There is one very interesting development in International politics and IR right now. The UN General Assembly Vote on Security council resolution over US decision to shift their embassy to Jerusalem has some reverberations. I think it is the very first time in the history of United Nations, when states with a thumping 2/3rd majority came openly against United States no matter what is the issue. Even, during the Iraq invasion, no country (other than France, security council member) - how much willing it would be - had the courage to come against US. It's not a unilateral veto by any of the security council member but the voice of 128 states even after open threats by US over cutting financial aids and donations to UN and other countries. Obviously, it will have no effect on the US decision, they will setup their embassy wherever they want as the Int. law cannot be binding making it one of the stabilizing factor in Int. politics today. But there are some important takeaways from it, Anyone who is a student or enthusiast of political science or International politics have heard this phrase once and again, "It was a bipolar world for almost half a century after world war 2 , then for a short while it was a uni polar world and now it is multi-polar world." But we never get to experience this. I always experienced it as a bi-polar world where China took the place of Soviet Russia. It's the first time US was singled out by the major countries. The 9 votes in favor, shows the magnitude of threat of cutting financial aids and nothing else. Those all are less influential countries. I think this time, UN really remained true to it's major founding principle, "Maintaining International Peace and Security". Although, it is quite early to say but it feels like these are initial glimpses of a multi-polar world. I know I am putting a very sensitive issue between the Americans and others but I hope and request you to see this without emotionally attaching to the context and from a purely academic and theoretical point of view.