Multilateralism – defined as alliances of three or more states pursuing common goals – is in crisis. Once regarded as a cornerstone of international cooperation, multilateral approaches are increasingly perceived as ineffective in resolving global challenges. Among others, say critics, consensus is difficult to achieve due to the sheer number of actors involved, and complex issues overwhelm international organizations. These functional deficiencies, however, obscure a deeper normative crisis. Multilateralism is shaped by underlying values and commitments to certain universal ideals. When these are contested, international institutions struggle to function effectively. This article explores these challenges and proposes a more relational, trust-based approach as one potential remedy.
The West vs. the “Rest”
Today’s international system is marked by extensive differences in political regimes, cultures, and historical experiences. The divide between democracies and authoritarian regimes is just one example that shapes global diplomacy and brings into question the legitimacy of an international order. These fundamental ideological splits are not merely rhetorical but influence decision-making within multilateral institutions.
Furthermore, a deep-seated critique of Western dominance underpins much of the Global South’s resistance to existing multilateral norms. This resistance originates from postcolonial perspectives and political narratives that reject Western-imposed structures. The Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement (in the 1950’s and 1960’s) embodied early efforts to challenge Western hegemony. Since then, the concept of universal values has been increasingly questioned by emerging powers advocating alternative worldviews.
The evolution of international law has further exposed these cleavages, with debates over universalist vs. particularist approaches to rights and governance. Global norms, in other words, have been challenged by more parochial interests. In this context, religious and ideological disputes have intensified. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, for instance, advocate for more religious considerations to be incorporated into international human rights discourse. Western nations, in contrast, typically emphasize more secular values, the freedom of expression and protection of minorities.
Multilateralism will likely take more hits under U.S. President Trump’s second term. He has reaffirmed the sovereign prerogatives of the United States with, apparently, little awareness of the limitations of this approach. Additionally, he has declared his determination to destroy the very principles of multilateral cooperation. Intergovernmental organizations are prime targets, and the new administration is seeking to torpedo the spirit of a “multilateral way of life” which benefits the greater good, but, in his eyes, globalized elites are promoting an agenda hostile to U.S. interests.
The Problem of Weak Commitments
Multilateralism’s effectiveness is undermined by weak commitments from states, which can be attributed to several factors:
- The Proliferation of Soft Law: States increasingly favor non-binding agreements over enforceable treaties. This reliance on soft law dilutes the strength of multilateral agreements, as states can opt out or limit their commitments through reservations.
- Moral Fallacies in Multilateralism: Small states often attempt to use multilateral channels to constrain great powers. Major powers, in turn, assume that their broader capacity to act justifies unilateral approaches. These conflicting moral claims weaken the legitimacy of multilateral institutions.
- Financial Constraints: Multilateral institutions suffer from financial instability since voluntary contributions far outweigh mandatory funding. Meanwhile, states prioritize military expenditures over multilateral peacekeeping efforts and further constrain the latter’s resources.
Effective multilateralism depends on strong relationships among states and between their diplomats, as well as on the trust necessary for cooperation. This trust, however, cannot be assumed, but must be cultivated.”
Trust as the Missing Link?
Effective multilateralism depends on strong relationships among states and between their diplomats, as well as on the trust necessary for cooperation. This trust, however, cannot be assumed, but must be cultivated. A sense of shared responsibility and moral obligation is fundamental.
Trusting relationships are built through two key elements:
- Trustworthiness: States must demonstrate reliability and commitment to multilateral norms.
- Trust-Responsiveness: States must reciprocate trust by aligning expectations with their actions.
As one example, NATO’s members must have trust-based commitments beyond strategic interests to function well as an alliance. The internal workings of the Alliance are based on an understanding and even a form of conviviality between the various national diplomatic delegations and the organization’s officials. This internal cohesion has been put to the test in recent months, with the arrival of a new administration in the US and has led many—in policymaking circles, in academia, the media and the general public—to question the future of the Alliance. Similarly, diplomatic special relationships demonstrate that trust can sustain cooperation even amid crises. The current relationship between the UK and France, but also within the European Union, also bears witness to the possibilities of renewed cooperation and trust in difficult times despite Brexit.
On the one hand, the Lancaster House Treaty that binds France and the UK remains a relevant framework for action. On the other, the EU’s multilateral response to a weakening of American commitment to assist Ukraine against Russian aggression has favored a strategic rapprochement between London and the Europeans. Confidence is growing both within the EU (coordinating the strategic response to Russia through the strengthening of defense capabilities) and with its closest neighbors (closely associating the UK with these initiatives in the sense that the UK’s “vital” interests cannot be dissociated from the rest of the continent). These examples highlight the need to embed trust within multilateral practices to reinforce normative commitments and institutional effectiveness; whether these multilateral practices take place within an existing organization, or outside in a more flexible form, as is the case between the EU and the UK post-Brexit.
Another example concerns the increase of referrals to the International Court of Justice. According to Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, a Judge at the ICJ, an optimistic explanation for the use of the latter, which stems from the very objectives that motivated the international community to establish this judicial institution in 1945, is that it reflects the growing confidence of States in the Court’s ability to resolve inter-state disputes. This reflects a gradual strengthening of the Court’s legitimacy although it is still contested by many of the most powerful States.
To address multilateralism’s crisis then, a relational ethics of trust must be integrated into initiatives for international cooperation. States could take on more of the following tasks to accomplish that end:
- Enhancing Inclusiveness: Undertake diplomatic approaches that involve multiple parties, including non-state actors, in multilateral negotiations to better ensure legitimacy and broader participation.
- Empowering New Leadership: Give emerging middle powers a greater role in shaping multilateral norms, as demonstrated during certain resolutions at the Security Council which result in the isolation of the United States concerning the recognition of a Palestinian State on April of 2024 (South Korea, France and Japan openly against Washington), or the signing of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on March 25, 2024 at the initiative of the ten elected members of the Council who were able to seize the diplomatic initiative and act with the support of regional groups.
- Recognizing Mutual Vulnerability: Acknowledge interdependencies related to global challenges such as pandemics and climate change and emphasize that cooperative solutions are needed beyond state-centric frameworks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, restoring the current crisis of multilateralism requires a shift in mindset – one that prioritizes trust, inclusiveness, and shared responsibility. The path forward necessitates reclaiming multilateralism’s normative foundations to ensure its enduring relevance. The efforts of leaders and diplomats are important, but building peace also requires the involvement – and trust building – among multilateral bodies, companies and citizens. In all of this, it is vitally important that the two leading powers of the day and their respective clients and allies recognize that none of the global problems which currently cast a shadow over our future—climate change, a renewed arms race, widening income disparities, to name only a few—can be solved without significantly enhanced levels of international cooperation.
