The twentieth century has seen a massive increase in multilateral diplomacy and in my opinion this is one of the most significant developments in the contemporary diplomacy. As the number of actors involved in international relations grew and the complexity of issues confronting them multiplied, so the pace and structure of bilateral diplomacy turned out to be ineffective. Multilateral conferences and summits have an ability to improve this situation. They can serve as useful fora for state and increasingly also non-state actors to engage in international politics.
Negotiations on issues related to many areas, in particular those of so-called low politics that emerged in the wake of growing globalisation and interdependence challenged the effectiveness of bilateral diplomacy. Issues like environment or political economy affect larger number of states, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to debate them within the bilateral framework. Hence, multilateral negotiations can be crucial in terms of efficiency and speed of decision-making. This does not apply to all the conferences, or international institutions associating larger numbers of states. Standing multilateral conferences, like for example the UN, which are not time and issue-area limited tend to be less effective, than time-limited conferences called to debate one particular subject.
Globalization and interdependence brought states closer to each other as never before. As more states and non-state actors were getting engaged in the conduct of negotiations, it decreased the old-time levels of secrecy and made negotiations more transparent and opened them to a wider public. This, in turn, is a very positive occurrence.
Sources:
I do agree with you that one of the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of new actors as you called it Multilateral Diplomacy. As well as I completely do agree with your point, that the globalization and interdependence brought states closer to each other as never before. This is a very important change.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the rise of global issues such as terrorism and climate change has also increased the need for states to work multilaterally to combat these issues. Although bilateral negotiations still take place behind closed doors, the rise of global issues and new actors on the world stage has led to increased open negotiations which are often played out infront of the world. With the rise of technologies I think it also makes it doubly important for states to act honestly and openly with one another to form alliances and bonds as they grow increasingly interdependent on one another in terms of economy and security.
ReplyDeleteHubert you've raised interestign and important aspects of multilateral diplomacy. I agree that countries have more common interest as well as common threats therefore more interdependent. I got an impression that you mean in a way that multilateral diplomacy has replaced bilateral diplomacy and its importance, which I tend not to agree with. As Sophie noted bilateral negotiations are widely conducted and still carry vital importance. Issues like peace in Middle East demonstrate good deal of bilateral negotiations.
ReplyDeleteFinally I agree that it is more open environment today which brings more civil participation.
I do agree with you, Hubert when you mention that the “the twentieth century has seen a massive increase in multilateral diplomacy”. A lot of events happen in the twentieth century to change the political views of negotiation for international relations. Multilateral conference and summits, the growth of globalization, the challenges of effectiveness of bilateral diplomacy they are all examples of multilateral diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with points made by Sophie and Diana. It would be untrue to simply state that multilateral diplomacy has replaced bilateral. I do agree that still many negotiations are conducted between single states. However, writing my post, I had in mind issues linked to the low-politics, particularly issues like environment, or political economy. I think that in these issue-areas multilateral talks are simply more feasible and effective and therefore largely replaced traditional bilateral negotiations.
ReplyDelete