Multilateralism is based on the principles of inclusivity, equality, and cooperation, and aims to foster a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world.
[2][3] One of the key advantages of multilateralism is that it enables countries to solve problems that transcend national boundaries, such as climate change, terrorism, and pandemics, through shared responsibility and burden-sharing.
The rise of populism, nationalism, and protectionism in some countries has raised concerns about the future of multilateralism and the effectiveness of international cooperation.
[9] 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.
These multilateral institutions are not imposed on states but are created and accepted by them to increase their ability to seek their own interests through the coordination of their policies.
Speaking in the Lok Sabha, the 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.
[14] 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.
[15] Although the League of Nations failed in its security mission, it initiated a variety of specialized organizations that continue to operate today.
[18] 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 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.
[21] Hoffman asserted that nation-states are "unlikely to embrace abstract obligations that clash with concrete calculations of national interest.
"[21] 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.
Results from direct elections to the European Parliament give evidence to this claim, as Eurosceptic parties have made advances.
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.
He argued: ...postwar U.S planners had to contend with a region uniquely constituted of potential rogue allies, through their aggressive behaviour, 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.