Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Wikipedia

Multilateralism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main page This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
Contents
insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise
Featured content
citations. (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Current events
Random article
In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal.
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Contents [hide]

Interaction 1 Definitions
2 History
Help
About Wikipedia
3 Challenges
Community portal 4 Comparison with bilateralism
Recent changes 5 See also
Contact page 6 Notes
7 Further reading
Tools

What links here

Related changes Definitions [ edit ]
Upload file
Special pages Multilateralism was defined by Miles Kahler as "international governance" or global governance of the "many," and its central principle was
Permanent link "opposition [to] bilateral discriminatory arrangements that were believed to enhance the leverage of the powerful over the weak and to
Page information increase international conflict."[1]
Wikidata item
Cite this page
In 1990, Robert Keohane defined multilateralism as "the practice of coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states."[2] The
foreign policy that India formulated after independence reflected its idiosyncratic culture and politic traditions. Speaking in the Lok Sabha, the
Print/export lower house of the Parliament of India, in March 1950, Nehru affirmed: “It should not be supposed that we are starting on a clean slate. It is a
Create a book policy which flowed from our recent history and from our national movement and its development and from various ideals we have proclaimed.
Download as PDF (Nehru, 1961, p.34). In fact, the foreign policy culture of India is an elite culture, meaning, in effect, that the writings and speeches of select
Printable version
leading figures of the Indian foreign policy elite provide an insight into the key ideas and norms constituting the foundation of India’s foreign
Languages policy.[3]

Deutsch John Ruggie elaborated the concept based on the principles of "indivisibility" and "diffuse reciprocity (international relations)" as "an
Español institutional form which coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of 'generalized' principles of conduct ... which specify
िह दी appropriate conduct for a class of actions, without regard to particularistic interests of the parties or the strategic exigencies that may exist in
Bahasa Indonesia
any occurrence."[4]
Italiano
日本語 Multilateralism, in the form of membership in international institutions, serves to bind powerful nations, discourage unilateralism, and gives
Português small powers a voice and influence that they could not otherwise exercise. For a small power to influence a great power, the Lilliputian
Русский strategy of small countries banding together to collectively bind a larger one can be effective. Similarly, multilateralism may allow one great
中文
power to influence another great power. For a great power to seek control through bilateral ties could be costly; it may require bargaining and
12 more compromise with the other great power.
Edit links
Embedding the target state in a multilateral alliance reduces the costs borne by the power seeking control, but it also offers the same binding
benefits of the Lilliputian strategy. Furthermore, if a small power seeks control over another small power, multilateralism may be the only
choice, because small powers rarely have the resources to exert control on their own. As such, power disparities are accommodated to the
weaker states by having more predictable bigger states and means to achieve control through collective action. Powerful states also buy into
multilateral agreements by writing the rules and having privileges such as veto power and special status.

International organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization, are multilateral in nature. The main
proponents of multilateralism have traditionally been the middle powers, such as Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Benelux countries and
the Nordic countries. Larger states often act unilaterally, while smaller ones may have little direct power in international affairs aside from
participation in the United Nations (by consolidating their UN vote in a voting bloc with other nations, for example.) Multilateralism may involve
several nations acting together, as in the UN, or may involve regional or military alliances, pacts, or groupings, such as NATO. These
multilateral institutions are not imposed on states, but are created and accepted by them in order to increase their ability to seek their own
interests through the coordination of their policies. Moreover, they serve as frameworks that constrain opportunistic behavior and encourage
coordination by facilitating the exchange of information about the actual behavior of states with reference to the standards to which they have
consented.

The term "regional multilateralism" has been proposed, suggesting that "contemporary problems can be better solved at the regional rather
than the bilateral or global levels" and that bringing together the concept of regional integration with that of multilateralism is necessary in
today’s world.[5] Regionalism dates from the time of the earliest development of political communities, where economic and political relations
naturally had a strong regionalist focus due to restrictions on technology, trade, and communications.[6]

The converse of multilateralism is unilateralism, in terms of political philosophy.

History [ edit ]

One modern instance of multilateralism occurred in the nineteenth century in Europe after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, where the great
powers met to redraw the map of Europe at the Congress of Vienna (November 1814 to June 1815). The Concert of Europe, as it became
known, was a group of great and lesser powers that would meet to resolve issues peacefully. Conferences such as the Conference of Berlin
in 1884 helped reduce power conflicts during this period, and the 19th century was one of Europe's most peaceful.[7]
Industrial and colonial competition, combined with shifts in the balance of power after the creation - by diplomacy and conquest - of Germany
by Prussia meant cracks were appearing in this system by the turn of the 20th century. The concert system was utterly destroyed by the First
World War. After that conflict, world leaders created the League of Nations (which became the precursor of the United Nations) in an attempt
to prevent a similar conflict.[8]

After the Second World War the victors, drawing upon experience from the League's failure, created the United Nations in 1945. Since then,
the "breadth and diversity" of multilateral arrangements have escalated.[4] Unlike the League, the UN had the active participation of the United
States and the Soviet Union, the world's then greatest contemporary powers. Along with the political institutions of the UN, the post-war years
also saw the development of organizations such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (now the World Trade Organization),
the World Bank (so-called 'Bretton Woods' institutions) and the World Health Organization. Formation of these subsequent bodies under the
United Nations made it more powerful than the League. Moreover, United Nations peacekeepers stationed around the world became a visible
symbol of multilateralism.

Multilateral institutions of varying scope and subject matter range from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Challenges [ edit ]

The multilateral system has encountered mounting challenges since the end of the Cold War.

The United States became increasingly dominant in terms of military and economic power, which has led countries such as Iran, China and
India to question the UN's relevance. Concurrently, a perception developed among internationalists such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, that the United States is more inclined to act unilaterally in situations with international implications. This trend began[9] when the U.S.
Senate, in October 1999, refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which President Bill Clinton had signed in September 1996.
Under President George W. Bush the United States rejected such multilateral agreements as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal
Court, the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel land mines and a draft protocol to ensure compliance by States with the Biological Weapons
Convention. Also under the George W. Bush administration, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the
Richard Nixon administration and the Soviet Union had signed in 1972.

These challenges presented by the U.S could be explained by a strong belief in bilateral alliances as instruments of control. Liberal
institutionalists would argue, though, that great powers might still opt for a multilateral alliance. But great powers can amplify their capabilities
to control small powers and maximize their leverage by forging a series of bilateral arrangements with allies, rather than see that leverage
diluted in a multilateral forum. Arguably, the Bush administration favored bilateralism over multilateralism, or even unilateralism, for similar
reasons. Rather than going it alone or going it with others, the administration opted for intensive one-on-one relationships with handpicked
countries that maximized the U.S. capacity to achieve its objectives.[10]

Another challenge in global governance through multilateralism involves national sovereignty. Regardless of the erosion of nation-states'
legal and operational sovereignty in international relations, "nation-states remain the ultimate locus of authoritative decision making regarding
most facets of public and private life".[11] Hoffman asserted that nation-states are "unlikely to embrace abstract obligations that clash with
concrete calculations of national interest."[11]

Global multilateralism is challenged, particularly with respect to trade, by regional arrangements such as the European Union and NAFTA,
although these are not in themselves incompatible with larger accords. The original sponsor of post-war multilateralism in economic regimes,
the United States, turned towards unilateral action and in trade and other negotiations as a result of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of
multilateral fora. As the most powerful nation, the United States had the least to lose from abandoning multilateralism; the weakest nations
have the most to lose, but the cost for all would be high.[12]

Comparison with bilateralism [ edit ]

When enacting foreign policies, governments face a choice between unilateralism, bilateralism and multilateralism.

Bilateralism means coordination with another single country. Multilateralism has attempted to find common ground based on generalized
principles of conduct, in addition to details associated with a particular agreement. Victor Cha argued that: power asymmetries predict the
type of structures, bilateral or multilateral, that offer the most control. If small powers try to control a larger one, then multilateralism is
effective. But if great powers seek control over smaller ones, bilateral alliances are more effective.[13]

Thus, a country's decision to select bilateralism or multilateralism when

enacting foreign policies is greatly affected by its size and power, as well
as the size and power of the country over which it seeks control. Take the
example of Foreign Policy of the United States. Many references discuss
how the United States interacts with other nations. In particular, the
United States chose multilateralism in Europe and decided to form NATO,
while it formed bilateral alliances, or the Hub and spokes architecture, in
East Asia. Although there are many arguments about the reasons for
Victor Cha's Powerplay: Bilateral versus Multilateral Control.[13]
this, Cha's "powerplay" theory provides one possible reason. He argued:

...postwar U.S planners had to contend with a region uniquely constituted of potential rogue allies, through their aggressive
behavior, could potentially entrap the United States in an unwanted wider war in Asia. ... To avoid this outcome, the United States
created a series of tight, deep bilateral alliances with Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan through which it could exercise maximum
control and prevent unilateral aggression. Furthermore, it did not seek to make these bilateral alliances multilateral, because it
wanted to amplify U.S. control and minimize any collusion among its partners.[13]

See also [ edit ]

ASEAN North American Free Trade Agreement

East Asian Summit Open Government Partnership
European Union Perpetual peace
Hegemony Plurinationalism
 Intergovernmental organization Polarity
New world order (politics) Polarity in international relations

Notes [ edit ]

1. ^ Kahler, Miles. "Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers."
International Organization, 46, 3 (Summer 1992),681.
2. ^ Keohane, Robert O. "Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research."
International Journal, 45 (Autumn 19901), 731.; see for a definition of
the special features of "regional multilateralism" Michael, Arndt
(2013). India's Foreign Policy and Regional Multilateralism (Palgrave
Macmillan), pp. 12-16.
3. ^ Ardnt, Michael (2013). India's Foreign Policy and Regional
Multilateralism (1 ed.). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Retrieved 1 October 2018.
4. ^ a b
John Ruggie, "Multilateralism: the anatomy of an
institution,"International Organization, 46:3, summer 1992, pp 561-
598.
5. ^ Harris Mylonas and Emirhan Yorulmazlar, "Regional
multilateralism: The next paradigm in global affairs ", CNN, January
14, 2012.
6. ^ Andrew Hurrell, "One world, many worlds: the place of regions in
the study of international society," International Affairs, 83:1, 2007,
pp 127-146.
7. ^ Adogame, Afe (2004). "The Berlin-Congo Conference 1884: The
Partition of Africa and Implications for Christian Mission Today".
Journal of Religion in Africa. 34 (1/2): 188.
8. ^ "The United Nations: An Introduction for Students." UN News
Center. UN, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.
<http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/unintro/unintro3.htm >.
9. ^ Hook, Steven & Spanier, John (2007). "Chapter 12: America Under
Fire". American Foreign Policy Since World War II. CQ Press.
p. 305. ISBN 1933116714.
10. ^ Cha, Victor D. "Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system in
Asia." International Security 34.3 (2010):166-167
11. ^ a b
Stanley Hoffmann, “World governance: beyond utopia,”
Daedalus, 132:1, pp 27-35.
12. ^ Iain McLean; Alistair McMillan (26 February 2009). The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Politics . OUP Oxford. p. 519. ISBN 978-0-19-
101827-5.
13. ^ a bc
Cha, Victor D. "Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system
in Asia." International Security 34.3 (2010): 165-166

Further reading [ edit ]

Michale Yahuda, The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific (New York: Routledge, 2011)
Edward Newman, Ramesh Rhakur and John Tirman, 2006, Multilateralism Under Challenge, Tokyo: United Nations Press
Rorden Wilkinson, Multilateralism and the World Trade Organisation: The Architecture and Extension of International Trade Regulation,
New York: Routledge, 2000.

Categories: International relations theory Multilateral relations

This page was last edited on 8 August 2019, at 10:53 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is
a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view