Sustaining interaction capacity: The value and quality of multilateralism.

 

Traditionally, multilateralism has been looked upon as a means to an end: On the one hand, even less powerful actors were able to raise their voices, and more powerful actors could legitimize how they asserted their interests. On the other hand, the transnational and global nature of many problems simply made it necessary to seek coordinated solutions. Vincent Pouliot, however, also points out, that “governance is not simply about getting things done – it is also, and in fact primarily, about how things get done”. For him, multilateralism as practice promotes certain values, and thus, becomes an end in itself. Since practices structure social interactions, people also develop social relations over time. This helps them to generate common frameworks to assess problems and solutions and define common interests. In many cases this leads actors to (re)define their preferences and interests in the process of interaction. It is precisely this relational aspect that makes multilateralism a valuable social practice. To avoid misunderstandings: Actors still do follow their interests. However, their interests are not predetermined. In contrast to other forms of international cooperation like bilateralism, there are some core principles that characterize multilateralism: a spirit of collectivity, inclusivity over exclusivity and, above all, negotiated governance. Multilateralism is looked upon as a collective effort of problem-solving. Hence, mutual dialogue, some degree of burden-sharing and partnership are necessary to achieve this. The notion of a collective endeavour also leads actors to prefer the highest degree of inclusivity over exclusivity. The principle of negotiated governance means that states and other stakeholders are willing to seek consensus or reach compromise. This does not exclude power-based bargaining but also permits the exchange of arguments with the possibility of persuading others. As D’Alessandra and Gilea remind us, the types of multilateralism based on the various principles differ qualitatively [see Table 2]: Therefore, we can see instances of formal multilateralism in which states technically follow the principles cited above. Then their structure of interaction looks collective, however the spirit of collectivity is rather weak, since states pursue their specific interests. Also, inclusivity may actually be rather limited, since participation may be broad but tokenistic. The same applies to negotiated governance, which is only followed minimally, since the rules are only procedural without genuine instances of negotiation. When members show some kind of minimal commitment without real interest in achieving an outcome, this can be called superficial multilateralism. The spirit of collectivity is invoked on a rhetorical level, but hardly practised. Participation may seem inclusive, but influence remains with the dominant actors. And as far as negotiations are concerned, their outcomes are often predetermined or shaped by power asymmetries. To qualify as substantive, multilateralism must meet high standards on every principle: Interaction must be characterized by a genuine pursuit of common goods beyond self-interest, inclusion must be equitable and participation of all relevant actors meaningful. In addition, negotiations should yield a real compromise based on having identified common interests and on consensus-building with co-created rules. 

In reality, we can find instances of all three types of multilateralism in different phases of negotiation processes. In an age of complex multilateralism, in which global cooperation is not only shaped by states, but also by civil-society and private actors like business and philanthropic foundations – traits that underscore the advent of a multiplex order –, reminding us of the core principles of multilateralism helps us understand how the interaction capacity of all stakeholders can be sustained and possibly enhanced. Currently, however, multilateralism and the arenas of multilateral cooperation have become sites not only of open contestation but also of discursively redefining core concepts and rules on which multilateral cooperation used to be based.