The global landscape is currently experiencing significant transformations characterized by uncertainty, fragmentation, and geopolitical upheaval. In this context, it is crucial to adjust multilateral frameworks to align with the geopolitical realities of the present era. To redefine multilateralism, we must prioritize flexibility, adaptability, and resilience in our strategies.
The international system is at a crossroads. Multilateralism, long being the bedrock of international cooperation, is disintegrating in the face of today’s new geopolitical realities. As the post-World War II international system crumbles, global structures established during this period, such as the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions, struggle to adapt to new challenges. These mechanisms, built to maintain peace and stability during a bipolar Cold War, have become rigid antiques and are no longer in a position to deal with the complexities of today’s multipolar, highly competitive, and fragmented international system. To be relevant and functioning, multilateralism must be reimagined, with institutions recalibrated to reflect the realities of a fractured and volatile global order. This entails significantly reforming existing ones while also developing new innovative multilateral, plurilateral, or minilateral frameworks or models of cooperation to address contemporary global issues[1].
The Decline of Traditional Multilateralism
Multilateralism refers to a diplomatic practice in which several nations collaborate to pursue shared objectives or tackle global challenges. It highlights the importance of international cooperation, joint decision-making, and mutual responsibilities among three or more countries. This approach is typically seen in international organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and various regional alliances. Multilateralism aims to promote peace, stability, and development by encouraging countries to collaborate and support each other's efforts on the global stage. Key Features of Multilateralism. The key features of multilateralism are inclusivity, collective decision-making, shared responsibilities to address common global challenges like climate change, trade, security, and humanitarian crises and institutional frameworks developed through established international organizations and treaties.
During the Cold War, a bipolar international order with two dominating powers (the United States and the Soviet Union) provided some stability. Multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system were established during this period and served as the fundamental pillars of global peace and stability. These global structures aimed at promoting global peace, and prosperity. However, over time, these structures proved ineffective in the face of unprecedented shifts in global geopolitics leading to unpredictable changes in the global system. Moreover, these structures were hierarchical and designed for a predictable international order defined by ideological rivalry.[2]
The previous order has yielded ground to a multipolar international order which is markedly distinct from the bipolar framework of the Cold War; it is intensely competitive, geopolitically unstable, and marked by increased uncertainty. This situation arises from the presence of numerous powers vying for influence, resulting in a highly volatile environment akin to firms in a "perfect market situation" engaged in fierce competition. Major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia, along with emerging powers like India, are competing across various domains. Additionally, assertion of non-state actors, advancements in technology such as artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by climate change introduce further layers of insecurity. The shortcomings of these multilateral institutions arise from their failure to adapt to a rapidly changing international landscape, which hinders their capacity to tackle contemporary challenges. Established to function within the rigid framework of Cold War-era, they are now inadequately prepared to handle the current complexities.[3] The inadequacy of existing institutions in addressing the crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and now Gaza has become evident, as multinational initiatives have emerged independently of the established multilateral organizations that aim to promote global peace even through armed interventions in some cases. These institutions have also failed to tackle non-traditional security challenges like climate change, fighting pandemics, regulating new emerging technologies like AI, etc. The failure of the Cold War era multilateral institutions underscores the need for developing alternative models of collective action to reinforce global norms and ensure peace in all corners of the world.
Adapting to New Realities
For multilateral institutions to regain relevance, they must adapt to the changing geopolitical realities of the current highly competitive and turbulent international system. The first step towards this can be taken by acknowledging that today we are confronted with a different geopolitical reality where traditional Cold War-era multilateral and NATO-type structures are no longer suitable. Rigid institutions designed to enforce global order must be replaced or modified to reflect the fluidity and unpredictability of current geopolitics. Institutions must be designed with flexibility at their core. They should have the capacity to adjust to evolving circumstances rather than being tied to rigid rules or static mandates, as there will be geopolitical disruptions ahead, and these institutions must incorporate the factor of unpredictability in them to adapt to the future turbulences.
Moreover, the Cold War-era multilateral model failed because it assumed static global hierarchies, ignoring the dynamism inherent in international relations.[4] To deal with the new challenges, minilateralism can be a pragmatic solution, as exemplified by the recent initiatives like the Quad (India, Australia, Japan, and the United States), which demonstrate the effectiveness of issue-based alignments. Such flexible, informal coalitions are better suited to addressing specific challenges— whether climate change, maritime security, or emerging technologies— without the bureaucratic inertia and other challenges that plague these large institutions. A key lesson from past failures is that multilateralism should not aim to create perfect, all-encompassing structures. Instead, the focus should be on minimizing the negative impact of geopolitical disruptions. Institutions designed with resilience in mind—rather than utopian ideals—are better positioned to endure periods of upheaval.[5]
Furthermore, to establish resilient multilateral frameworks, we need to change our guiding logic. The core principle for rethinking multilateralism should be resilience instead of perfection. Rather than striving to create institutions that promise ideal outcomes, the focus should be on building systems capable of adapting to the inevitable geopolitical upheavals of the future. This approach requires acknowledging the unpredictable nature of the international system and designing institutions with the flexibility to evolve. Resilient multilateralism focuses on building frameworks that can withstand shocks, adjust to new circumstances, and maintain effective operations even during disruptions.[6]
Minilateralism: A Model for the Future?
Minilateralism offers a compelling alternative to traditional multilateralism. It refers to a form of international cooperation that involves a smaller group of countries or stakeholders, typically fewer than what is seen in multilateral frameworks, to address specific issues or achieve targeted goals. It is inherently flexible, informal, and focused on specific issues, making it well-suited to the turbulent nature of the current international system. For instance, the Quad’s emphasis on Indo-Pacific security and technology cooperation demonstrates how such alignments can address immediate challenges without requiring the broad-based agreement and consensus of dozens of member states. Similarly, minilateral initiatives like the “Gavi Alliance” for vaccines or the “International Solar Alliance” demonstrate the effectiveness of targeted cooperation in addressing specific challenges. These frameworks exemplify how smaller, focused groupings can achieve tangible results in areas where traditional multilateral institutions have failed[7].
In a fragmented international system, these minilateral groupings, like interest-based coalitions, can provide pragmatic solutions. These groupings enable nations to collaborate on specific issues without requiring broad-based agreements and huge commitments. Moreover, since these frameworks are issue-specific, they allow countries to insulate their relationships from other potential divergences. By focusing on shared interests rather than overarching agendas, these frameworks can adapt to the unique needs of the moment. For instance, the “Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)” has brought together governments, industries, and civil society to accelerate vaccine development in response to emerging infectious diseases. Such targeted collaboration highlights how issue-based alignments can drive meaningful action in an era of geopolitical competition.[8]
Conclusion: Toward a Resilient Multilateral Order
The international system is undergoing a period of profound shifts, marked by uncertainty, fragmentation, and geopolitical disruption. In this context, adapting multilateral frameworks to the geopolitical realities of existing time is important. The nature of a problem determines its solutions, and the fluidity of existing order must be matched by the fluidity of these frameworks we adopt to navigate it. To reimagine multilateralism, we must embrace flexibility, adaptability, and resilience in our approach.
Rather than romanticizing and aiming for idealized institutions designed for static conditions, the focus should be on creating frameworks that can withstand the turbulence of an unpredictable world. Rather than striving to create “perfect” multilateral structures, we should focus on designing institutions capable of withstanding disruptions. Whether through reforming existing institutions or building new ones, the objective should be to design arrangements that minimize the impact of geopolitical upheavals and adapt to changing realities. The maxim guiding the logic for the creation or reform of existing multilateral structures should be: how can we reduce the likelihood of conflict and mitigate the negative consequences of geopolitical turbulence?
Framing our approach in such a way to address upcoming geopolitical challenges is pragmatic because it allows us to manage disruptions effectively. However, if we adopt an absolutist mindset in our approach and then design structures accordingly, we may find ourselves unable to manage such disruptions, as demonstrated by the limitations of the United Nations and various other multilateral institutions. Instead of striving to eliminate instability, which is unrealistic, the focus should be on managing and adapting to it. We must factor unpredictability into our approach while shaping these structures; then only they can become resilient.
Moreover, while designing the new frameworks, the focus should not be on “arresting the future changes” but rather on adapting to it. Humanity has not yet reached a stage where rigid structures can effectively anticipate or control future contradictions and contingencies. The international system is too dynamic, non holistic, and unpredictable to accommodate rigid, one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, the objective should be to prepare for the future by creating flexible, adaptable, and inclusive systems that can evolve alongside emerging challenges. Attempting to “arrest future changes” is an exercise in futility; we can only hope to navigate and manage these changes effectively. By building resilience into global structures, we can ensure that they are better equipped to withstand and respond to the inevitable shocks and rapid shifts of the future[9].
By embracing resilience and adaptability, we can build a multilateral order capable of addressing the challenges of the 21st century. The task is urgent, the stakes are high, and the opportunity to reshape multilateralism must not be missed.
Imran Khurshid, Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Kashmir, specializes in India-US relations, Indo-Pacific studies, and South Asian security issues. He is currently associated with the International Centre for Peace Studies (ICPS) as a Visiting Research Fellow. The views expressed here are his own.
[1] Judy Dempsey, “Judy Asks: Is the Post-WWII Global Order Finally Breaking Down?”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6 may 2015.
[2] Luke Fletcher, “The Bretton Woods Institutions and the second crisis of multilateralism”, Bretton Woods Project, 30 July 2019.
[3] Deniz Aktunc, “The International Systems: Unipolarity, Bipolarity and Multipolarity”, BY Arcadia, 27 March 2024.
[4] Ankita Dutta, Patryk Kugie, “TF7_711_UNReforms.pdf”, Observer Research Foundation, June 2023.
[5] Karl Popper, “The Open Society And Its Enemies : K_r_popper”, Internet Archive, 1945.
[6] Hannah Barry, “The Pact for the Future ... of Multilateralism? A Long Road Ahead to Global Governance Reform”, International Organization and United Nations Studies Specialization (IOUNS), 28 December 2024.
[7] Ibid
[8] CEPI, “CEPI funds consortium led by CPI to advance Caltech's new all-in-one coronavirus vaccine CEPI, 5 July 2022.
[9] See note 5.
