Multilateralism ineffective?

The Forum asks Emerging Experts*
April 2024

​STATEMENT: The U.N. and other multilateral institutions* have been ineffective in responding to recent armed conflicts, such as in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and Sudan.
*This question has been scoped broadly to include regional and global multilateral institutions such as the African Union, the European Union, NATO, International Court of Justice, among others.

See all responses below, and click on photos for more information about each expert:
​
Agree
Paul Esau
Multilateral organizations represent a constant negotiation between the rules of the international order and the jealous protection of state sovereignty. As the promises of the post-Cold War order fade (globalization, the judicious application of international law, the possible end of inter-state conflict), so do the norms constructed to restrain state sovereignty. This erosion is evidenced by the return to multipolarity, the resurgence of wars of conquest, and the continuing alignment of authoritarian regimes along political and economic axes.
​
By consequence, global multilateral regimes like the U.N. have become increasingly ineffective as key authoritarian states (China and Russia) have pursued nakedly expansionist goals and key democratic states (the U.S.) have eroded the institution’s authority for the purpose of protecting bad actors (Israel and Saudi Arabia) and preserving foreign policy flexibility. As a result, regional or politically-aligned multilateral organizations such as the European Union, NATO, ASEAN, and BRICS have enjoyed increasing influence and (in many cases) an expansion in membership. In other words, while the U.N. has been relatively ineffective at responding to recent armed conflicts because of the national interests of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, regional multilateral organizations are picking up the slack. This shift may not immediately benefit attempts (generally U.N.-based) to de-escalate conflicts in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and Sudan, and to resume progress on key arms control topics, but it may eventually catalyze a long-desired restructuring of the UN Security Council to better represent the Global South and dismantle global hierarchies formalized nearly 80 years ago after the Second World War.
Julius Gaiya
I agree with the statement that the U.N. and other multilateral institutions have been ineffective in responding to recent armed conflicts, such as those in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and Sudan. There are clear reasons to support this viewpoint, particularly regarding the lack of effective resolutions or actions that have reduced civilian casualties and the failure to form a consensus that would mitigate the root causes of these conflicts or, at the very least, respond decisively when harm is inflicted upon civilians.

One of the key criticisms of the U.N. and other multilateral institutions is their inability to implement effective resolutions or take decisive actions that would effectively reduce civilian casualties in these conflict zones. Despite the presence of peacekeeping missions and humanitarian efforts, armed conflicts continue to result in significant harm to innocent civilians. The lack of concrete measures and robust enforcement mechanisms has allowed the violence to persist and the suffering of civilians to continue unabated.

In addition, the failure to form a consensus among member states on how to address the root causes of these conflicts has impeded progress towards sustainable peace. These conflicts are often deeply rooted in historical, political, and territorial disputes, making them complex and challenging to resolve. However, the U.N. and other multilateral institutions have struggled to bring all relevant parties to the table and forge a collective agreement on how to address these underlying issues. This failure to achieve consensus has perpetuated the cycles of violence and prevented the implementation of comprehensive solutions.

Furthermore, the inadequate response of these institutions in situations where harm is inflicted upon civilians is another indication of their ineffectiveness. While there have been instances of blatant violations of international humanitarian law, such as attacks on civilian infrastructure or the targeting of non-combatants, the U.N. and other multilateral institutions have often been slow to respond or have failed to take decisive action. This lack of timely and robust intervention has allowed the harm to civilians to continue, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of these institutions.

It is essential for these institutions to critically evaluate their approaches and enhance their capabilities to effectively address and resolve armed conflicts, ensuring the protection and well-being of civilian populations.
Carlos Rodrigo Peña Vega
The inefficiency of international organizations in responding to ongoing armed conflicts is directly related to the legitimacy crisis that the current international system is going through. Considering that the non-binding nature of international laws makes their compliance, generally, dependent on the will of the States, it is increasingly common for international actors, State and non-State, to question the rules and practices that shape the international community. Such is the case of the growing call from different countries to reform the U.N. Security Council or the increasingly critical public opinion on the United States government's response to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Furthermore, these debates have led to an increase in international actors that are willing to contravene these norms without fear of the consequences that could arise from it, as in the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the documented violations of international humanitarian law by Israel since October 7, 2023, the attacks on commercial vessels by the Houthis off the coast of Yemen, the storming of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador in April 2024, or the coups d'etat that have taken place in West Africa in recent years, to name some examples.

Therefore, a vicious circle ends up taking shape in which international norms are increasingly undermined, resulting in an increase in international actors who decide to break them and which, in turn, provokes a broader debate regarding the necessity of deep changes in the international system. While the response of all these international organizations to the ongoing armed conflicts has been limited, the scope of that response depends, ultimately, on the States that comprise them.

Neutral
Ellie Shackleton
I'd say that these institutions have been about as effective as I would expect them to be, given their limitations. I think the International Court of Justice has been the most effective in Gaza, but no institution has been particularly effective in Ukraine or Sudan. In Ukraine, I blame Russia's position as one of the U.N. Security Council’s permanent five members  (P5) more than the bones of the institution itself. I also blame the U.S.'s position as a P5 member for the lack of more meaningful work done in Gaza. Overall, I'd place more blame on individual actors within the institutions rather than the institutions themselves.

​Disagree
Racheal Wanyana
The role of multilateral institutions in responding to armed conflicts, while largely incremental, has been pivotal and in some cases even transformational. United Nations resolutions, for instance, have provided a framework for negotiating lasting ceasefires, securing the release of hostages, and implementing humanitarian pauses. In Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has played a crucial role in the monitoring and verification of compliance with ceasefire agreements, while also facilitating parliamentary dialogue to promote the cessation of hostilities. In conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Myanmar, and beyond, multilateral bodies such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the African Union (AU) have been instrumental in fostering communication between warring parties, facilitating civilian-military dialogue, and encouraging adherence to international humanitarian law principles.

It goes without saying, of course, that these organizations operate in highly politicised and challenging environments, which impacts their agency and ability to deliver on their mandates, sometimes. Bureaucratic hurdles, political divisions and wavering cooperation of state parties, coupled with limited enforcement capabilities and resources, often hinder swift and decisive action. As a result, armed conflicts persist amidst diplomatic stalemates. Heightened geopolitical tensions are also aggravating these challenges, frustrating efforts toward peaceful resolution of conflicts.

To consolidate gains and remain relevant and fit for purpose in a fast-changing world, urgent structural and operational reforms are needed to enhance the effectiveness of multilateral organizations in addressing conflicts and advancing sustainable peace.
* Inclusion in this list does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others, nor do the opinions necessarily reflect those of the institutions with which emerging experts are affiliated. To learn more about the Emerging Experts list and program, click here and aquí. The Forum itself does not take positions.

The Forum's work is supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.