Abstract
This article reconceptualizes strategic hedging as a rational, multidimensional, and sustainable foreign policy strategy pursued by middle powers in response to a fragmented bipolar order. Using structured-focused comparison, it analyzes ten Global South countries, India, Türkiye, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand, to evaluate the causal impact of three enabling conditions: structural asymmetry, institutional pluralism, and identity elasticity. The findings reveal that middle powers strategically exploit asymmetric dependencies, diverse institutional memberships, and discursive flexibility to hedge across economic, security, and institutional domains. The study offers a mid-range theory that integrates material, institutional, and ideational mechanisms to explain variation in the scope, depth, and durability of hedging behavior across cases.