Then I'll start with a few
National Constructivism: A rejection of neorealism , national constructivists state that instead of international relations being innate and states must thus compete and either be dominated or seek the protection of other states, are instead constructed by the nations and cultures that spawned them, and so is in its best interest to protect and further that culture without stepping on any other country's toes. You may win a war one day then lose one the next, and then your country is destroyed. Instead, states must cooperate in protecting each other while letting countries exercise their culture as their wish. In addition, since this is a future where pure democracy is considered a failure, democracy must be somewhat limited in order to prevent division in culture, especially two-party systems.
In practice, national constructivist countries will enter into a military alliance while respecting economic and information (censorship) limitations by that country, to prevent dominating relationships. For example, China will deal with states it may otherwise consider unsavory like Iran, without attempting to economically or culturally dominate that country with its might. Mutual alliance and live and let live, so we don't destroy each other, aren't destroyed by other states, and don't destroy ourselves by democratic division.
Civicism: Originating in America, civicism states that the only culture that should exist is civil behavior, although beyond that leaves culture alone. This will allow nations to interact with each other without states as intermediaries, and will thus, in theory, increase freedom and economic efficiency. When all the cultures of the world are compatible, a world federation of countries can unite and do Star Trek stuff.
In practice, civicist states will adopt unified laws, either as stated in a manifesto or jointly decided upon by an international body, in order to mold their cultures to be more like each other (in how they interact with each other, things like language and religion are generally left alone except where they conflict with law). They will then slowly unite with each other economically, militarily, politically. They will also attempt to spread these laws to other states. Given that they are dedicated to conquering the world and, in the eyes of the nations of the world, eradicating their culture, they are very much looked down on. The irony of a revolutionary internationalist ideology superficially similar to communism has originated in America is not lost on anyone, but Lenin the Soviet Union is about as relevant to people of the future as Robespierre and revolutionary France are to us.
Dynamism: Dynamism wishes for greater autonomy from and decentralization of the state, and views the state as an aggregate of local constituents, and so strengthening these will overall strengthen the state. Where a more unitary state will be too busy attempting to force its citizens to do its bidding, a dynamic state will be united by constituents that voluntarily ally in dealing with foreigners.
In practice, dynamism ranges from simply recognizing autonomy in federations, to the "state" being merely a constitutions of limited commitments that all constituents have agreed upon. In very dynamic countries, either being the cause of that dynamism or being caused by that dynamism, weapons ownership is nearly universal, and so governance can only be by unanimous consent, and local (sometimes very local, rural towns or even neighborhoods) constituents are more able to achieve consensus. Constituents may be member states, republics, kingdoms, tribes, cities, towns, or neighborhoods.
Gynmegandrism (need better name, I'm not very creative): Drawing from the simple observation that a higher proportion of men to women leads to greater amounts of crime and civil conflict, and that the natural birthrate is slightly higher for male children than female children, gynmegandrism seeks to artificially control the ratio through in vitro fertilization. If the ratio is not corrected in the hospital, adherents argue, it will be corrected on the battlefield, as it has been throughout all of history. They point to long periods of peace as times of increasing frustration and violence among men, which are then culled in war, followed by periods of strong social stability in the aftermath. Women can share a man, however uncomfortably, but men cannot share a woman without wanting to kill each other, biologically. To them, the alternative to gynmegandrism is war. The exact optimal ratio is debated, but five women per four men is suggested.
In practice, in countries that implement gynmegandrism men are very calm, sometimes this also leads to lower crime rates, but also sometimes to less creativity in art and science. These countries tend to be quite socially conservative, although not really patriarchal, as they seem to not need it. Open polygamy is uncommon, but in these countries married men having mistresses is considered completely normal, and they have a duty to keep it secret. Male homosexuality is generally frowned upon, especially by the women who are thus locked out, while female homosexuality is seen as completely normal. Female agitation in the form of crime and such does happen, but adherents argue that if the ratio was the opposite it would be infinitely worse.
Will try to think of some more