Geopolitical Maritime Dominance in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of U.S., China, and Emerging Naval Powers
Keywords:
Globalized World, Geopolitical Structure, Maritime chokepoints, Enfeebling, Proxy Wars, Bullying Efforts, Bipartisan Alliances, Fading Power, Proximity, diplomatic thawing.Abstract
In an increasingly globalized world, the struggle for geopolitical maritime dominance has become a defining feature of 21st-century international relations. This study presents a comparative analysis of the United States, China, and emerging naval powers, focusing on how control over strategic maritime chokepoints shapes global influence. The research explores how traditional powers like the U.S., facing signs of fading power, navigate the enfeebling effects of prolonged proxy wars and internal political divisions, often relying on bipartisan alliances to maintain their global standing. In contrast, China’s assertive naval expansion and proximity-based influence strategies in the South China Sea represent a shift toward more regionally grounded dominance. The study also examines the responses of emerging naval powers and regional alliances that counterbalance both superpowers, while highlighting the bullying efforts that occasionally characterize major powers' maritime posturing. Through the lens of diplomatic thawing and realignment, the paper analyzes how shifting alliances and maritime strategies are reshaping the global geopolitical structure, emphasizing that the oceans remain a central theatre for power projection and negotiation in the modern era.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Research Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Disclaimer: The International Research Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (IRJAHSS) upholds the principles of open access, ensuring unrestricted access to scholarly content to foster the sharing and advancement of knowledge. The opinions expressed in the articles solely belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the journal's editorial team, editorial board, advisory board or research institute.