That depends very much on what you consider as dimensions.
IP uses a paradigm of network part/prefix + host part that could be regarded as dimensions. The network prefix is used to select the next-hop gateway and on the last hop, the host part is used to select the destination host.
If you visualize all networks on one axis and all hosts in each network on the other axis, that's a kind of coordinate system.
Of course, the division between network address and host part is flexible in IP, as defined by the subnet mask or prefix length - a very clever scheme. The prefix length usually varies along the path, from more general, aggregated routes from afar to more precise, refined routes when closing in towards the host.
For instance, your ISP may advertise the 184.108.40.206/16 route on the Internet. Behind the border, 220.127.116.11/18 indicates the datacenter with your server in it. Inside the datacenter, 18.104.22.168/24 addresses the subsection and 22.214.171.124/28 your allocated address range with your server finally at 126.96.36.199.
Obviously, the IP "coordinate system" is a purely logical one - it as no relation to the actual location. IP routers have to exchange, learn and update their routing tables to be able to route towards any IP address (and not away from it).
The papers you've linked to try to establish a geography-based coordinate system to simplify routing - however, the challenge would be to deploy a rigid scheme that never needs updating, which probably isn't possible in practice. Once people use tunneling (for various reasons) all purely geographical routing fails.