Editing Multilateralism (section)

== Challenges ==
The multilateral system has encountered mounting challenges since the end of the Cold War.<ref>Kim Fontaine-Skronski, Valériane Thool & Norbert Eschborn, ''Does the UN Model Still Work? Challenges and Prospects for the Future of Multilateralism'', Leiden, Brill, 2023, https://brill.com/display/title/61341</ref>

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 [[Secretary-General of the United Nations|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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hook |first1=Steven |title=American Foreign Policy Since World War II |last2=Spanier |first2=John |publisher=CQ Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-933116-71-6 |page=305 |chapter=Chapter 12: America Under Fire |name-list-style=amp}}</ref> Under President [[George W. Bush]] the United States rejected such multilateral agreements as the [[Kyoto Protocol]], the [[International Criminal Court]], the [[Ottawa Treaty]] banning [[Anti-personnel mine|anti-personnel land mines]] and a draft protocol to ensure compliance by States with the [[Biological Weapons Convention]]. Also under the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|George W. Bush administration]], the United States withdrew from the [[Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty]], which the Richard [[Presidency of Richard Nixon|Nixon administration]] and the Soviet Union had signed in 1972.

These challenges presented by the U.S. could be explained by a strong belief in bilateral alliances as instruments of control. Liberal institutionalists would argue, though, that great powers might still opt for a multilateral alliance. But great powers can amplify their capabilities to control small powers and maximize their leverage by forging a series of bilateral arrangements with allies, rather than see that leverage diluted in a multilateral forum. Arguably, the Bush administration favoured bilateralism over multilateralism, or even unilateralism, for similar reasons. Rather than going it alone or going it with others, the administration opted for intensive one-on-one relationships with handpicked countries that maximized the U.S. capacity to achieve its objectives.<ref>Cha, Victor D. "Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system in Asia." International Security 34.3 (2010):166-167</ref>

Another challenge in global governance through multilateralism involves national sovereignty. Regardless of the erosion of nation-states' legal and operational sovereignty in international relations, "nation-states remain the ultimate locus of authoritative decision making regarding most facets of public and private life".<ref name=" Stanley Hoffmann pp 27-35">Stanley Hoffmann, “World governance: beyond utopia,” Daedalus, 132:1, pp 27-35.</ref> [[Stanley Hoffmann|Hoffman]] asserted that nation-states are "unlikely to embrace abstract obligations that clash with concrete calculations of national interest."<ref name="Stanley Hoffmann pp 27-35"/>

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. The original sponsor of post-war multilateralism in economic regimes, the United States, turned towards unilateral action and in trade and other negotiations as a result of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of multilateral fora. As the most powerful nation, the United States had the least to lose from abandoning multilateralism; the weakest nations have the most to lose, but the cost for all would be high.<ref name="McLeanMcMillan2009">{{cite book|author1=Iain McLean|author2=Alistair McMillan|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT519|date=26 February 2009|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-101827-5|page=519}}</ref>  Aside from changes in the US, [[Populism in Europe#21st century|populism in Europe]] has proven to be problematic to multilateralism in recent years.  Results from direct elections to the [[European Parliament]] give evidence to this claim, as Eurosceptic parties have made advances.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://election-results.eu/|title=Home {{!}} 2019 European election results {{!}} European Parliament|website=www.election-results.eu/|language=en|access-date=2019-09-09}}</ref>