The New Dynamics of Multilateralism

Diplomacy, International Organizations, and Global Governance

James P. Muldoon, Joann Fagot Aviel, Richard Reitano

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780813344812
• eBook ISBN: 9780429975820
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This timely new book focuses on the various dynamics of contemporary multilateralism as it relates to global issues, global governance, and global institutions. Invited authorities, including academics, business people, and members of international groups, contribute original essays on how multilateralism as an institution has been affected by globalization, the rise of civil society and global business, emerging economic and political conditions, and new threats to peace and security in the world. Emphasizing practical applications over theoretical foundations, The New Dynamics of Multilateralism helps students understand how the practice of multilateral diplomacy has been influenced by the changes in the processes and procedures of international organizations and the role of multilateralism in the transformation of the international system of governance and the transition to an emerging new global order.

PART ONE

The Mechanics of Multilateralism: Past and Present

Introduction

James P. Muldoon, Jr.

What does it mean when a scholar or analyst of international relations says that we live in a “multilateral world” or that the United States has abandoned “multilateralism”? One might have an intuitive understanding of what these words mean but be hard-pressed to define them. Most people, including those who write or speak about world affairs, only have a superficial understanding of what multilateralism is and how it works. Even in academic circles the concept of multilateralism and its role in today’s world is poorly understood. The implications of this lack of understanding are not simply academic; there are real-world consequences—U.S. policies of the past several years, for instance. In other words, multilateralism—how it is conceived, how it works—is important. As John Ruggie (1993) and his colleagues argued nearly twenty years ago, multilateralism matters.

Since this is the fundamental premise of this entire volume, it is only reasonable to begin by looking at the history and evolution of multilateralism to establish a baseline of the phenomenon and its ongoing relevance. The chapters in this part of the book set the stage in that they describe the development of multilateralism conceptually and practically, while at the same time showing how it shapes, and is shaped by, changes in world politics and world order. As Robert Cox pointed out in 1992, “Multilateralism is not just a passive, dependent activity. It can appear in another aspect as an active force shaping world order” (1996, 494).

Chapter 1 focuses on multilateral diplomacy and chronicles the rise of the multilateral form within the institution of diplomacy. In this chapter, Geoffrey Wiseman explains how multilateralism has become “a primary, interrelated norm of diplomatic culture” and the various affects it has had on the institution and practice of diplomacy since its emergence during the twentieth century. Chapter 2 shifts the focus to international institutions and organizations. Michael Schechter provides a detailed account of multilateralism’s conceptual development in the field of international organizations, highlighting the way structural changes in the international system have led to “a redefinition of international organizations and a revision of the conventional understanding of multilateralism.” The third chapter, by Volker Rittberger and Andreas Kruck, situates multilateralism within the narrative of global governance. They show the evolution of multilateralism as an institutional form and mode of global governance and illustrate how the shape of multilateralism is changing.

A reading of the chapters in this part will make it abundantly clear that multilateralism has become, and is, a core feature of diplomacy, international organizations, and global governance and a defining aspect of an emerging global order. Multilateralism’s meanings are not, and should not be, confined to a particular mode of interaction between three or more states or to a particular structure or organization involving three or more states; to do so misses too much of the dynamics of world politics, particularly the growing influence and expanding role of nonstate actors. Its meanings have changed, adjusting to the context and the new cast of characters on the world stage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the key to understanding multilateralism and its relevance today is the dynamics of the roles and relationships of the actors who define and shape the world politically, economically, and socially.

References

Cox, R. W., with T. J. Sinclair. 1996. Approaches to world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruggie, J. G., ed. 1993. Multilateralism matters: The theory and praxis of an institutional form. New York: Columbia University Press.

1

Norms and Diplomacy: The Diplomatic Underpinnings of Multilateralism

Geoffrey Wiseman

Multilateralism is a primary, interrelated norm of diplomatic culture, along with use of force only as a last resort and in self-defense, continuous bilateral dialogue between officially recognized representatives, dialogue that is as open and transparent as possible, and civility and tact as the essence of diplomatic discourse. Part of the difficulty in understanding multilateralism’s diplomatic underpinnings, or foundational assumptions, is that multilateralism is what constructivist theorists call a taken-for-granted norm (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). In other words, aspects of the multilateral norm have become so deeply internalized that we no longer appreciate their causative and constitutive effects (Wiseman 2005, 415; cf. Mearsheimer 1994–1995).

To gain an understanding of the diplomatic underpinnings of multilateralism, I address four specific questions:

1. How has multilateralism been conceptualized in the field of diplomatic studies?

2. How has the evolution of the institution of diplomacy (in the modern sense) defined the operation and/or development of multilateralism?

3. Are there significant changes in the perception and/or practice of multilateralism within diplomatic studies?

4. How has diplomatic studies responded to the debate about the changing role(s) of states, nonstate actors, and international secretariats?

Definitional Issues

I use the term diplomatic studies to mean a subfield within the wider academic field of international relations (IR). This term implies the self-conscious study of, or research into, interactions and relationships between entities with standing in global politics (primarily sovereign states and international organizations) that are intended to reduce conflict and promote cooperation. I use the more neutral phrase “study of diplomacy” in referring to writings by authors who show an awareness of the multilateral process’s diplomatic underpinnings but do not necessarily self-identify with diplomatic studies. In fact, it may be helpful to distinguish between a tradition (comprising intellectually connected scholars said by others to constitute a tradition, often ex post facto) and a field (comprising epistemically connected scholars who organize themselves into a self-identified professional network).¹ At some risk of oversimplification, diplomatic studies can generally be distinguished from such fields as international organizations and global governance by virtue of the priority it accords to the practice (procedures, tactics, means) of IR and diplomacy as distinct from the theory (substance, strategy, ends).²

Conceptualizing Multilateral Diplomacy

In diplomatic studies, diplomacy is closely associated with a Westphalian, territorial, and sovereign-state set of conceptual assumptions generally connoting the idea that states should settle problems using peaceful means (e.g., persuasion) rather than coercion (e.g., military force). Additionally, scholars of diplomacy tend to distinguish between foreign policy, meaning the formulation of a state’s grand strategy, or worldview, and diplomacy, meaning the practical implementation of foreign policy, usually by professional diplomats (Nicolson [1939] 1969, 3–5; Wiseman 2005, 410–411).

The idea that representatives from two or more political entities should meet to work out differences, using tools of persuasion and dialogue, had a long premodern history that led to the establishment of a resident embassy during the Italian Renaissance (Mattingly 1955; Anderson 1993; Cohen 2001). Such classical diplomacy writers as François de Callières focused on bilateral diplomacy, which came to mean the conduct of relations between two states, generally via resident missions (Keens-Soper and Schweizer 1983). Modern scholars of diplomacy have helpfully chronicled and assembled the classical writings from Niccolò Machiavelli and Hugo Grotius to Ernest Satow, Harold Nicolson, and Henry Kissinger on such practical topics as the ideal ambassador, the art of negotiating, the right of legations, and the law of nations (Berridge, Keens-Soper, and Otte 2001).

In the twentieth century, and in the wake of real-world practice, the study of diplomacy added a second dimension to the bilateral form to arrive at multilateral diplomacy, which now means relations among three or more states at permanent or ad hoc international conferences (Berridge and James 2003, 176–177). While multilateral diplomacy is generally seen to have expanded its scope, functions, and influence since the 1919 Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I, diplomacy scholars are quick to note that multilateralism can be traced to such major conferences as the Congress of Westphalia in 1648 and the concert system arising from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (Davis Cross 2007). They also draw attention to the important technical conferences of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 90–98; Berridge 2005, 151–156).

The idea that adding a more institutionalized multilateral dimension to traditional bilateral diplomacy would strengthen peace and international cooperation arose most dramatically with proposals for a League of Nations following World War I. Previously, the widely held view had been that war and conflict were less likely if diplomatic dialogue and communication were conducted continuously between sovereign states, including hostile ones, notably through bilateral exchange of diplomatic missions in the respective capitals.

Such critics as U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, however, objected to the old diplomacy, seeing it as a cause of war itself. For them, the old diplomacy implied a reliance on the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century idea that countries form alliances and go to war to prevent any one power from predominating and upsetting the precarious power balance. The problem was that these alliances, often negotiated in secret, were ultimately unstable. Wilson argued for a new diplomacy, one characterized by more openness and less secrecy; self-determination for the peoples of the disintegrating German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires; and the institutionalization of multilateral diplomacy, notably with the establishment of the League of Nations with a permanent secretariat in Geneva (Sofer 1988).

Nicolson, like Satow before him, in many ways personified early, traditional diplomatic studies with its focus on the role and techniques of professional diplomats serving in the foreign ministry at home and in embassies abroad. Nicolson came to be a staunch critic of the multilateral method, deeming it susceptible to propaganda and distorting pressures from ill-informed publics. He argued that “diplomacy by conference” (“the American method”) was damaging and dangerous and would undermine the discretion and confidentiality required for effective diplomacy (Nicolson [1954] 1966, 119, 99; Otte 2001, 151–180).

Bolshevik revolutionaries also criticized the old diplomacy, but for different reasons. After the 1917 Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky challenged the need for the traditional sovereign state, seeing it as a tool of the bourgeoisie and thus of diplomacy itself. Indeed, as foreign commissar in 1918, Trotsky famously promised to issue a few declarations and to shut down the foreign ministry (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 148–153). This did not happen, as we know, but diplomacy’s very existence was challenged. The Bolsheviks regarded Wilson’s promotion of multilateral diplomacy as a Western attempt to cloak a bourgeois institution in sheep’s clothing. Notwithstanding the objections of Western skeptics and Soviet revolutionaries, diplomacy came to be seen in both bilateral and multilateral terms after World War I. In short, multilateral diplomacy’s rise in the interwar years, notably in the League of Nations (but also in such technical bodies as the International Labor Organization), constituted a major paradigm shift toward “institutionalized multilateralism” (Thakur 2002, 283).

Following World War II and during the Cold War, IR theory in the United States paid relatively little attention to the theoretical, let alone practical, dimensions of multilateral diplomacy. There were, however, important exceptions, such as Hans Morgenthau’s classic Politics Among Nations ([1948] 2006, chs. 31 and 32). Influential research was done on European integration (Haas [1958] 2004), but this fell under the IR and international organization rubrics, not diplomatic studies (Barnett and Finnemore 2008, 41–57). It focused on institutional design and cooperation effects at the macro level, not on the micro level social practices of the organizations’ diplomats and bureaucrats—the fodder of diplomacy scholars. Thus, only a few scholars addressed bilateral and multilateral diplomatic norms, rules, and relationships from a procedural perspective, concentrating on “the technicalities and minutiae of the day-to-day duties and responsibilities of the diplomat [as] chronicled in numerous manuals, memoirs, and biographies of practitioners” (Muldoon 2005, 7). This emphasis on practice distinguishes diplomatic studies as a subfield of IR, differing significantly in method, temperament, and focus from such well-established fields as international organization and such recently established fields as global governance.

Since the Cold War’s end and the related rise of globalizing economic forces and their impact on trade, scholars of diplomacy have tended to see themselves as members of a distinctive field of study. Much of their work has focused on multilateral diplomacy, sometimes at the expense of bilateral diplomacy. Additionally, thoughtful writings by former practitioners describe multilateral practices in astute detail with a view to improving the process (Walker 2004).

In spite, or perhaps because, of U.S. ambivalence toward the United Nations, a strong body of writings about the United Nations emerged during the late and post–Cold War periods. (For a good summary, see Weiss and Daws 2007; also see, for example, Ruggie 1993; Luck 1999; Schlesinger 2003; Malone 2004; Hurd 2007; Bosco 2009; and Patrick 2009.) It is notable that much of this literature tends not to see the United Nations in diplomatic terms, in the senses used here. Moreover, the scholarship fits not under diplomatic studies but under the rubric of IR or UN studies.³

As noted earlier, diplomatic studies differs from other fields in not taking diplomacy for granted. Scholars of diplomacy have drawn attention to various practical innovations in multilateral diplomacy—for instance, peacekeeping (James 1990), informal groups (Leigh-Phippard 1999), and the use of the United Nations and other venues for back-channel contacts (Bell 1999). In so doing, these scholars generally perform as epistemic torchbearers—that is, scholars of a subject whose importance goes unrecognized by others. The field of diplomatic studies has been overshadowed by others like UN studies, foreign policy analysis, international organizations, and international political economy.

Until about twenty years ago, the study of diplomacy tended to “address” multilateral diplomacy rather than “conceptualize” its worthwhile focus on practices. Traditionally, diplomatic studies has shown less interest in conceptualizing and theorizing itself and on doing so in ways that draw on, and speak to, other fields of study. This has now changed significantly, and interesting new work is being done by theorists with interdisciplinary sensibilities and, in some cases, intimate insider knowledge.

The Institution of Diplomacy

Diplomacy may be seen in a wide sense as an institution that helps provide order in the international society of states and in a narrow sense as the process by which individual sovereign states or other entities with standing conduct relations by peaceful means (Jönsson and Hall 2005, 25).

Perhaps more than any other branch of IR, English School theory—with epistemic and intellectual connections to what I am calling diplomatic studies—has given most weight to the notion of diplomacy as an institution. Most boldly of all, Martin Wight described the diplomatic system as the “master-institution” of IR (1986, 113). In The Anarchical Society, Hedley Bull described diplomacy as one of five key institutions underpinning and maintaining international order, along with the balance of power, international law, war, and the great powers (Bull [1977] 2002; on the English School, see also Dunne 1998...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• PART ONE THE MECHANICS OF MULTILATERALISM: PAST AND PRESENT
• PART TWO THE ROLE OF STATE ACTORS IN TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DIPLOMACY
• PART THREE THE ROLE OF NONSTATE ACTORS: ESSENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?
• PART FOUR THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIATS
• PART FIVE REFLECTIONS ON THE NEW DYNAMICS OF MULTILATERALISM
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• Index