By: Alexandra Huggins
Edited By: Aakrith Harikumar
In the decades after World War II, global multilateralism was defined and executed by a series of organizations that sought to unify the world under common missions and ideals, with a format that was built to solve problems through a global consensus. Over half a century since the birth of these organizations and the system they define, many issues they were created to address have continued or been reinvigorated. A territorial war rages on European soil, human rights are regularly violated at an extraordinary scale across the globe, and states pursue aggressive foreign policies with little consequence. And yet, new unprecedented transnational issues have emerged that require international cooperation for their resolution, cooperation that has not manifested to any meaningful degree.
Academics and policymakers argue that the current system of universal multilateralism has failed and that smaller, regional multilateral organizations, with limited membership and mission, would be more effective in addressing the world’s problems. As stated by Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment, these smaller organizations are “voluntary rather than legally binding; disaggregated rather than comprehensive; trans-governmental rather than just intergovernmental; regional rather than global; multi-level and multi-stakeholder rather than state-centric; and “bottom-up” rather than “top-down.” Such arrangements, the “new multilateralism” as opposed to the universalist, legalistic “old multilateralism,” are on the rise in global foreign policies, with states preferring the more flexible, dynamic organizations to the stagnant, ineffective institutions of global governance, such as the United Nations.
However, in the complex, multidimensional web of issues that the world faces, the ideal system of multilateralism combines the two concepts. Such a system allows states and other actors to interact and address problems in smaller, impermanent forums with limited, regional membership and missions. Yet this multidimensional system still maintains the foundation of the universalistic organizations that mandate the inclusion of all the world’s states, promoting a system of laws and norms that guide state behavior and address issues that affect the world’s population.
Such a system requires these global organizations to be able to adapt to best reflect their foundation of universalism and ensure the equal legal representation of states in the international community. This foundation of sovereign equality and inclusion within organizations like the United Nations allows states to pursue and experiment with other forms of multilateralism. This concept is best illustrated through the development and flexibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a regional organization with a limited mission that has illustrated remarkable flexibility and durability throughout its decades-long existence. Both through working in conjunction with the foundational, universalist international organizations and alone, NATO has set an example that is indicative of the effectiveness of an organization and a system that are continuously shifting their roles and functions to adapt to an ever-changing world.
The mission of NATO is best described through the content of its foundational document, the North Atlantic Treaty—specifically Article 5—which states, in part, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” The organization and its document were created 75 years ago, in the beginning stages of the Cold War, to guard against the rising Soviet Union and the threat of nuclear annihilation—intending to present a united front against the Soviet sphere of influence. Upon the Soviet Union’s dissolution and the conclusion of the Cold War, the realization of NATO’s mission shifted, no longer defined by its opposition to a singular antagonist or ideology (at least until the Russian invasion of Ukraine). NATO developed and identified the most prevalent international conflicts at the end of the Cold War, that is, intrastate humanitarian conflicts, and adjusted and expanded their operations to humanitarian intervention, engaging in military interventions in many countries such as Libya, Yugoslavia, and Iraq, among others, outside of their regional constraints. NATO has continued these missions throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, while still maintaining and upholding its original mandate of peace and security in Europe and collective security between its members, as illustrated by the evocation of Article 5 by the United States after the terrorist attack on 9/11 in 2001 and NATO’s continued aid to Ukraine following the Russian invasion in 2022.
NATO’s flexibility and adaptability to the shifting global conflict environment is an admirable feat that can and should apply to various dynamics of transnational, global issues. Legally, the United Nations is responsible for the “maintain(ance of) international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.” However, especially in recent years, the UN has been unable to take meaningful action on major threats to the peace due to political constraints, a lack of global consensus, and the inflexibility of its mechanisms (particularly those of the Security Council). In many of these cases, NATO has stepped in as the teeth behind the mandates of the UN, often providing the necessary force behind humanitarian aid. Beyond the (entirely necessary) discussion of whether NATO is legally (or morally) permitted to intervene and use force in these cases, the fact of the matter is that NATO was often able to step in when the UN was not, filling a void left in global governance. It is in such cases, whether it is with regional political issues, the effects of climate change, or global trade, that such regional arrangements can step in and fill the gaps left by the universalist organizations, both addressing problems specific to a particular region or set of countries and filling the global roles that larger organizations are unable to.
However, such organizations are only effective in multilateralism and global governance with the continued presence of the larger, universalist organizations such as the United Nations. For example, the UN’s creation was at a point in history that, due to the destructive and global nature of World War II, resulted in a rare moment of collaboration and cohesion amongst the world’s states through which all of the world’s leaders were able to create an organization and agree on ideals and a mandate that was at least somewhat acceptable to all. This level of agreement in a world starkly divided by political philosophy, ideology, and strategy is an accomplishment unlikely to be replicated. This organization, as antiquated and stagnant as some of its institutional features may be, provides an institution and a forum to which all the world’s states are a party, creating a legal mechanism through which some semblance of order and rules can be established that, at least in theory, govern the actions of international actors. At the United Nations General Assembly, all states get a seat and a say, providing an environment and a legalized forum where the smallest states can collectively represent their interests. Such a forum can and should act as a basis for this “minilateralism” that Stewart Patrick describes, providing a basic foundation and platform on which all states are legally equal and can collectively discuss issues that affect them all.
The cooperation of traditional multilateralism and minilateralism is a complementary partnership that provides the best foundation for the future of multilateralism in an ever-changing world. However, the benefits and cohesion of this partnership depend on the organizations’ flexibility, as NATO illustrates. The smaller, regional organizations must continuously adjust to fill and address the holes left in unresolved transnational issues, both regionally and globally. Larger universal organizations, particularly the United Nations, need to take action to ensure that the primary benefit and innovation of their creation, the sovereign equality of all of its members, remain intact in the face of actors who would seek to upend the system.