The aim of the study was to identify the legal mechanisms through which competition between the United States, China and the EU is altering the substance and institutional implementation of international law. The methodology was based on conceptual-legal, formal-legal, doctrinal-legal, comparative-legal and comparative analysis methods, applied to the study of the international legal order and models of global governance of the United States of America, China and the EU. On the basis of international legal instruments, strategic and conceptual documents of the United States of America, China and the EU, official materials and specific legislation, it has been established that, in a multipolar world, international law retains its significance as a common language of legitimacy; however, the ways in which it is interpreted, applied and institutionally reproduced are determined by competition between various centres of normative influence. Competition between these actors alters the international legal order not through a rejection of international law, but through different ways of interpreting, applying and institutionally reproducing it. The American model exacerbates the fragmentation of the legal order by extending the category of “rules” beyond formally binding international law to include sanctions, secondary restrictions, export controls and coalition mechanisms. Key trends in the transformation of the Chinese model have been identified, linked to the prioritisation of sovereignty, non-interference, development, institutional representation of non-Western states, and opposition to extraterritorial sanctions. It has been demonstrated that the European model influences the international legal order through the juridification, institutionalisation and external dissemination of digital, climate, trade and human rights standards. An analysis of the practical manifestations of these models has revealed their differing legal natures: the US employs coercive normative influence, China utilises domestic anti-sanctions mechanisms with external effects, and the EU relies on the regulatory diffusion of norms through access to the European market. The study has shown that the international legal order of the 21st century is becoming polycentric, as normative, interpretative and institutional power is being redistributed among the American, Chinese and European models of global governance. The practical significance lies in the possibility of using the results to analyse sanctions policy, digital regulation, the reform of international institutions and the legal assessment of models of global governance
The transformation of the international legal order under multipolarity: Competing governance models of the US, China, and the EU
Abstract
Keywords
sanctions regimes; normative influence; export control; extraterritoriality; digital regulation
- Aggarwal, V.K., & Reddie, A.W. (2024). Searching for global equilibrium: How new economic statecraft undermines international institutions. Asia and the Global Economy, 4(1), article number 100076. doi: 10.1016/j.aglobe.2023.100076.
- Almada, M., & Radu, A. (2024). The Brussels side-effect: How the AI Act can reduce the global reach of EU policy. German Law Journal, 25(4), 646-663. doi: 10.1017/glj.2023.108.
- Alter, K.J. (2025). U.S. export controls across time: Knowledge, technology, and China. American Journal of International Law, 119(1), 180-195. doi: 10.1017/ajil.2024.61.
- Angelo, J. (2025). Playing to win: The use of export controls to address non-military strategic competition. Duke Law & Technology Review, 25(1), 233-261.
- Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China. (2021, June). Retrieved from http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202106/d4a714d5813c4ad2ac54a5f0f78a5270.shtml.
- Bendiek, A., & Stuerzer, I. (2023). The Brussels effect, European regulatory power and political capital: Evidence for mutually reinforcing internal and external dimensions of the Brussels effect from the European digital policy debate. Digital Society, 2, article number 5. doi: 10.1007/s44206-022-00031-1.
- Bradford, A. (2023). Digital empires: The global battle to regulate technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197649268.001.0001.
- Bureau of Industry and Security. (2024). Export enforcement: 2024 Year in review. Retrieved from https://www.bis.gov/media/documents/bis-export-enforcement-year-review-2024-0.
- Charter of the United Nations. (1945). Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf.
- CMS. (2024). Numbers and figures. Retrieved from https://cms.law/en/int/publication/gdpr-enforcement-tracker-report-2024/numbers-and-figures.
- Cohen, H.G. (2024). Toward best practices for trade-security measures. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(1), 93-113. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgad046.
- Council of the European Union. (2022). A strategic compass for security and defence: For a European Union that protects its citizens, values and interests and contributes to international peace and security. Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf.
- Crum, B. (2025). Brussels effect or experimentalism? The EU AI Act and global standard-setting. Internet Policy Review, 14(3). doi: 10.14763/2025.3.2032.
- Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (1970, October). Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dpilfrcscun/dpilfrcscun.html.
- deLisle, J. (2024). China and sovereignty in international law: Across time and issue areas. UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, 9, 4-44.
- Durel, L. (2024). Border carbon adjustment compliance and the WTO: The interactional evolution of law. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(1), 18-40. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgae007.
- Erie, M.S. (2023). Foreign policy implications for China’s “foreign-related ‘rule of law’”. Orbis, 67(4), 565-578. doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2023.08.006.
- European Commission. (2024). AI Act enters into force. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/ai-act-enters-force-2024-08-01_en.
- European Commission. (2026). Carbon border adjustment mechanism. Retrieved from https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en.
- European External Action Service. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.
- European External Action Service. (2025). EU agenda for a renewed multilateralism. Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-agenda-renewed-multilateralism_en.
- European Parliamentary Research Service. (2024). The global reach of the EU’s approach to digital transformation. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/757632/EPRS_BRI%282024%29757632_EN.pdf.
- Felbermayr, G., Morgan, T.C., Syropoulos, C., & Yotov, Y.V. (2021). Understanding economic sanctions: Interdisciplinary perspectives on theory and evidence. European Economic Review, 135, article number 103720. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103720.
- Fravel, M.T. (2025). China: Balancing the US, increasing global influence. In L. Vinjamuri (Ed.), Competing visions of international order: Responses to US power in a fracturing world (pp. 12-21). London: Chatham House. doi: 10.55317/9781784136383.
- Gewirtz, P. (2024). China, the United States, and the future of a rules-based international order. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/china-the-united-states-and-the-future-of-a-rules-based-international-order.
- Grajewski, M. (2023). China-US global rivalry and the EU. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/749803/EPRS_BRI%282023%29749803_EN.pdf.
- Harper, T. (2025). Towards a new vision of global order? The Chinese model of development and governance and its implications for the established international order. East Asia, 42, 365-384. doi: 10.1007/s12140-024-09435-x.
- Helsinki Final Act. (1975). Retrieved from https://www.csce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Helsinki-Final-Act.pdf.
- Hopewell, K. (2021). When the hegemon goes rogue: Leadership amid the US assault on the liberal trading order. International Affairs, 97(4), 1025-1043. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiab073.
- Hopewell, K. (2022). Beyond U.S.-China rivalry: Rule breaking, economic coercion, and the weaponisation of trade. AJIL Unbound, 116, 58-63. doi: 10.1017/aju.2022.3.
- Maksuti, B. (2026). Same path, different destiny? The European integration journey of Albania and North Macedonia (2001-2025). Academicus International Scientific Journal, 17(33), 187-201.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2023a). Concept paper on the Global Security Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367484.html.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2025). Concept paper on the Global Governance Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/wjbxw/202509/t20250901_11699912.html.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2023b). Qin Gang: China resolutely opposes unilateral sanctions. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg_663340/xos_664404/xwlb_664406/202305/t20230510_11074402.html.
- Miró, J. (2023). Responding to the global disorder: The EU’s quest for open strategic autonomy. Global Society, 37(3), 315-335. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2022.2110042.
- National Security Strategy of the United States. (2022, October). Retrieved from https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf.
- Order of The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China No. 1 “On Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures”. (2021, January). Retrieved from https://english.mofcom.gov.cn/Policies/GeneralPolicies/art/2021/art_98677d0ed28b41b9adeff27b00c9d001.html.
- Osland, K.M., & Peter, M. (2021). UN peace operations in a multipolar order: Building peace through the rule of law and bottom-up approaches. Contemporary Security Policy, 42(2), 197-210. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166.
- Otto, S. (2025). The external impact of EU climate policy: Political responses to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 25, 177-194. doi: 10.1007/s10784-025-09667-z.
- Peng, Y. (2025). Can U.S. sanctions truly hinder the rise of China’s semiconductor industry? An analysis from the perspective of “creative insecurity”. Chinese Political Science Review. doi: 10.1007/s41111-025-00282-6.
- Schmidt, J. (2022). The legality of unilateral extra-territorial sanctions under international law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 27(1), 53-81. doi: 10.1093/jcsl/krac005.
- Semenov, A. (2025). Reform without transformation: The EU’s diminishing leverage in the Western Balkans. Social Sciences, 14(12), article number 722. doi: 10.3390/socsci14120722.
- Seppänen, S., & Smith, E. (2025). The new Chinese doctrine of non-intervention. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 74(2), 377-408. doi: 10.1017/S002058932510081X.
- Sloss, D.L. (2022). Is the international legal order unraveling? Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197652800.001.0001.
- Steinbach, A. (2023). The EU’s turn to ‘strategic autonomy’: Leeway for policy action and points of conflict. European Journal of International Law, 34(4), 973-1006. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chad048.
- Trachtenberg, M. (2025). The rules-based international order: A historical analysis. International Security, 50(2), 7-54. doi: 10.1162/ISEC.a.11.
- Treaty on European Union. (2008, May). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2008/art_21/oj?eliuri=eli%3Atreaty%3Ateu_2008%3Aart_21%3Aoj&.
- U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2024). Treasury takes aim at third-country sanctions evaders and Russian producers supporting Russia’s military industrial base. Retrieved from https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2700.
- Velliet, M. (2025). From nonproliferation to strategic competition: US export controls and China. International Politics. doi: 10.1057/s41311-024-00655-9.
- Vinjamuri, L., et al. (2025). Competing visions of international order: Responses to US power in a fracturing world. London: Chatham House. doi: 10.55317/9781784136383.
- Vos, R., Zwienenberg, H., & McGrath, S. (2021). The international legal order: Peace and security in a multipolar world: Literature study. Retrieved from https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/the-international-legal-order-peace-and-security-in-a-multipolar-/.
- Wang, Z.J., & Chen, J. (2025). China’s foreign-related “rule of law”: The evolution of an idea. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 17, 453-482. doi: 10.1007/s40803-025-00249-4.
- Wijaya, T., & Jayasuriya, K. (2024). A new multipolar order: Combined development, state forms and new business classes. International Affairs, 100(5), 2133-2152. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiae135.
- Woods, D. (2025). Escaping a weaponised network: China’s reaction to the United States escalating technology controls. Asian Review of Political Economy, 4, article number 5. doi: 10.1007/s44216-025-00047-7.
- Xiong, H., Peterson, D.A., & Braumoeller, B.F. (2024). Reconceptualising the international order: Contemporary Chinese theories and their contributions to global international relations. International Organization, 78(3), 538-574. doi: 10.1017/S0020818324000171.
Mehmeti, R.M.
(2026).
The transformation of the international legal order under multipolarity: Competing governance models of the US, China, and the EU.
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review,
6(1),
63-77.
https://doi.org/10.63341/2786-491X-2026-1-63