Managing Power Transitions in a Shifting Global Order: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric and Science-Mapping Analysis of U.S.-China-Russia Competition and Conflict Management (1994-2026)

Abstract

The contemporary international system is undergoing a profound redistribution of material power, institutional influence, and normative authority, intensifying competition among major powers while creating new challenges for managing geopolitical tensions. This study maps the intellectual, conceptual, and collaborative structure of scholarship on power transitions, great-power competition, and conflict management, with particular attention to the United States, China, and Russia. Using a Scopus dataset of 1,087 documents published across 507 sources between 1994 and 2026, the study combines bibliometric performance analysis and science mapping through Biblioshiny/Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The results reveal sustained growth in scholarly attention, with an annual growth rate of 15.33%, particularly following 2020. China emerges as the most frequent keyword (263 occurrences), followed by great power competition (141), the United States (137), power (106), power transition (88), international relations (86), and Russia (76). The United States occupies the most central position in the country collaboration network, followed by China, although international co-authorship remains relatively limited at 13.06%. Citation and keyword co-occurrence analyses indicate strong intellectual connections with realism, power-transition theory, international-order scholarship, and strategic studies. At the same time, recent research increasingly emphasizes the Indo-Pacific, Ukraine, geopolitics, cybersecurity, and strategic rivalry. Overall, the thematic structure of the literature is more strongly oriented toward power competition and redistribution than toward conflict resolution and conflict management. Building on this identified gap and relevant theoretical literature, the study proposes a layered conflict-management framework centered on strategic stability, institutionalized crisis communication, bounded economic interdependence, inclusive regional and middle-power mechanisms, and negotiated pluralism. The findings suggest that managing contemporary power transitions is unlikely to depend on a single comprehensive settlement; rather, it may require overlapping institutional and diplomatic arrangements that reduce the risk of escalation while accommodating a more pluralistic and contested global order.