The Transformation of Multilateralism Mode 1.0 to Mode 2.0
| Author | Luk Van Langenhove |
| Published date | 01 October 2010 |
| Date | 01 October 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00042.x |
The Transformation of Multilateralism
Mode 1.0 to Mode 2.0
Luk Van Langenhove
UNU-CRIS
Abstract
This article presents an analysis of the multilateral
system, arguing that multilateralism is going through a
profound set of changes as a result of: (1) the emergence
of new multilateral actors; (2) the development of new
multilateral playing fields; and (3) the rise of new
concepts of multilateralism. This has consequences for
world politics: the world is moving from unipolarity
towards a networked form of multipolarity. This article
proposes to grasp these changes through the ‘Web 2.0’
metaphor, as the existing multilateral system is
contrasted with the emerging ‘Mode 2.0’ of which the
main characteristics are: (1) the diversification of
multilateral organisations; (2) the growing importance
of nonstate actors such as substate regions and
supranational regional organisations; (3) the increased
interlinkages between policy domains; and (4) the
growing space for citizen involvement. The main
upshot is that the multilateral system is moving from a
closed to an open system. Both states and international
organisations will have to adapt to this new reality.
Policy Implications
•Policy makers and scholars need to be aware that
the multilateral system is undergoing radical
changes that affect global policy making.
•These changes bring with them new potentials for
an increased efficiency and legitimacy of multilater-
alism.
•Multilateral organisations, regional organisations
and states will have to adapt to the new reality and
join forces to further shape the ‘Mode 2.0’ of multi-
lateralism.
1. Multilateralism as a closed system
The present system of multilateralism has its origins in the
Second World War and the failure of its precursor, the
League of Nations (Schlesinger, 2003). At its heart lies the
world view of Franklin Roosevelt who strove for a world
founded upon four essential human freedoms: the freedom of
expression, the freedom of religion, the freedom from want
and the freedom from fear. For this to be realised,
Roosevelt dreamed of a single organisation at global level
that would bring all states together in order to maintain
international peace and security; develop international
cooperation in solving common economic, social and cul-
tural problems; and promote and encourage human rights
and fundamental freedoms (Jolly et al., 2005).
Roosevelt first suggested the name ‘United Nations’
in 1942 and on 26 June 1945 the UN Charter was signed
and this marked an important date in the history of
multilateralism.
Between 1945 and 2000 many other regional and global
inter-state structures have been created to help to deal with
the world’s problems. Today what is called the ‘multilateral
system’ consists of a myriad of agencies and institutions,
but a central place is given to the UN and the so-called
‘Bretton Woods’ institutions. Of course the principles of
multilateralism go back further than 1945. One can link
them to the emergence of a Westphalian world order built
upon sovereign states and the possibilities and necessities
for those states to cooperate with each other. Westphalia
developed slowly over three and a half centuries and was
never consolidated into one single document. Nor was the
1648 Treaty directly responsible for the creation of what
we now call the modern or liberal constitutional sovereign
state. The world order based upon a state system should
rather be seen as an unintended consequence of Westphalia
(Valaskakis, 2001, p. 48). It is a result of putting the sover-
eignty principle into practice that states became what they
are: territorial entities that exclude external actors from
domestic authority (Krasner, 1999). This in turn opened up
room for a body of international law based on treaties
between sovereign states.
Multilateralism was thus created as a form of cooperation
among states which institutionalises intergovernmental
cooperation and replaces anarchy. The starting point for
most scholars who study multilateralism is the definition by
Keohane and its expansion by Ruggie. ‘I limit multilateral-
ism to arrangements involving states’ says Keohane (1990,
p. 732, emphasis in original) and that is a core characteris-
tic of most of the academic thinking on the issue.
Global Policy Volume 1 . Issue 3 . October 2010
Global Policy (2010) 1:3 doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00042.x Copyright 2010 London School of Economics and Political Science and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Research Article
263
To continue reading
Request your trial