Multilateralism under Strain: The Challenges of the European Union’s Engagement With International Institutions

Multilateralism is under strain. The election of US President Donald Trump has brought about a new challenge to the rules based international order. The EU, itself a form of multilateral cooperation, also faces internal challenges, including the migration crisis, terrorism, growing populism, and disrespect for the rule of law. This working paper discusses how the EU can respond to such internal and external challenges when engaging with multilateral institutions. At a time when multilateralism is increasingly challenged, the EU requires a clear strategy that links its general support for multilateralism with specific international objectives

Multilateralism as Terror: International Law, Haiti and Imperialism

Much of the liberal criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq has taken a legalistic form, decrying that law as 'illegal'. This criticism has often implied that US unilateralism has been definitional to the neoconservative project and the geopolitical moment, and that a contrasting and supposedly non-existent 'multilateralism' would be neither illegal nor objectionable. The overthrow of Haiti's President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in 2004 and the subsequent installing of UN MINUSTAH peace-keepers in the country was a model multilateral action, the fact of which should have problematised this model: its almost wholesale ignoring in the scholarly international law literature is therefore investigated. The intervention is understood as a successful imperialist action, and the argument made that multilateralism as much as unilateralism can easily be part of an imperialist strategy

Multilateralism versus Regionalism!?

The well-known question whether regional trade agreements (RTAs) and the multilateral trading system (MTS) are "strangers, friends, or foes" (Bhagwati and Panagariya, 1996) has gained new importance with the widespread proliferation of RTAs in recent years. Based on an extensive data set which covers most of world trade over the past 60 years and about 240 regional trade agreements, we analyze the relationship between RTAs and the MTS by combining the gravity model framework with vector auto-regression analysis. Impulse-response-functions robustly suggest that multilateral trade liberalization responds in a signifcantly positive way to regional trade liberalization. We also find robust evidence that RTA liberalization Granger-causes GATT/WTO liberalization. Thus, our results indicate that RTAs do not undermine the MTS but serve as building blocs to multilateral trade liberalization.Regionalism, multilateralism, trade agreement, gravity model

Multilateralism beyond Doha

There is a fundamental shift taking place in the world economy to which the multilateral trading system has failed to adapt. The Doha process focused on issues of limited significance while the burning issues of the day were not even on the negotiating agenda. This paper advances five propositions: (i) the traditional negotiating dynamic, driven by private sector interests largely in the rich countries, is running out of steam; (ii) the world economy is moving broadly from conditions of relative abundance to relative scarcity, and so economic security has become a paramount concern for consumers, workers, and ordinary citizens; (iii) international economic integration can contribute to enhanced security; (iv) addressing these new concerns - relating to food, energy, and economic security - requires a wider agenda of multilateral cooperation, involving not just the WTO but other multilateral institutions; and (v) despite shifts in economic power across countries, the commonality of interests and scope for give-and-take on these new issues make multilateral cooperation worth attempting.Emerging Markets,Environmental Economics&Policies,Economic Theory&Research,Debt Markets,

Multilateralism Beyond Doha

There is a fundamental shift taking place in the world economy to which the multilateral trading system has failed to adapt. The Doha process focused on issues of limited significance while the burning issues of the day were not even on the negotiating agenda. The paper advances five propositions: (i) the traditional negotiating dynamic, driven by private sector interests largely in the rich countries, is running out of steam; (ii) the world economy is moving broadly from conditions of relative abundance to relative scarcity, and so economic security has become a paramount concern for consumers, workers, and ordinary citizens; (iii) international economic integration can contribute to enhanced security; (iv) addressing these new concerns – relating to food, energy and economic security - requires a wider agenda of multilateral cooperation, involving not just the WTO but other multilateral institutions; and (v) despite shifts in economic power across countries, the commonality of interests and scope for give-and-take on these new issues make multilateral cooperation worth attempting.WTO, Doha, trade, security

Explaining rising regionalism and failing multilateralism: Consensus decision-making and expanding WTO membership

The beleaguered progress of the Doha Development Agenda of the WTO presents something of a puzzle for economic theory: if multilateralism is an effective forum for liberalisation (as it has been in the past), then why have the current round of talks faltered amid the proliferation of preferential trade negotiations? Several authors have argued that the consensus decision-making and single-undertaking principles of the WTO have lead to coordination failures amongst an increasingly expanded and diverse membership which has caused frustrated WTO members to form PTAs. This paper constructs a formal model which shows that the combination of the single-undertaking and consensus decision-making principles with an expanded and more diverse membership can lead to more than just coordination failure; it can render multilateralism less desirable for some parties than bilateralism. It is argued that these principles give countries de facto veto power meaning that their threat point during multilateral negotiations is a reversion to bilateral negotiations between all parties. Accordingly, countries with relatively less to gain from multilateralism can use their veto power to extract gains from those that would benefit substantially from the WTO. If an expanding membership has increased the number of such countries, then the benefits of multilateralism versus regionalism from the perspective of their negotiating partners may have been diminished to such an extent that they are no longer willing to wait for the conclusion of the Doha round before engaging in regional negotiations. This result adds credence to the idea that ‘variable geometry’ be introduced into the WTO system, such that it acts as an umbrella organisation for a web of sub-agreements.Multilateralism, Liberalisation, Trade negotiation, Variable geometry

Conference Report The 16th Asia Europe Economic Forum. EU-Asia trade and investment connectivity

Global economic trends over the last decades have steadily increased the links between Asia and Europe. For both regions, a growing economic interdependency represents an opportunity to build strong, fair and sustainable relations. Nonetheless, constant global economic disruptions, political uncertainty and a rapid change in economic dynamics make cooperation no easy task for policy makers. With strong recognition of this challenge, the Asia Europe Economic Forum (AEEF) contributes to interregional cooperation with the diversification and consolidation of the links between Asia and Europe. The AEEF was established in 2006 by Jean Pisani-Ferry, the then-director of the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, as a high-level forum to bring together Asian and European senior policy makers and experts. As such, the Forum is a platform for research-based exchange and discussion on global issues and mutual interests. It is here where Asian and European policy experts can learn from each other, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the economic and political ties between Asia and Europe. The AEEF is all about bringing countries together and building partnerships with regard to shared interests—the AEEF is all about connectivity (see Box 1).

Free Trade and New Economic Powers: The Worldview of Peter Mandelson

This paper uses the Operational Code methodology in order to study Peter Mandelson's worldviews. Using speeches from the public record I constructed Mandelson's views of the international relations and of the EU's relationships with other countries as well as his role as a leading actor. The results of the study suggest that Mandelson advocates the values of multilateralism and free trade. He considers them as the principles which should order EU's foreign policies. In his view, it is the task of the United State and of the EU to strengthen such international values in order to fight against poverty and declining economies across the world. By promoting such values the EU is protecting and furthering its own interests worldwide.EU external trade policy, free trade, multilateralism, power politics, globalisation

Bilateralism, multilateralism, and the quest for global free trade

We develop an equilibrium theory of trade agreements in which both the degree and the nature (bilateral or multilateral) of trade liberalization are endogenously determined. To determine whether and how bilateralism matters, we also analyze a scenario where countries pursue trade liberalization on only a multilateral basis. We find that when countries have asymmetric endowments or when governments value producer interests more than tari¤ revenue and consumer surplus, there exist circumstances where global free trade is a stable equilibrium only if countries are free to pursue bilateral trade agreements. By contrast, under symmetry, both bilateralism and multilateralism yield global free trade.Bilateral trade agreements, multilateral trade liberalization, free trade agreements, GATT

United States Human Rights Policy in the 21st Century in an Age of Multilateralism Respondent

Professor Harold Koh\u27s thoughtful article, A United States Human Rights Policy for the 21st Century, 46 ST. Louis U. L.J. 293 (2002), ends with the observation that globalization has both sinister and constructive faces. \u27 Indeed, we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. Even some of those opposed to the project of globalization ironically depend on the tools of globalization to undermine it. Consider the terrorists who hijacked airplanes on September 11, 2001 and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of innocent civilians from many different nations. The terrorists used the Internet and other online technology to spread the message of hate underlying their plot, transnational money transfers to finance it, and commercial airlines to execute it. Rather than allow such sinister forms of interdependence to flourish without an effective counter-weight, U.S. human rights policy in the twenty-first century should be more fully engaged in shaping and participating in international institutions and legal regimes that promote constructive forms of global interdependence. However, the United States has disengaged from a number of critical efforts to promote rule of law through multilateral institutions and regimes. This disengagement is disturbing and can be criticized on both normative and instrumentalist grounds. In this Response, I first discuss a number of international initiatives in which U.S. participation was sought but rejected or resisted. Second, I discuss normative considerations concerning U.S. participation in international institutions. Finally, I turn to instrumentalist considerations concerning U.S. involvement in these institutions