True multilateral cooperation is based on the effective complementarity of governance through rules and governance through goals. Photo: TUCHONG

Multilateralism is a form of global governance with participation from most countries, aiming to define diverse matters of principle, in particular to oppose discriminatory international arrangements. Building a human community with a shared future necessitates support from a cooperation framework marked by true multilateralism, and it is even more necessary to produce corresponding theoretical and practical results at the stages of building consensus, formulating norms, and enforcing rules. Only multilateralism that truly upholds the principles of sovereign equality, openness, and inclusiveness can bridge divides, build consensus, and “illuminate the way forward for humanity.”

True multilateralism 

Practicing true multilateralism is an important part of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy. Upholding true multilateralism is the practical foundation for effectively promoting global governance reforms. True multilateralism is not an exclusionary small bloc, nor is it a complete negation or overthrow of existing cooperation frameworks and institutional arrangements. Instead, it is a tough process of fully respecting the principles of sovereign equality and openness, reaching consensus through consultation among all parties involved, and transforming the consensus into acceptable norms and operational rules, which requires concrete actions of all parties.

As a product of history, multilateralism differs from multilateral systems of various forms, and it doesn’t equate to multilateral diplomacy that is not holistic. Instead, it represents a basic form of international contact. Multilateralism is not once and for all, but an evolving political process in which the experiences of different historical periods and countries or regions are likely to generate an effective multilateral consensus which can be translated into concrete norms and enforceable rules. 

As European multilateralism is flawed for identity homogeneity and American multilateralism often resorts to exclusionary rules, the majority of developing countries actively explored multilateral consensus and effective cooperation methods tailored to their own development conditions and actual needs after the Cold War ended. These multilateralism consensus and cooperation methods have consistently emphasized sovereign equality of the participants, accommodating their differences and pluralistic demands, and adhering to the basic pathway of building consensus through consultation. This is a new type of multilateralism that conforms to the principles of sovereign equality, indivisible political power and responsibility, and diffusive reciprocity, and is also multilateralism in the true sense.

The first two decades of the 21st century have proven that the human world, in which traditional and non-traditional security crises overlap, does not automatically gain more optimistic prospects because of economic growth and technological progress. Multifold and complex security threats to the survival of mankind require all countries and individuals to arrive at a basic consensus based on the shared destiny of humanity. The community built on the basis of this consensus is of contemporary significance for the development of international relations, and can lead to effective multilateral cooperation, avoid disasters caused by historical disputes, geopolitical competition, and ideological conflicts between countries, and foster a new global consensus for cooperation in addressing common threats such as climate change and global public health crises.

Consensus reached through consultation can prompt participants to contribute to possible cooperation and bridging divides, and is therefore a fundamental indicator of the effectiveness of multilateralism. Nonetheless, consensus without subsequent substantive actions to support it and related goals indicates merely a phased result of multilateralism. Based on the goals and consensus of multilateralism, participants’ continued actions to translate the objectives into concrete norms and enforceable rules for cooperation are essential, otherwise multilateralism is meaningless. 

With this objective understanding of the essential characteristics of multilateralism, true multilateral cooperation needs to be based on the effective complementarity of rule- and goal-based governance. 

Complementarity of rules and goals

Safeguarding multilateralism is an ongoing and dynamic process. Generally, multilateralism may pass through three stages in its development: building consensus, formulating norms, and enforcing rules. However, multilateralism manifests itself in different ways in the three different stages, and not all multilateral collaborations experience all the three stages. For example, as a result of the third stage of rule implementation, the effectiveness of multilateral systems is inseparable from the supply of funds and resources, and a supply mechanism failure will lead to an institutional failure, which in turn will undermine or even disrupt multilateral cooperation. 

Most of the multilateral systems developed and led by the United States after WWII are based on the liberal economic assumption that a multilateral system takes effect for saving the costs of information asymmetry which would undermine international cooperation. However, this assumption is valid for only part of the global agenda, because the level of information transparency determines whether a multilateral system can be formed in certain fields of governance, but it does not imply multilateralism in that field.

Regardless of the level of information transparency, as long as there is a consensus on cooperation, the specific norms and rules of cooperation may take different forms, and multilateral systems only represent one of these forms. Multilateralism should not be completely dismissed if a multilateral system fails, nor should continuous cooperation be hindered by exclusionary “pseudo-multilateralism” under the guise of “multilateralism.” In fact, the Paris Agreement has been effective in strengthening climate cooperation precisely because it introduced a goal-based approach to redeem the failures and inefficiencies of rule-based governance that has long been dominated by developed industrial countries.

Rule-based governance conforms to the political and economic realities of the post-WWII world, which relies primarily on power and resource advantages of developed industrial countries to translate the consensus of multilateral cooperation into concrete rules of conduct, but this translation is not the only path to cooperation. The rule-enforcement phase connects multilateral consensus with action, which, on the one hand, helps multilateralism promote the development of world political economy. On the other hand, if the promotion of development encounters difficulties, setbacks, or even crises, the old arrangements for multilateralism will be no longer applicable, putting the building of a new consensus on the agenda. This is the regular characteristic of the practice of multilateralism, and the fundamental reason why governance through rules and governance through goals should be complementary rather than substitutive.

Governance through goals shifts the focus of multilateral cooperation from implementation of rules established through cooperation to forming a basic cooperation consensus. It acknowledges the differences in resources and mindsets among partners, encourages the participants to independently craft solutions to achieve the cooperation targets, and incorporates the time cost required for cooperation into the cooperation process, thus easing the pressure of political negotiation. The resultant new ideas are also conducive to institutional innovation and reform, and this mutual promotion and mutual generation is one of the complementary manifestations of goal- and rule-based governance.

As one of the important outcomes of governance through goals, the 2015 Paris Agreement was concluded thanks to the establishment of the “Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)” rule, which effectively responded to the long-standing debate between developed and developing countries on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Developed countries have pledged their NDCs to quantifying and reducing their total greenhouse gas emissions, while developing countries have committed to lowering the energy intensity of their major industries. Both blocs have made practical efforts to achieve the climate goal of slowing global warming. Therefore, the debate over the applicability of rules in response to climate change has shifted to negotiation over operational quantitative metrics, and this effective compatibility and mutual transformation is another example of the complementarity of governance through goals and rule-based governance.

Advancing global governance reform

Governance through goals objectively admits the complexity and uncertainty of global governance issues since the inception of the 21st century. Taking the evolution of multilateral cooperation under the framework of the United Nations to the Millennium Development Goals (2000–15) and the Sustainable Development Goals (2016–30) as an example, the fundamental change is that one-sided dependence on the supply and maintenance of rules by developed industrial countries since the end of WWII has shifted to the setting of priorities within a certain time period through the principle of consensus through consultation, and then the use of specific projects under the priority framework to integrate multiple forces and achieve cooperation. 

The goal-based approach to governance successfully compensates for the threshold restrictions imposed by rule-based governance on cooperative participants, and more fully respects the principle of sovereign equality and the reasonable needs of different countries to seek independent development paths, which is crucial for effectively promoting global governance reforms. It is also an affirmation of the collective rise of developing countries.

In today’s world, the international community is struggling to reform the global governance system, due partly to the external pressure brought by developed countries’ shirking of responsibilities and developing nations’ dissatisfaction with existing rules. The rapid deterioration of the global ecosystem and the collapse of internal structures caused by the quick erosion of traditional state power and borders by thriving digital information technology are also to blame. 

As such, multilateralism is particularly valuable as a form of international interaction since it meets the needs of global governance development trends. In the face of the countdown to the 2030 climate plan, the international community should thoroughly integrate governance through goals and governance through rules during the design of multilateral cooperation frameworks in the digital field. The principles of sovereign equality, and fairness and justice should serve as the premise to provide space for different participants to make self-determined contributions as much as possible, instead of excluding them based on power and resources, still less allowing developed countries to continue to exacerbate the development gap with their power advantage.

In short, the nature of multilateralism is immutable, but the specific forms and rules of multilateralism are subject to more frequent and substantial adjustments to new ages, spaces, and issues than at any other time in history. If it is hard to meet the standards of rule-based governance through these changes, then efforts are needed in governance through goals. For example, as the voice of social media increasingly penetrates all corners of the world’s political economy, multilateral cooperation in the digital information age will inevitably reflect more of the will and consensus of the people, which is also a challenge to and dilution of the traditional path to multilateralism. This highlights the necessity to build effective consensus and form corresponding norms and rules through innovative ideas and practices.

Li Xiaoyan is an associate professor from the School of Political Science and Public Administration at the China University of Political Science and Law. 

Edited by CHEN MIRONG