consensus, yet a cluster of climate‑vulnerable Pacific island states voted against, aligning instead with the United States. This divergence corresponds to these states’ Compact of Free Association arrangements, through which security and maritime sovereignty are ceded to a major power in exchange for economic assistance illustrating how formal dependency relationships can pull individual vulnerable states out of the broader climate-aligned bloc.

From the perspective of this study, climate vulnerability acts as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional explanations of diplomatic alliance-building. It helps understand why countries with less military cooperation often coordinate or vote similarly to address shared environmental challenges. This suggests that modern geopolitical alliances are becoming more multidimensional and are shaped by shared strategic, developmental and environmental interests (Barnett & Duvall, 2005; Hurrell, 2007; Castells, 2010).

Economic Dependence, Strategic Autonomy, and Asymmetric Alignment

Economic interdependence has been an important idea in International Relations for many years. But today, globalisation has changed the way countries are connected with each other. It is no longer only about buying and selling goods. Countries are now connected through investment finance, technology transfer, development aid, global supply chains and important infrastructure. These connections create new chances for cooperation, but they also make countries more dependent on each other. Because of this, economic dependence has become an important part of geopolitical competition and diplomacy. Empirical accounts of the global political economy confirm this shift, showing that trade, monetary relations, multinational production and foreign aid have become deeply interlinked instruments through which states pursue diplomatic and strategic goals rather than purely commercial ones (Oatley, 2019).

Liberal scholars say that when countries trade more with each other, they are less likely to fight because both sides benefit from trade. But Dependency Theory gives a different view. It says that economic relations are often unequal. Rich and powerful countries usually get more benefits and can use their economic strength to influence weaker countries.

Many recent studies try to combine these two ideas. They focus on asymmetric interdependence. This means both countries are connected, but one country depends much more on the other. Because of this, the stronger country gets more influence and can use this dependence for its own strategic advantage. This pattern of uneven dependence has an empirical basis in the broader retreat of state authority to markets and non-state economic actors, where control over finance, production and knowledge structures gives some states and firms disproportionate bargaining power over others (Strange, 1996).

Research on United Nations General Assembly voting also supports this idea. Many studies show that foreign aid, economic sanctions, development finance and trade relations can affect how countries vote in the UNGA. Lektzian and Biglaiser found that economic sanctions alone often reduce support for the United States in UNGA voting. But when the sanctioned country also depends heavily on American foreign aid, it may vote more closely with the United States. This shows that economic relations do not work only through pressure or rewards. They also depend on how much one country depends on another and what political expectations exist between them.

The growing importance of global supply chains has made this situation even more important. Today, countries are not competing only in normal trade. They are also competing for semiconductors, rare earth minerals, digital infrastructure, clean energy and other important technologies. This is empirically documented in recent global risk assessments, which identify the concentration of critical minerals, semiconductor manufacturing and clean-energy supply chains in a small number of states as one of the most significant sources of geoeconomic vulnerability and interstate leverage in the current decade (World Economic Forum, 2024).  Because of this, many governments now use investment rules, export controls, industrial support and infrastructure projects as part of their foreign policy. This means economic policy and geopolitical strategy are now closely connected. It has become difficult to separate business from diplomacy.

At the same time, many middle powers have started following the idea of strategic autonomy. Instead of depending on only one major power, these countries try to build economic relations with different countries and regions. Countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and many African countries are doing this. They want to get more economic benefits while reducing the risk of depending too much on one country. This diversification strategy is consistent with recent empirical findings on middle-income economies, which show that many of these states remain structurally dependent on external finance, technology and export markets, and are actively seeking to diversify their economic partnerships in order to avoid being trapped in this dependent position (World Bank, 2024). This shows that today’s alliances are becoming more flexible. Countries now build different partnerships for different purposes instead of joining only one fixed group.

In the United Nations General Assembly, economic dependence should not be seen as the only reason behind voting behaviour. It is one important factor, but not the final deciding factor. Countries that have similar economic interests or development goals may vote in a similar way on issues related to trade development, technology transfer, international finance or global economic governance. But on security issues, the same countries may vote differently. This shows that economic alignment changes from one issue to another and makes today’s diplomacy more complex and multidimensional.

The evidence discussed in this study also shows that economic dependence does not replace traditional geopolitical factors. Instead, it works together with them. Military alliances, political ideology, membership in international organisations, strategic rivalry and economic relations all influence the diplomatic behaviour of countries. Today, unequal economic relations also affect how countries negotiate, cooperate and take positions in international organisations like the United Nations. This is consistent with the view that economic connectivity functions as a form of structural and relational power that shapes state behaviour without relying on direct coercion, reinforcing rather than substituting for military and ideological sources of influence (Nye, 2004; Keohane & Nye, 2012).

This shows that security and economic interests now work together. Countries do not make decisions only because of military or political reasons. They also think about trade investment, technology and economic benefits. Because of this, today’s geopolitical alliances should not be seen as fixed groups. They are changing and flexible networks where countries work with different partners on different issues according to their national interests.

Synthesis: From Rigid Blocs to Multidimensional Alliance Networks

Overall, we can conclude from the above analysis that a single theoretical framework cannot fully explain contemporary patterns of geopolitical alignments. While notions of security and influence are still determined by traditional power politics, new challenges such as AI governance, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence also create new avenues for cooperation that often extend beyond traditional geopolitical divisions.

These new dimensions do not replace existing alliances; instead, they give rise to overlapping forms of cooperation, which highlights the transition from a rigid alliance structure to a more flexible and issue-specific alignment. States may work with one group of countries on climate negotiation, another on AI diplomacy, and others on regional security or economic development. Hence, power is no longer defined solely by military strength but also by institutional influence, technological capability, environmental leadership, and economic connectivity.

Therefore, this study argues that contemporary geopolitical alliances reflect both continuity and change. While military competition and national interests remain significant in shaping international politics, thereby highlighting continuity. Simultaneously, factors such as technology, environment, and economic dependence also influence how states cooperate within international organisations such as the United Nations General Assembly. Contemporary diplomatic behaviour can be better explained by combining these factors instead of relying on either traditional or emerging theories alone.

Discussion

The goal of the study wasn’t to throw out traditional international theories. Instead, we wanted to see if those classic ideas are still relevant to explain how countries choose their sides in today’s increasingly messy world. The analysis shows that while military strength, strategic rivalries, and ideological fights definitely still guide how countries behave (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979), they are no longer the only reasons countries team up. But now modern geopolitical alignments are increasingly influenced by the mixing effects of traditional power politics and growing technological, environmental, and economic interdependence. This completely supports the main argument; making alliances in the twenty-first century is a multi-layered process, rather than just a purely military or ideological thing.

One of the main learnings of this research is how the research brings together different viewpoints that are usually treated as competing ideas. Realist perspective mainly focuses on the importance of power, security, and national self-interest (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). At the same time, Liberal Institutionalism explains exactly why international groups still manage to help countries cooperate despite global rivalries (Keohane, 1984; Ikenberry, 2011). Then there is Constructivism, which focuses on how shared values, identities, and political preferences guide decisions (Wendt, 1999; Haas, 1992), especially when tackling things like climate change and AI rules. Meanwhile, Dependency Theory shows how deep economic inequalities shift diplomatic behaviour, and Network Theory gives us a useful lens to capture just how fluid and interconnected modern alliances really are. Instead of picking one favourite theory over the others, this study proves that each one explains a completely different side of how countries align. Because of this, the combined framework we suggest here tries to offer a much more complete and well-rounded understanding of modern diplomacy than any single theory could on its own.

The findings also contribute to the growing literature on UNGA voting behaviour. Previous studies have solely focused on either traditional geopolitical factors or on emerging components separately. This study goes beyond conventional explanations of geopolitical alignments by examining AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence within a single framework. It provides a more multi-layered understanding of UNGA voting patterns by revealing how it reflects issue-specific cooperation along with continuing geopolitical competition.

A second contribution of this study concerns the changing nature of power. Traditional conceptions of power define it in terms of military capabilities, territorial control, and coercive influence. However, factors such as AI governance, climate negotiations, and positions in global supply chains also serve as the defining factors of power in contemporary international politics. As a result, power has become increasingly multidimensional, consisting of various factors like military, technological, institutional, environmental, and economic capabilities. This supports the view that contemporary international relations are shaped by growing complexity rather than only by traditional rivalries. The study also shows that strategic autonomy is becoming very important in today’s diplomacy.

During the Cold War, many countries mostly supported one of the two superpowers. But today the situation is different. Many middle powers and developing countries try to keep good relations with different countries at the same time. For example, a country may have defence cooperation with one major power, work with another country on AI governance and join climate negotiations with developing countries. This kind of behaviour cannot be fully explained by old alliance theories. It shows that countries now build flexible partnerships according to different issues. Because of this, the idea of multidimensional alliances becomes very useful. Instead of thinking that alliances are fixed, this study explains that alliances keep changing according to different policy areas. A country may work with one group on security, another group on climate change, and another group on trade or technology. This also explains why countries sometimes compete with each other in one area but cooperate in another area. Competition and cooperation now happen together in international politics. These results illustrate how international institutions are evolving. Although the UN General Assembly is often viewed as largely symbolic since its resolutions are not legally binding, its voting records nevertheless reveal shifts in cooperation and diplomatic priorities among nations. These voting patterns reveal how alliances are formed, how relationships between states evolve, and how new forms of international cooperation are emerging. Therefore, UNGA voting plays a crucial role in studying long-term shifts in global politics.

Ultimately, this study suggests that future research should not rely on a single factor to explain the process of coalition formation. Apart from this, issues such as public health, cybersecurity, supply-chain security, climate vulnerability, AI diplomacy, critical minerals, and energy transitions have also become very important in international politics. Studying these factors simultaneously using theoretical and network-based methods allows for a better understanding of how geopolitical equations are shifting in an increasingly complex world.

Research Outcomes

The study produces several important outcomes, such as:

Theoretical Outcomes

Traditional power politics remains an essential foundation for explaining geopolitical alignment and international politics, but it is still insufficient on its own to explain the complexity of contemporary diplomatic behaviour. Thus, an integrated framework combining Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Constructivism, Dependency Theory, and Network Theory provides a more comprehensive and holistic explanation of alliance formation than any single theoretical perspective. Furthermore, the concept of multidimensional alliances offers a useful analytical lens for understanding contemporary international politics, recognising that states frequently cooperate across multiple issue areas simultaneously and emerging geopolitical challenges.

Empirical Outcomes

The UNGA voting continues to reflect enduring geopolitical rivalries while also revealing increasing patterns of issue-specific diplomatic cooperation and alliance formation. Areas of AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence appear to function as complementary drivers of diplomatic convergence rather than substitutes for traditional geopolitical determinants. Contemporary alliances increasingly exhibit characteristics of flexible, overlapping, and networked cooperation rather than rigid bloc politics that had been prevalent during the 20th century.

Methodological Outcomes

The Network analysis provides a valuable methodological framework for examining the complexity of diplomatic alignment because it captures relationships that conventional dyadic approaches may overlook. Furthermore, integrating behavioural voting data with contemporary International Relations theory further enhances the explanatory power of studies examining geopolitical realignment.

Practical Outcomes

Policymakers should recognise that emerging geopolitical influence increasingly depends upon technological capability, climate leadership, and economic connectivity alongside military strength, and thus special emphasis must be given to these areas. Also, International institutions must adapt to a more complex diplomatic environment characterised by overlapping coalitions rather than stable alliance blocs.

Policy Implications

In the 21st century, to understand the complexity of the evolving nature of international relations. UNGA voting pattern behaves beyond traditional politics, i.e., technological governance, climate vulnerability, and economic interdependence that influence the understanding of the policy makers, scholars and intergovernmental organisations.

Implication for the United Nations

International institutional mechanism now capable of accommodating issue-specific coalitions rather than fixed geopolitical blocs. It is visible through the General Assembly resolutions voting pattern, where states articulating their diplomatic preference are generally non- binding. UN policy should strengthen the platform that encourages cross-regional dialogue on emerging global challenges that will improve the coherence of multilateral decision- making. Therefore, it is important to keep a balance between international flexibility and new policy domains for maintaining the legitimacy and effectiveness of global governance.

Implications for Middle Powers

Strategic space for middle powers such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and several African and Southeast Asian states is growing. Such strategies enhance diplomatic flexibility and avoid the alignment of any single major power in the multipolar international system.

Implications for AI Governance

International organisations should encourage more inclusive participation in technological governance because it is currently facing limited access to advanced technological infrastructure and regulatory processes. Greater representation of developing economies in discussions concerning data governance, ethics and technological capacity building measures will contribute to a more balanced and legitimate global framework that reinforces geopolitical divisions.

Implications for Climate Diplomacy

Policy makers should recognise climate diplomacy as both an environmental and geopolitical issue, because climate vulnerability increasingly influences diplomatic priorities within multilateral institutions. Expanding international support for climate adoption, technology transfer, disaster resilience and climate finance will strengthen multilateral cooperation while addressing the concerns of highly vulnerable states and respondents to global collective action problems.

Implication for Global Economic Governance

International economic institutions like the World Bank and IMF should promote greater resilience, transparency, and diversification within the global supply chain because of the growing geopolitical importance of economic dependence, trade, investment, development finance, technology supply chains and infrastructure. It is increasingly influencing diplomatic behaviour alongside military and ideological considerations. Open economic cooperation may contribute to greater international stability, and at the same time, development assistance should prioritise capacity-building and technological development rather than long-term structural dependence.

Limitations

Despite the contribution made in this study towards understanding contemporary geopolitics, several weaknesses have been noted.

First, the study focuses more on the role played by the United Nations General Assembly voting data in understanding diplomatic alignment. Despite the importance of voting behaviour in understanding the preference for states’ foreign policy position, it fails to cover the full picture of international diplomacy. This is because negotiations, diplomatic activities, economic agreements, military relations, and other political happenings do not always take place within the confines of the UNGA and thus are not captured in this study (Voeten, 2013; Bailey, Strezhnev, & Voeten, 2017).

Second, despite using theoretical interpretation and description of UNGA voting data, the study uses the method of network analysis, which fails to prove causal links between AI diplomacy, vulnerability to climate change, economic dependency, and voting behaviour. Further studies can apply statistical modelling and longitudinal causal analysis techniques to prove the existence of these links (Hafner-Burton, Kahler, & Montgomery, 2009).

Third, there are a number of emerging variables included in the current research that are dynamically changing in nature. This is especially true for AI diplomacy, which is continuously changing as countries, international organisations, and even private stakeholders build new systems of governance and partnerships based on AI technologies (Weymouth, 2025).

Fourth, the research only includes states and their behaviour in multilateral organisations. Many other important actors, such as multinational tech companies, international financial institutions, civil society organisations, and transnational advocacy networks, increasingly play a role in contemporary geopolitics but are not included in the research (Binder & Payton, 2021; Kentikelenis & Voeten, 2021).

Fifth, the way of identifying geopolitical alignment based on voting similarity can be seen as an oversimplification. Many countries may vote in favour of a resolution for very different reasons. Thus, voting similarity is an indicator of diplomatic relations rather than alliance commitment (Voeten, 2013).

Recognising these limitations does not diminish the contribution of the study. Rather, it clarifies the analytical boundaries within which the findings should be interpreted and identifies opportunities for future research.

Future Research

Indeed, this study suggests some research directions to be pursued in the future. First, future empirical studies could test the multidimensional alliance model presented in this paper using sophisticated quantitative methods like ERGMs, SAOMs, or Temporal Network Analysis. This way, it would be possible to analyse more accurately the impact that various  technological, environmental, and economic factors have on the development of international diplomatic networks over time (Hafner-Burton, Kahler, & Montgomery, 2009; Prantl & Goh, 2022).

Second, future comparative analysis could look into whether the multidimensional alliances revealed in this paper are observed not only in the UN General Assembly but also in other international organizations such as the UN Security Council, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, and the forums of climate negotiations in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Keohane, 1984).

Third, there is a need for greater focus on the measurement of AI diplomacy using concrete indicators like engagement in international efforts in governing AI, cross-border research collaborations, semiconductor value chains, digital infrastructure deals, and AI regulation cooperation. Measurement of empirical indicators of technological congruence is one area that needs greater scholarly attention in the future (Weymouth, 2025).

Fourth, future scholars can study the interaction between new geopolitical factors and domestic political factors, including regime types, bureaucratic capability, public opinion and national innovation systems. Combining domestic and international levels of analysis will help to understand how states construct foreign policies in the light of technological and environmental change (Binder & Payton, 2021; Kentikelenis & Voeten, 2021).

Lastly, future research needs to consider the rise of influence of non-state actors such as multinational technology corporations, international financial institutions, research networks and NGOs in global governance processes. With the growing importance of technological innovation and digital infrastructure in international politics, the understanding of state and non-state actor interaction will be essential for the explanation of future geopolitics (Keohane, 1984; Binder & Payton, 2021).

Conclusion

The changes observed in the international order in the last few decades have led to the questioning of several of the basic premises of research in the area of geopolitical alliances. Whereas military power, ideational rivalry, and balance-of-power considerations continue to be among the important determinants of state behaviour, they do not suffice as explanations for diplomatic alliances. The introduction of AI governance, the issue of climate change, and asymmetries in economic interdependence add another dimension to international politics and have an impact on state behaviour in the context of multilateral forums. This study tries to explore whether AI diplomacy, climate vulnerability, and economic dependence have any effect on geopolitical alliances in the United Nations General Assembly voting networks.

Based on previous literature dealing with UN General Assembly voting, current IR theories and network analysis, the present study argues that alliance formation in the 21st century is not an either-or choice between traditional and new types of power. Rather, it is a product of both of them. While military alliances, strategic rivalry and national interests remain structural bases of international relations, technocracy, ecological vulnerability and economic interdependencies become major drivers of diplomatic cooperation on different issues. Therefore, geopolitics is increasingly becoming multidimensional and characterised by flexible networks of collaboration rather than ideology- or military-based blocs.

The primary theoretical contribution of this research is the elaboration of a framework that combines key ideas of Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Constructivism, Dependency Theory, Complex Interdependence and Network Theory. Instead of considering these theories as mutually exclusive alternatives, the study shows that all of them explain a different aspect of alliance formation in the contemporary world. While Realism helps to understand the relevance of strategic competition, Liberal Institutionalism stresses the importance of multilateral cooperation. Constructivism addresses the impact of norms and identity, the Dependency Theory of asymmetric economic dependencies, and the Network Theory-offers useful analytical instruments for studying increasingly complex patterns of alliances. Together, these theories provide a better comprehension of international relations than any of them on its own. For International Relations theory, the implication is that these frameworks should be read as complementary dimensions of a single multidimensional process of alliance formation, rather than as rival paradigms to be tested against one another.

Moreover, the analysis shows that artificial intelligence diplomacy emerges as one of the key dimensions of geopolitical competition. While AI used to be considered a technical issue, today this technology has become an important strategic dimension including innovation, digital infrastructure, semiconductor chains, standards, and international governance. Although AI diplomacy has not replaced security competition as the core element of great power rivalries, it provides new grounds for coordination and competition over international interests. This convergence is detectable specifically on technology-adjacent resolutions, where states sharing similar AI infrastructure and semiconductor supply relationships tend to vote together even when they diverge on unrelated security questions. As well as the climate vulnerability provides the opportunity for cooperation over shared environmental challenges, with coalitions such as the Small Island Developing States, the Least Developed Countries group, and consistent bloc actors such as the COFA states extending this cohesion into development finance and human rights votes rather than remaining confined to explicitly climate-related resolutions, asymmetric economic dependence remains one of the factors shaping incentives of diplomacy through international trade, investments, foreign aid, technology transfers, and development finance. Thus, power in the modern international system operates through a variety of means that cannot be reduced to military capability. These emerging drivers interact with traditional power politics in varied ways, at times reinforcing existing rivalries, at times cutting across them, and at times producing new patterns of alignment that do not map onto either bloc.

Finally, the paper also contributes to the growing literature on UN General Assembly (UNGA) voting with a novel approach to diplomatic alignments. Existing literature has shown that voting at the UNGA is driven by ideological competition, regional cooperation, and geopolitical rivalry among great powers. The current paper builds upon these results and claims that the voting increasingly reflects interactions of classic geopolitical dynamics with emerging technological, environmental, and economic concerns. Instead of considering voting alignments only as a manifestation of geopolitical blocs, the paper treats the phenomenon as a dynamically changing indicator of the evolving relations between states, which are different in various policy fields. This is reflected in the shift from the comparatively bipolar clustering of the Cold War era toward a more fluid, multipolar network structure in which middle powers increasingly occupy bridging positions between clusters. It helps to understand why states often cooperate on climate governance, AI governance, or development finance and compete over security or regional politics at the same time.

Indeed, these results must not be understood to suggest the obsolescence of power politics in the traditional sense of the term. Rather, the examples outlined above serve to show how military capacity, rivalry, and national interests have continued to be central principles in international relations. However, the means used for pursuing these national interests are no longer limited. Modern foreign policies are marked by the incorporation of technology collaboration, digital governance, climate diplomacy, critical supply chains, and resilience in the practice of statecraft.

From a practical perspective, the research provides insights not only into the theory but also for policymakers and international organisations. In light of growing technological competition and climate change, international organisations should adjust to a new diplomatic environment where coalitions are becoming more flexible and issue-based. This means institutions such as the United Nations need to accommodate issue-specific, overlapping coalitions rather than assuming that states sort neatly into stable blocs. It is expected that middle powers and developing nations will become increasingly important players in such an environment due to their pursuit of the strategy of strategic autonomy through balancing in several centres of geopolitics and technology.

According to this research, what will influence the future form of geopolitics will not be the impersonal process of replacing conventional power politics, but its constant development. Modern international relations are distinguished by military rivalry, technological shift, vulnerability to the environment, and economic interdependence of nations. All this leads to a more complex structure of diplomatic relations between countries, where rivalry and cooperation take place at the same time within different policy areas. Thus, an analysis of voting behaviour in the United Nations General Assembly and international order as a whole should go beyond a one-dimensional explanation of alliances in order to consider their complexity.

References

Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Polity Press.

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Bailey, M. A., Strezhnev, A., & Voeten, E. (2017). Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(2), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715595700

Baldwin, D. A. (2016). Power and international relations: A conceptual approach. Princeton University Press.

Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050010

Binder, M., & Payton, A. L. (2021). With frenemies like these: Rising power voting behaviour in the United Nations General Assembly. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1548–1567. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000483

Bode, I. (2024). AI technologies and international relations: Do we need new analytical frameworks? The RUSI Journal, 169(5), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2024.2392394

Borrell, J. (2022). The world we are building: EU foreign affairs speeches. European External Action Service.

Bughin, J., Seong, J., Manyika, J., Chui, M., & Joshi, R. (2018). Notes from the AI frontier: Modeling the impact of AI on the world economy. McKinsey Global Institute.

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R., & Stern, S. (2018). The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 115–146). University of Chicago Press.

Drezner, D. W. (2019). The ideas industry and AI governance. Oxford University Press.

Feijóo, C., Kwon, Y., Bauer, J., Bohlin, E., Howell, B., Jain, R., … Xia, J. (2020). Harnessing artificial intelligence to increase well-being for all: The case for a new technology diplomacy. Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), Article 101988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101988

Geith, J., Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., & Lundgren, M. (2025). Global AI governance: Emerging architectures and future challenges.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2007). Globalization/Anti-globalization (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

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

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

Johnson, J. (2024). AI and the future of war. Polity Press.

Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415

Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Pearson.

Klinger, J., Mateos-Garcia, J., & Stathoulopoulos, K. (2018). Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the development of AI.

LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

Lektzian, D., & Biglaiser, G. (2023). Sanctions, aid, and voting patterns in the United Nations General Assembly. International Interactions, 49(1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2023.2155151

Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I., & Bekar, C. T. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford University Press.

Magu, R., & Mateos, G. (2018). United Nations General Assembly vote similarity networks. In C. Cherifi, H. Cherifi, M. Karsai, & M. Musolesi (Eds.), Complex networks & their applications VI (Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 689). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72150-7

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

Natorski, M. (Forthcoming). Multilateralism in the global governance of artificial intelligence. In M. Furendal & M. Lundgren (Eds.), Handbook on the global governance of artificial intelligence. Edward Elgar.

Nurullayev, D., & Papa, M. (2023). Bloc politics at the UN: How other states behave when the United States and China–Russia disagree. Global Studies Quarterly, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad034

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Oatley, T. (2019). International political economy (6th ed.). Routledge.

Prantl, J., & Goh, E. (2022). Rethinking strategy and statecraft for the twenty-first century of complexity: A case for strategic diplomacy. International Affairs, 98(2), 443–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab212

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., & Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to AI governance.

Scassa, T. (2023). AI and sovereignty in international law.

Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton University Press.

Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., et al. (2022). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030. Stanford University.

Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.

Tallberg, J., Erman, E., Furendal, M., Geith, J., Klamberg, M., & Lundgren, M. (2023). The global governance of artificial intelligence: Next steps for empirical and normative research. arXiv.

United Nations AI Advisory Body. (2024). Governing AI for humanity. United Nations.

United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library. (2025). United Nations General Assembly voting data: Resolutions 1 (11 December 1946) to 79/328 (5 September 2025) (Version 4) [Data set]. United Nations Digital Library.

Veale, M., Matus, K., & Gorwa, R. (2023). AI and global governance: Modalities, rationales, tensions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 19, 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749

Voeten, E. (2000). Clashes in the Assembly. International Organization, 54(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551154

Voeten, E. (2013). Data and analyses of voting in the United Nations General Assembly. In B. Reinalda (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international organization. Routledge.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

Weymouth, S. (2025). Digital disintegration: Techno-blocs and strategic sovereignty in the AI era. International Organization, 79(Supplement), S57–S70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818325101070

World Bank. (2024). World development report 2024: The middle-income trap. World Bank.

World Economic Forum. (2024). Global risks report 2024. World Economic Forum.

Wu, X. (2020). Technology, power, and uncontrolled great power strategic competition between China and the United States. China International Strategy Review, 2, 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-020-00040-0

Zhang, M. Y., Wang, S., Wei, Y., & Chen, Z. (2026). When science meets geopolitics: Global AI research network transformation (2000–2025). Science and Public Policy. https://doi.org