The global governance system that emerged after World War II within the framework of liberal international institutions is now facing mounting crises. The intensification of geopolitical conflicts, the ineffectiveness of multilateral bodies such as the UN Security Council in preventing the spread of violence, and the unprecedented rise in humanitarian needs all point to a gradual erosion of the legitimacy and efficacy of the existing order. In this context, critical narratives challenging the West’s double standards in the realm of international security have gained traction, while non-Western actors are increasingly seeking to redefine global security concepts and mechanisms by proposing alternative initiatives.

As a rising power, China has introduced the “Global Security Initiative” in an effort to institutionalize principles such as respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, and opposition to unilateralism within a new discursive framework. At the regional level, the Islamic Republic of Iran has similarly advanced proposals such as the “ Hope Coalition” and “MWADA,” aimed at establishing indigenous security arrangements in the Persian Gulf and offering a counter-narrative to the U.S. approach, which is rooted in external intervention.

This study adopts a qualitative approach and employs comparative analysis to examine the discursive capacities of these two initiatives in confronting the dominant security order. Its objective is to analyze the structural and conceptual differences between them, as well as their respective potentials for shaping non-Western alternative discourses in the domain of transnational security governance. The findings suggest that although both initiatives face significant operational challenges, they possess discursive potential to contribute to a transformation in the logic of international security—particularly among countries of the Global South