Abstract
<jats:p>This article presents a comparative analysis and conceptual differentiation of the terms “World Majority” and “Global South”, both of which have gained prominence amid the ongoing transformation of the international order. Special attention is given to their genesis, ideological foundations, and political-identificational characteristics. To this end, the authors develop a framework of three analytical dimensions encompassing demographic, institutional-legal and ideological aspects. The article argues that, despite a shared orientation toward rejecting Western normative hegemony and endorsing a multipolar world order, the two concepts differ substantially in meaning and strategic orientation. Both concepts contain criticism of Western universalism and seek to revise the existing world order. However, the context of their origin, subsequent development and the tools used are fundamentally different. The “Global South” concept emerged as a result of the historical experience of decolonization, the Non-Aligned Movement and the struggle for a new international economic order. The “World majority” is being formed situationally and in an avalanche-like manner, primarily as a reaction to Russia’s confrontation with the West after the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis in 2022. The “Global South” proposes a rethinking of universal norms through the prism of cultural and historical diversity. The “World Majority” contains elements of ideological radicalization aimed at rejecting the rules of the game established by the West and affirming moral and civilizational pluralism as the basic principle of the new world order. The first concept retains a commitment to the ideas of global justice in its universalist interpretation, the second emphasizes the fundamental plurality of values and development models. The authors conclude that, while a degree of terminological and conceptual convergence is possible, the differing historical contexts, substance and levels of theoretical elaboration necessitate a clear distinction between these concepts in academic and policy discourse.</jats:p>