STATE AN D M ULTI LATERALI SM , A TH EORETI CAL APPROACH . TRAN SFORM ATI ON S I N A GLOBALI ZED I N TERN ATI ON AL SOCI ETY
Pa lom a Gon zá le z de l M iño
Full professor at t he School of Public I nt ernat ional Law and I nternat ional Relat ions of t he Universidad Com plutense de Madrid ( UCM, Spain). Coordinat or for t he course of Bachelor in I nt ernat ional Relat ions at t he Universidad Com plutense de Madrid, taught at t he School of Polit ical Sciences and Sociology. Head of t he Research Group “ Relaciones I nternacionales Siglo XXI ” ( RI S- XXI ) [I nternat ional Relat ions XXI Century] belonging t o t he Cam pus of Excellence. Senior researcher at the I nst it ut o Com plutense de Relaciones I nternacionales ( I CEI ) of t he Universidad Com plutense de Madrid. Head of t he Maghreb- Middle East Area of t he
Euro-Medit erranean Universit y I nst it ute ( EMUI ) .
Con ce pción An gu it a Olm e do concepcion.anguita@ccinf.ucm .es
Hired as Doctor of t he Universidad Com plut ense de Madrid (UCM, Spain) . Teacher of I nt ernat ional Relat ions and Public I nternat ional Law at t he School of Polit ical Sciences and Sociology. PhD in Media Studies ( 1997) . Head of t he Magister enDiplom acia Corporat iva: I nfluencia y Represent ación de I nt ereses [ Magister in Corporat e Diplom acy: I nfluence and Represent at ion of I nterest s] (UCM) . Coordinat or of t he Máster Polít ica I nternacional: Est udios sect oriales y de área [ Mast er in I nt ernat ional Policy: Area and Sectoral St udies] ( 2009- 2013) , Co-direct or of t he Magíst er en Relaciones I nternacionales y Com unicación [ Magister in I nt ernat ional Relat ions and Com m unicat ion] ( 2004- 2012) , Cert ified in Alt os Estudios de la Defensa [ High Defence St udies] ( 2008). Senior researcher at t he I nst it uto Com plutense de Est udios I nternacionales (UCM) . Mem ber of t he research t eam Relaciones I nternacionales Siglo XXI ( UCM). Mem ber of t he experts t eam of the Observat orio de la Cátedra Paz, Seguridad y Defensa of t he Universidad de Zaragoza.
Ab str a ct
The State, classical internat ional act or, has had t o readapt ion t o t he new dynam ics in t he I nt ernat ional Societ y and has given prom inence t o other act ors. I n t his logic, it ´ s relevant to analyze the role in t he int ernat ional system after the Cold War t o evaluare whet her it is st ill an act or capable of responding t o the funct ional needs of t he societ y. For t his, reaffirm s it s com m it m ent to m ult ilateralism as a response to t he m ain issue on t he int ernat ional agenda. Nam ely, is react ivat ed as an ideal tool t o m anage struct ural changes, despit e the different int erpretat ions of United States, t he European Union or t he BRI CS. The object of this analysis cont ribut e t o t he academ ic debat e and focuses on st udying the t ransform at ions of t he St ate in the globalized internat ional societ y where m ult ilat eralism has becom e a concept discussed and a com m on pract ice in t he internat ional discourse, despit e it s com plexit y and t he different visions and interpretat ions by different act ors. Mult ilateralism granted t he State a pat h of cooperat ion and underst anding as a guiding principle and foreign policy legit im izing discourse.
Ke y w or ds:
St ate; Mult ilateralism ; Unit ed States; European Union; BRI CS; TI MBI
H ow t o cit e t h is ar t icle
Miño, Palom a González and Olm edo, Concepción Anguit a ( 2013) . "State and m ult ilateralism , a t heoret ical approach. Transform at ions in a globalized internat ional societ y". JANUS.NET e-j ournal of I nt ernat ional Relat ions, Vol. 4, N.º 2, Novem ber 2013- April 2014. Consulted [ online] on date of last view, observare.ual.pt / janus.net / en_vol4_n2_art 4
70
STATE AN D M ULTI LATERALI SM , A TH EORETI CAL APPROACH . TRAN SFORM ATI ON S I N A GLOBALI ZED I N TERN ATI ON AL SOCI ETY
Pa lom a Gon zá le z de l M iño
Con ce pción An gu it a Olm e do
I . I n t rodu ct ion
The changes occur red in t he cur rent I nt ernat ional Societ y evidence m ut at ions, significant ly affect ing t he St at e, which rem ains t he classic act or of t he int ernat ional syst em , even t hough ot her int ernat ional act ors have been gaining prom inence and power. Following t his logic, it is st ill pert inent t o persist in t he analysis of t he r ole t he St at e plays in I nt ernat ional Relat ions, especially when at present , in a globalized societ y, it shares it s t radit ional suprem acy wit h ot her act ors.
Therefore, t here are several r easons t hat cont ribut e t o keeping t hese analyt ical dynam ics on t he role of t he St at e in t he int ernat ional scene. I n t he first place, t he St at e is t he inst it ut ion t hat has achieved t he m ost advanced level of developm ent as a form of socio- polit ical organizat ion. I n t he second place, because as t he classic act or of int ernat ional r elat ions, it has had t o adapt t o t he changes of t he globalized I nt ernat ional Societ y. I n t he t hird place, because it is t he m ain subj ect of sovereignt y. I n t he fourt h place, because it designs public policies based on t he polit ical- econom ic space of t he different I nt ernat ional Societ ies. I n t he fift h place, because it holds t he legit im at e m onopoly of violence; and, in t he sixt h and last place, because t he evolut ion of t he I nt ernat ional Societ y it self has m odified t he role of t he St at e, going from a West phalian syst em of powers t o a m ult ipolar one, aft er a period of bipolarit y. At present , t here has been an em er gence of som e new int ernat ional act ors t hat have increasingly m ore power and prom inence (Barbé, 2010) and t hat cont ribut e t o m odify t he policies in force.
71
I n t he last decades, and due t o t he globalizat ion processes, t he abilit y of t he St at e t o cont inue com plying wit h basic funct ions has been quest ioned: “ t he not ion of t he St at e as a self- governing unit seem s t o be m ore like a norm at ive dem and, t han a descript ion of realit y” (Held, 2002) . I n t his sense, relat ions of int erdependence overpower t he St at es’ abilit ies and j urisdict ion, t hrough t he applicat ion of ot her fram eworks of regulat ions, as well as t he t ransnat ionalizat ion of finance and t he econom ic process ( product ion, dist ribut ion and consum pt ion) . Fur t herm ore, t he em ergence of new t ransnat ional act ors, t he appearance of challenges at different levels and global safet y risks in a broad sense, t he weakening of nat ional ident it ies and sovereignt y erosion are decisive fact ors t hat quest ion t he r ole of St at e as an agent capable of providing answers t o t he funct ional needs of societ y.
Likewise, we find react ivat ing elem ent s of t he currency of t he St at e as a det erm ining act or of t he int ernat ional scene, am ong t hese we should m ent ion int ernat ional cooperat ion, t he reinforcem ent of int ernat ional organizat ions and t he recent prom inence of regionalism as answers of t he St at e and new alt ernat ives t o t he m ult i-level governance. Therefore, t he St at e reassert s it s bet on m ult ilat eralism as an answer t o current challenges. That is, as of t he end of t he XX cent ury, it is react ivat ed as a suit able t ool t o m anage t he st ruct ural changes of t he int ernat ional syst em , in spit e of t he different int erpret at ions m ade of it by t he int ernat ional act ors.
I n t his sense, t he act ors in t he int ernat ional syst em face t hese m ut at ions wit h different iat ed answers: “ The Unit ed St at es cont inues t o push an hegem onic m ult ilat eralism , t he EU prom ot es a norm at ive m ult ilat eralism , developing count ries pract ice a defensive m ult ilat eralism and t he em erging ones prom ot e a revisionist m ult ilat eralism based on different iat ed pract ices and goals, discursive legit im at ions and narrat ives” (Sanahuj a, 2013: 27) .
While t he U.S.A. had been part icipat ing during t he last Republican adm inist rat ions in a higher unilat eral perform ance or, in ot her words, an “ inst it ut ionalizat ion of unipolarit y,” t he Dem ocrat adm inist rat ions of president s Clint on and Obam a pract ice a m ore inclusive perform ance, resort ing t o m ult ilat eral forum s looking for a st ronger consolidat ion of specific act ions of t heir foreign perform ance. For t he EU, due t o it s own int egrat ion experience, m ult ilat eralism is posit ioned as an im perat ive by virt ue of it s own ident it y and acknowledgem ent as int ernat ional act or in a cont ext of sovereign St at es ( Nat orski, 2012) . I n relat ion t o developing count ries, m ult ilat eralism has becom e a decisive t ool, for it s norm at ive and inst it ut ional fram ework, channeled t hrough t he Unit ed Nat ions’ syst em or in privat e regional organizat ions. Due t o t he processes of power shift ing, em erging count ries are in a bet t er posit ion t o dem and norm at ive and inst it ut ional reform s and a higher balance in t he int ernat ional order, wit h t he purpose of achieving sym m et ric alt ernat ives of cooperat ion.
72
St art ing from a brief hist orical narrat ion regarding t he evolut ion of t he St at e in t he int ernat ional syst em , t his art icle int ends t o cont ribut e t o t he academ ic debat e and ident ify t he answers depending on t he posit ioning of t he different st at e act ors in t he
int ernat ional syst em (Unit ed St at es, EU and em erging count ries - BRI CS/ TI MBI s1- ) .
That is, t he different answers each one has depending on t heir idea of m ult ilat eralism , put t ing t oget her a m ult idisciplinary approach broadly based on I nt ernat ional Relat ions. Following t his logic, t he int ent ion is t o st udy t he correlat ion bet ween t he int ernat ional st ruct ure and t he variat ions regarding power epicent ers in t he current int ernat ional syst em . Therefore, t he analysis is based on t he prem ise t hat t he St at e has had t o adapt it self t o t he changes in t he int ernat ional syst em in order not t o lose power and com pet it iveness, t hus increasing it s abilit ies. Mult ilat eralism is precisely t he m ost suit able t ool as re- adapt at ion st rat egy, niche of opport unit y, t o adj ust it s posit ion in t he int ernat ional syst em .
I I . Cont inu it y of t h e St at e a s ce n t ra l a ct or in t h e in t e rn a t iona l syst e m
The hist ory of Europe, a consequence of different com plex t ransform at ions, is, t o a great ext ent , t he hist ory of t he m odern St at e as polit ical com m unit y ( Truyol and Serra, 1974: 30- 41) . The m odern st at e is t he way in which societ ies have built t heir polit ical organizat ion. I t is t he St at e t hat draws t he com m unit y t oget her, since t hat com m unit y, as such, does not exist before. I n t he West phalian order we can observe t he exclusive and cent ral role of t he St at e as act or in t he syst em and cent er of power wit hin a st ill anarchic st ruct ure, which could only be m it igat ed by t he principle of balance of power, which m eans t hat each St at e has t o prot ect it s own int erest s and safet y, or, in ot her words, each St at e is left t o fend for it self. ( Del Arenal, 2002) .
West phalian St at es are m ainly st ruct ured “ around realit y and dist ribut ion of power, purely int erpret ed in relat ional t erm s and m ainly underst ood in polit ical-m ilit ary t erm s, and based on t he role perform ed by t he great powers t hat used t o act as a direct ory in relat ion t o it self” ( Del Arenal, 2002: 23) . Therefore, t he West phalian order im plies t wo m ain charact erist ics: t he est ablishm ent of perm anent and increasingly sophist icat ed diplom at ic relat ions, in pract ice as well as in coding; and t he ext ernal and int ernal dim ension of t he St at es which has had a broad influence on t he norm at ive, polit ical and t heoret ical developm ent of int ernat ional relat ions.
Along t hese lines, and by way of sum m ary, we can rest at e t hat t he concept of t he m odern St at e-nat ion im plies, as st at ed by Held, a series of innovat ions t o t he St at e it self and, hence, t o t he I nt ernat ional Societ y. Am ong ot hers, we should m ent ion t errit orialit y, t he m onopoly of violence, t he not ion of im personal power st ruct ure and legit im acy. That is, West phalia est ablishes t he developm ent of sovereignt y as organizat ional principle of t he St at es ( Barbé, 2007: 165) .
1 Turk ey , I ndia, Mex ico, Brazil and I ndonesia. Sin ce t he t erm BRI CS w as creat ed t o refer t o em erging
73
Since t he appearance of t he West phalian int erst at e syst em , t he st ruct ure has suffered im port ant changes, highlight ing t he num eric variat ion of St at es wit h an abilit y t o have influence on t he int ernat ional order. Aft er t he Congress of Vienna, t he concert of great powers incorporat es eight nat ions ( Aust ria, France, Great Brit ain, Russia, Port ugal, Spain and Sweden) t hat end up being reduced when t he last t hr ee lose pot ent ialit y in t he balance of power. At t he end of t he XI X cent ury and t he beginning of t he XX, som e count ries enhance t heir abilit ies, which signifies im provem ent s in t heir posit ion in t he int ernat ional st ruct ure of power. The Unit ed St at es, Germ any, I t aly and Japan are incorporat ed t o t he direct ory of great powers unt il t hen European.
Aft er t he World War I I , t here is anot her decisive event regarding t he num eric variat ion of t he St at es t hat are part of t he direct ory of great powers, not because of t he disappearance or form at ion of new St at es, but because t he Unit ed St at es and t he Soviet Union enhance t heir abilit ies, becom ing superpowers. As a consequence, t he st ruct ure of t he int ernat ional syst em is orient ed t owards a bipolar configurat ion of power, where t he t echnological fact or, t hat is, t he nuclear pot ent ial, deeply alt ers t he com pet it ion and socializat ion schem es developed by t he syst em unit s. Wit h t he disappearance of t he Soviet Union, t he power of t he int ernat ional syst em t ends t o decent ralize in a higher num ber of act ors. However, it does not lose it s oligopolic nat ure, in accordance wit h Raym ond Aron’s t erm inology. I n fact , in spit e of all t hese changes, t here is a perm anent direct ory of great powers t hat concent rat e higher quot as of power in relat ion t o an ext ensive num ber of St at es.
The St at e is reassert ed as a m ain act or at several levels; for sure, it has had t o face t he new challenges and risks brought by globalizat ion such as dest at izat ion, det errit orializat ion and power r elocat ion. I n t his sense, new int ernat ional dynam ics have been generat ed in which int erst at e cooperat ion has blurred t he line t hat separat es nat ional from int ernat ional. St at es are forced t o search for form al m echanism s of volunt ary and perm anent cooperat ion, creat ing independent ent it ies dest ined t o achieve collect ive goals (Sobrino Heredia, 2006: 43) .
Going deeper along t hese lines, we can affirm t hat in an increasingly int erdependent world, m ult ilat eralit y has becom e an appropriat e answer t o face t he dem ands of t he XXI cent ury. An answer t hat “ cannot be underst ood wit hout referring t o t he St at es-nat ion and t o a West phalian order based on t he principle of es-nat ional sovereignt y” ( Sanahuj a, 2013: p. 31) . The progressive increm ent of st at e act ivit y in int ernat ional inst it ut ions is evident . This is m ot ivat ed by a cause and it leads t o a consequence. I n
relat ion t o t he first one, St at es are incapable of sat isfying new collect ive needs per se;
regarding t he second one, St at es are drawn t o cooperat e in t he light of t hese developm ent and t ransnat ionalizat ion processes. Therefore, m ult ilat eralit y becom es a valid t ool t hat set t les t he cont em porary int ernat ional order, wit h t he perm anent purpose of laying t he foundat ion of peaceful relat ions bet ween St at es.
I I I . St a t e - globa liza t ion dia le ct ics
74
int ernat ional scene. However, it is appropriat e t o int roduce a balancing point since t he changes t hat t he sovereign St at e has been experiencing im ply t he necessary re-adapt at ion t o t his new int ernat ional realit y, in which m ult ilat eralism is an explanat ory variable t hat allows for an ont ological review of power.
As of t he 80’s of t he past cent ury, t he analyt ical product ion r egarding globalizat ion has been abundant . I n t his sense, m any of t he t ransform at ions experienced by st at e societ ies and by t he I nt ernat ional Societ y it self are explained, t o consider different charact erist ic feat ures of t he current int ernat ional order. However, globalizat ion could not be underst ood wit hout ot her prior phenom ena, since coinciding wit h aut hors like Cast ells or García Segur a, t here are four processes which are cont inuous in t im e and of different nat ure and effect s t hat affect t he I nt ernat ional Societ y: worldizat ion, increasing int erdependence, hum anizat ion and globalizat ion ( Cast ells, 1997 and García Segura, 1999) . Therefore, t he new post -World War I I I nt ernat ional Societ y is very different from t he one t hat charact erized int ernat ional relat ions as of t he Peace of West phalia. The consequence has been t he birt h of a new post -West phalian global I nt ernat ional Societ y, charact erized by t he weakening of som e act ors, such as t he St at e, which defined t he previous period, and t he em powering of ot her non- st at e act ors, such as t he t ransnat ional com panies, I nt ernat ional Organizat ions, governm ent -owned and not , and above all, t he individual.
I n spit e of t his weakening, t he I nt ernat ional Societ y cont inues t o be st at e- cent ric, where t his int ernat ional act or is confirm ed as t he only form of polit ical organizat ion. “ I n t his sense, st at izat ion const it ut es t he m axim um expression of worldizat ion of t he logic and t he West phalian m odel of I nt ernat ional Societ y, by dividing t he world societ y int o sovereign polit ical unit s, equal in right s, wit h clearly m arked borders, but evident ly unequal in t erm s of power and developm ent ” ( Del Arenal, 2008: 21) .
I n t he new int ernat ional societ y, t here has been a change in t he nat ur e and dist ribut ion of power. I f in t he West phalian societ y power was ident ified wit h St at e, in t he inform at ion societ y, power is a m ut at ing, m ult idim ensional phenom enon expressed in econom ic t erm s, but also, in cult ural, t echnological and inform at ion t erm s, and, less and less, in m ilit ary t erm s. Moreover, t here is a change in t he t radit ional base of power: t he t errit ory, which is no longer considered an essent ial elem ent , and it is replaced by ot her elem ent s which are not always t angible, such as com m unicat ional, financial or com m ercial net works…, ( Del Arenal, 2008: 31) . Aut hors like Thom as Risse quest ion concept s like m ult ipolarit y “ t o describe a part ially globalized world in which St at es are only one of t he different cent ers of power” ( Risse, 2008) .
75
The m ain challenge faced by t hese St at es is t urning t heir dem ographic r elevance, t heir t errit orial ext ension and t heir econom ic pot ent ial int o polit ical power capable of having influence on t he int ernat ional syst em , even t hough t hey are already ident ified as relevant act ors in t he regional scene. Unlike in t he past , t hese em erging powers have looked int o st rengt hening t he m ult ilat eral forum s t hat current ly enable a m ore equit able r epresent at ion. A clear exam ple is t he answer t o t he financial crisis provided by t he G- 20, a forum which is m ore represent at ive t han t he G- 8 or any ot her reduced and select group t hat does not t urn out t o be legit im at e or efficient for t he resolut ion of global issues.
While bilat eralit y is defined by t he principles of exclusion and negot iat ion, m ult ilat eralism part icipat es in t he logic of com plem ent arit y. I n t his sense, it im plies a suit able m odel t o analyze m ult iple and varied relat ions, even t hough it is not a generalized realit y yet , and it could even be classified as em bryonic, in spit e of som e already consecrat ed processes –t he UN General Assem bly, t he World Trade Organizat ion (WTO) , t he UN Conference on environm ent and developm ent in Rio or t he Convent ion on Clim at e Change in Kyot o…-
I V. M u lt ila t e ra lit y a s a t h eor et ical a pproa ch
The st udy of I nt ernat ional Relat ions ent ails t he analysis of t ransform ing st ruct ures. From t his point of view, it is appropriat e t o assert t hat t he classic form al logic of t he post -World War I I I nt ernat ional Societ y is orient ed t owards a bipolar configurat ion of power, where t he Unit ed St at es and t he Soviet Union becom e superpowers as a consequence of an enhancem ent in t heir abilit ies, m ainly t he m ilit ary ones. The evolut ions of t he int ernat ional syst em , before and aft er t he dissolut ion of t he Soviet Union, sharpen t he academ ic focus on m ult ilat eralism as an inst rum ent of relat ion, while ext ending t he part icipat ion of t he St at es in m ult ilat eral forum s, in pursuit of com m on int erest s and goals aft er t he loosening of t he rest rict ion produced by t he bipolarit y of t he Cold War. The art icle developed in John Gerard Ruggie’s book cont ribut es t o t he academ ic debat e. This is a classic but cont roversial exam ple, which focuses on t he norm at ive dim ension of t his concept .
Mult ilat eralism is a t ool, in r egards t o t he decision- m aking process, where consensus and negot iat ion bet ween t he part ies are essent ial. For Ruggie, m ult ilat eralism is “ an inst it ut ional form t hat coordinat es relat ions bet ween t hree or m ore St at es based on generalized principles of conduct , t hat is, principles t hat specify t he adequat e conduct for each t ype of act ion, disregarding t he part icular int erest s of t he part ies or t he st rat egic dem ands t hat m ay appear in each case in part icular” ( Ruggie, 1992: 14) . Therefore, for t his aut hor t he focus is not on t he abilit y t o coor dinat e nat ional policies bet ween count ries, but on t hat t his is done based on cert ain principles of relat ion. His idea differs from “ t he quant it at ive and funct ional definit ion of m ult ilat eralism , which is broadly used, am ong ot hers by Robert Keohane, for whom m ult ilat eralism is t he
pract ice of coordinat ing nat ional policies in groups of t hree or m ore St at es. Through ad
hoc m echanism s or t hrough inst it ut ions” (Barbé, 2010) .
76
polit ical discourse of t he m ain act ors in t he int ernat ional syst em ; in t he second place, because m any aut hors, m ainly from t he Nort h Am erican academ ic scene, t ry t o lim it t hese t erm s and creat e a definit ion applicable t o polit ical science and int ernat ional relat ions.
I n t his sense, it is pert inent t o define bot h t erm s, what t hey consist of and if t hey are useful t o face t he new challenges posed in t he XXI cent ury. “ The t erm s m ult ilat eral and m ult ilat eralism suggest som e linguist ic considerat ion. The noun com es in t he form of an
ism suggest ing a belief or ideology rat her t han a st raight forward st at e of affaire”
( Caporaso, 1992: 601) . “ The t erm “ m ult ilat eral” can refer t o an organizing principle, an organizat ion, or sim ply an act ivit y. Any of t he above can be considered m ult ilat eral when involves cooperat ive act ivit y am ong m any count ries. “ Mult ilat eralism ” as opposed t o “ m ult ilat eral” , is a belief t hat act ivit ies ought t o be organized in a universal ( or at least a m any- sided) basis for a relevant Group, such as t he Group of dem ocr acies” ( Caporaso, 1992: 603) .
Even t hough bot h t erm s im ply cooperat ion bet ween St at es, m ult ilat eralism refers t o a set of beliefs and values on which t he int ernat ional policy should rest , t his being a proposal in which t o coor dinat e int ernat ional relat ions. On t he ot her hand, m ult ilat eral is an organizat ional principle, t hat is, t he funct ioning of an organizat ion or j ust an act ivit y. Likewise, t his idea is defended by a significant num ber of polit ologist s and int ernat ionalist s, and it is r eflect ed on t he works of Ruggie, Mart in, Keohane or Cox, who st at es t hat “ m ult ilat eralism appears in one aspect as t he subordinat e concept . Mult ilat eralism can only be underst ood wit hin t he cont ext in which it exist , and t hat cont ext is t he hist orical st ruct ure of World order. But m ult ilat eralism is not j ust a passive, dependent act ivit y. I t can appear in anot her aspect as an act ive force shaping World order” ( Cox , 1992: 161) ; t hat is, m ult ilat eralism is a dynam ic phenom enon of rules and organizat ions t hat do not rem ain unchanged and it int roduces a clear int ent ion of shaping t he global order in a fram ework of underst anding and cooperat ion bet ween St at es.
The evolut ion of m ult ilat eralism “ should be seen in r elat ion t o t he t ransform at ion of t he ent ire int ernat ional societ y: of t he st ruct ure of power, of t he nat ur e of t he St at e, of t he relat ions bet ween St at e and societ y, of t he prevailing ideas. Mult ilat eralism ( or each t ype of m ult ilat eralism ) , from t his point of view, is not hing but t he product of a cert ain t ype of int ernat ional societ y” ( Cost a, 2013: 11- 12) . The evolut ion of t he hist orical st ruct ure, in Cox’s t erm inology, of t he int ernat ional societ y produces t hree t ypes, “ m ult ilat eralism of t he coexist ence, of cooperat ion and of t he solidarism . Each one of t hese t ypes of m ult ilat eralism is an expression of a concret e t ype of int ernat ional societ y, but so far all of t hem have proved aut onom ous and resilient enough t o survive ( m ore or less) t o t he condit ions t hat m ade t hem possible, so t hat each one of t he phases has gone t hr ough an accum ulat ion of a sedim ent ary layer of rules. These phases are analyt ical const ruct s, ideal t ypes, but t hey pret end (t ent at ively) t o have a correspondence wit h t he hist orical realit y” ( Cost a, 2013: 12) .
77
confront at ion over t he resolut ion of com m on conflict s, showing it s weaknesses before t he challenges of a societ y in evolut ion. I n relat ion t o t he second one, t he m ult ilat eralism of cooperat ion is founded on t he new relat ions t hat arose bet ween t he St at es aft er World War I I , based on one proposit ion: int erst at e cooperat ion as a solut ion t o int ernat ional problem s, as st at ed by t he pream ble t o t he Chart er of t he Unit ed Nat ions. I n t his sense, Burley considers t hat t he Unit ed Nat ions syst em m arks an inflect ion point bet ween t he rules of coexist ence and t he cooperat ive effort s, as em bryonic as t hey m ight be in t his period. The t hird t ype of m ult ilat eralism ( solidarism ) , which st art s as of t he end of t he Cold War, t hat is, t he end of t he eight ies, is charact erized by an increased num ber of int ernat ional organizat ions t oget her wit h an “ increasingly m ore assert ive prom ot ion of universalized liberal r egulat ions by int ernat ional inst it ut ions and a budding global civil societ y” ( Rüland, 2012: 257) .
Finally, m ult ilat eralism brings about t wo variables, a polit ical dim ension and an econom ic one. I n t his sense, m ult ilat eralism in t he polit ical dim ension, m ore general and m acro, refers t o t he inst it ut ional archit ect ure t hat is originat ed in t he cooperat ion bet ween St at es t o face com m on challenges ( clim at e change, t errorism , global povert y, drug t rafficking…) . I n it s econom ic dim ension, lim it ed t o t he sect oral level of t he econom ic- com m ercial policies, it addresses t he coordinat ion of t he act ors t hat part icipat e in t he m ult ilat eral relat ion. I n t his sense, Cox expresses him self in t he following t erm s: “ econom ic m ult ilat eralism m eant t he st ruct ure of World econom y m ost conduct ive t o capit al expansion on a World scale; and polit ical m ult ilat eralism m eant t he inst it ut ionalized arrangem ent s m ade at t hat t im e and in t hose condit ions for int erst at e cooperat ion of com m on problem s” (Cox, 1992: 162) . This approach can be com plet ed wit h Ruggie’s cont ribut ions, who st at es t hat m ult ilat eralism possesses a quant it at ive dim ension, regarding t he num ber of St at es, and a qualit at ive dim ension, depending on t o t he values such St at es should hold, “ in short , t he nom inal definit ion of m ult ilat eralism m isses t he qualit at ive dim ension of t he phenom enon t hat m akes it dist inct ” ( Ruggie, 1992: 566) .
There is no doubt in t hat t he int ernat ional syst em which arose aft er World War I I im plies a m ilest one in t he est ablishm ent of new form s of int erst at e cooperat ion, on t op of t he propagat ion of m ult ilat eral regim es and inst it ut ions which have prom ot ed t he concurrence of “ global values,” never before experienced ( dem ocracy, governance, hum an right s, povert y reduct ion…) . However, in pract ice, t he m ult ilat eral syst em does not respond t o such values and t here is a resist ance by t he St at es t o act in a m ult ilat eral m anner, priorit izing t he defense of t heir welfare and securit y int erest s. I n int ernat ional relat ions, t his dichot om y (unilat eral- m ult ilat eral) is put forward as a debat e bet ween r elat ive vs. absolut e profit s ( Mersheim er, 1995) . Against t his logic, t he alt ruist purpose of m ult ilat eralism consist s of est ablishing rules of behavior for t he sat isfact ion of t he count ries; as well as developing inst it ut ions t hat favor int ernat ional cooperat ion.
V. Assym et r ic beh a vior s in t h e fa ce of m u lt ila t e r alism : Un it e d St a t e s-Eu r opea n Un ion
78
inst it ut ions we know as m ult ilat eral forum s, originat ed aft er World War I I . Wit h t he fall of t he Soviet Union, com es t he opening, in t he t heoret ical level, of a favorable fram ework for t he reshaping of t he int ernat ional or der aft er t he rupt ure of t he bipolar syst em . Wit hout going back t o past ages, and focusing on t he last decades, we can observe an evolut ion in t he Unit ed St at e’s foreign policy. Wit h t he t erm inat ion of t he bipolar world and t he m ilit ary vict ory in I raq ( 1991) , int ervent ion backed by t he Unit ed
Nat ions, it get s int o what Robert Kagan calls t he unipolar m om ent t hat “ predisposed
t he Unit ed St at es even m ore for t he use of force abroad and t o behave as an
int ernat ional sheriff, on t he basis of som e unrivalled m ilit ary abilit ies” ( Sanahuj a, 2008: 302) , reassert ing t he neoconservat ive posit ion of t he int ernat ional order.
Following t his logic, Robert Jervis “ has qualified t he Unit ed St at es as revisionist
hegem on by t rying t o m odify som e m ult ilat eral inst it ut ions and rules t hat , paradoxically, have, t o a large ext ent , been creat ed by t he Unit ed St at es, and for t hat
reason, grant it a higher quot a of power. I n ot her words, t he hegem on would not be
finding it self com fort able in it s own post - war < hegem onic m ult ilat eralism > , and for t hat reason would be pret ending t o est ablish new rules and inst it ut ions t o provide legal coverage and legit im acy t o an essent ially unilat eral perform ance - which would illust rat e
t he form at ion of <coalit ions of t he willing> inst ead of act ing t hr ough t he Unit ed
Nat ions, t he NATO or ot her int ernat ional organizat ions- and pose less rest rict ions t o it s freedom of act ion” (Sanahuj a, 2008: 304) .
For t he Unit ed St at es, m ult ilat eralism is not a belief, it is an inst rum ent applicable t o specific issues in t he global agenda, regardless of whet her Dem ocrat or Republican adm inist rat ions have used t his pract ice t o a great er or lesser ext ent , causing a weakening of t he m ult ilat eral syst em , as analyzed by Fred Holliday: “ George W. Bush’s vict ory in 2000, m arked t he end of a decade and a half of George Bush Sr.’s and Bill Clint on’s m odel of foreign policy. A m odel which was com pat ible wit h m ult ilat eralism and wit h int ernat ional rules, even t hose referred t o t he use of force, which support ed t he first Golf War, or t he int ervent ions in Kurdist an, Som alia or Hait i. That policy had already been rej ect ed by George W. Bush before t he S-11 at t acks in New York and Washingt on. Aft er t hose at t acks, t he Unit ed St at es foreign policy has fluct uat ed bet ween a st ark unilat eralism , and t he at t em pt s t o adapt int ernat ional organizat ions t o it s own int erest s. I raq’s War, in part icular, has shown t hat Washingt on’s int erest in t he rules of t he Unit ed Nat ions was lim it ed t o obt aining t heir support and legit im acy, but if t his could not obt ained, it would not avoid t he at t ack. For t he Bush adm inist rat ion, it was enough t o show a sym bolic int erest in t he allies’ will and t o enhance wit hout deceit t he Unit ed St at es’ nat ional int erest and t he pat riot ic sent im ent ” ( Mesa, 2006: 3) .
The neo- im perial viewpoint held by t he US power has it s own lim it s, polit ical and econom ic lim it s, part icularly in t he financial and m ilit ary ground, and it is also expensive t o m aint ain. This is r eflect ed in periods like t he current one, m arked by a
cont ext of int ernat ional econom ic crisis. To rect ify what Paul Kenney calls t he “im perial
79
shown t hat t his is not only a cert aint y, but a need, since it is not t he t im e for unilat eral perform ances.
I n t his sense, t he Unit ed St at es m ult ilat eralism is assert ive. On t he one hand, it advocat es for int ernat ional organizat ions, cont ribut ing wit h financial support ( it cont ribut es wit h 22% t o t he UN budget ) and, on t he ot her hand, it s int erpret at ion is t ight ly associat ed t o it s nat ional int erest , which im plies a st rat egy, t hat is, t he m ean t o achieve a goal. I n short , even t hough t he Obam a adm inist rat ion has been reassert ing it s com m it m ent t o m ult ilat eralism , t his does not m ean t hat it is posit ioned as a key inst rum ent of it s foreign policy, unlike Canada or t he Eur opean Union.
To sum up, t he m ult ilat eralism for t he Unit ed St at es m ay be a suit able answer t o count eract t he cost im plied by unilat eral perform ances in different scenes ( clim at e change, safet y, t errorism ...) , but also t o face t he new challenges of t he current global agenda t hat would ot herwise be hardly solved in a unilat eral way. For t hat , it has reinforced it s cooperat ive relat ion in forum s such as t he G- 20, which even when it sym bolizes t he difficult ies of a m ult ipolar order, it is represent ed as an alt ernat ive t o a classic inst it ut ional syst em , being a r elevant exam ple t he Unit ed Nat ions t hat t urns out t o be inefficient t o prevent breaches of basic gam e rules; or t he obsolet e of it s st ruct ure, m ainly t he Council of Safet y’s, since, it answers t o a post - World War m odel which was very different t o t he current one; or t he lack of efficient m eans t o sat isfy t he needs of t he global agenda, m arked by t ransversal challenges.
The European Union has a relevant role in regards t o m ult ilat eralism . As of t he post -Cold War period, and even before, “ t he com m it m ent of t he European Union t o dem ocracy, hum an right s, developm ent and t he st ruggle against povert y, peace processes and m ult ilat eralism has cont ribut ed t o creat e a powerful posit ive im age of
t he Union as a pr ogressive and civil act or ( …) We observed a st rengt hening in it s will t o
becom e a global act or capable of act ively part icipat ing in t he form at ion of t he principles, rules and inst it ut ions t hat const it ut e t he int ernat ional syst em t hrough it s
singular ident it y as civil power and norm at ive act or based on values. These values, on
t op of const it ut ing it s int ernat ional ident it y, would also becom e a source of it s soft power, by exercising influence t hrough non- coercive m eans” ( Sanahuj a, 2013: 40) .
The Eur opean Union, m ult ilat eral by nat ure, st at es it s com m it m ent t o efficient m ult ilat eralism , a t erm suggest ed at t he St rat egy on European Safet y ( 2003) , which im plies a useful t ool t o achieve global governance t hrough I nt ernat ional Law, shared rules and pr inciples agreed upon am ong equals. Along t hese lines, t he Eur opean Union Treat y ( sect ion 21.2.h) regulat es t hat t he foreign policy has t o be com m it t ed t o an “ int ernat ional syst em based on st ronger int ernat ional cooperat ion and good global governance.”
Even t hough Brussels has t urned efficient m ult ilat eralism int o a vert ex of foreign perform ance, we can not hide t he divergences t here have been surrounding t his t erm even bet ween funct ional m ult ilat eralist s, for whom it is a t ool, like ot hers, and norm at ive m ult ilat eralist s, for whom it is a principle of int eract ion. Likewise, t here are
dissim ilarit ies regarding it s applicat ion, while com m unit y powers use unilat eralism and
m inilat er alism as inst rum ent s of foreign policy, sm aller m em ber St at es find in m ult ilat eralism a way t o defend t heir own int erest s wit h a higher possibilit y of success.
80
regional base. However, current ly, bilat eral relat ions are reinforced wit h a pool of prom inent act ors, as a process prior t o t he efficient m ult ilat eralism wit h which it is int ended t o give collect ive answers t o t he challenges of t he global agenda, under t he wing of binding int ernat ional regulat ions and m ult ilat eral ent it ies.
The prom ot ion of an efficient m ult ilat eralism on behalf of t he European Union is, up t o a point , paradoxical when t he progress experienced in it s com posit ion as an only act or ( addit ion of 28) would im ply a relat ive weight loss in m ult ilat eral organizat ions in which it has a represent at ion and power t hat is no longer proport ional t o t he one t hat it effect ively has in t he int ernat ional syst em . I n fact , it is wort h wondering t o what ext ent t he efficient m ult ilat eralism it prom ot es benefit s or negat ively affect s it s int erest s, “ and t o what ext ent it does not const it ut es, facing t he fut ure, one of it s st rat egic opt ions t o prom ot e t he m odificat ion of t he m ult ilat eral syst em t owards it s progressive t ransform at ion int o a m ore appropriat e syst em of global governance, on t he base of relinquishing inst it ut ional power in it in favor of ot her act ors” ( Mont obio, 2013) .
Con clu sion s
The current I nt ernat ional Societ y shows changes in t he int ernat ional act ors, being t he St at e t he one t hat has gone t hrough m ore changes. This act or, decisive in t he int ernat ional syst em , has seen it s prior exclusiveness, prom inence and aut onom y m odified as a consequence of dynam ics of int erdependence and of a series of new int ernat ional realit ies t hat separat e t he I nt ernat ional Societ y of t he past from a hum an, t ransnat ional and global one, like t he current one. The St at e has suffered an im port ant weakening and it has even been quest ioned but , nonet heless, it st ill m aint ains a prom inent role, alt hough it shares prom inence wit h ot her boom ing int ernat ional act ors.
From West phalia up t o t his dat e, int erst at e relat ions and t he oligopolic dist ribut ion of t he int ernat ional syst em rem ain a const ant . The associat ion bet ween t he econom ic and polit ical- m ilit ary power m aint ains a direct ory of great powers, t hat is, a sm all group of st at e int ernat ional act ors t hat possess higher abilit ies in t erm s of power and always in relat ion t o ot her unit s of t he syst em and t hat , based on t his posit ion, exercise a decisive role in t he int ernat ional scene. Proof of t hat are t he new em erging St at es, BRI CS, or even in an im m ediat e fut ure, t he TI MBI s, t hat explain a new configurat ion of power and t he developm ent of a different polarit y, wit h t he purpose of locat ing t hem selves bet t er in t he int ernat ional syst em . Following t his logic, m ult ilat eralism posit ions it self as governing principle of int ernat ional relat ions, used in a different way based on t he St at es own int erest s. Som e m eaningful exam ples are t he different relat ions of t he Unit ed St at es, t he EU or BRI CS wit h m ult ilat eralism .
81
syst em has t he proficiencies and inst rum ent s needed t o face t he challenges posed by t he int ernat ional agenda.
Based on t he different narrat ives, goals, pract ices and discursive legit im at ions, we can observe different visions of m ult ilat eralism . The Unit ed St at es as unipolar power, considers it s values universal, which dist ort s t he essence of m ult ilat eralism . I n regards t o t he st ance of t he European Union, it is wort h m ent ioning t hat it prom ot es a norm at ive m ult ilat eralism t hat m ainly reflect s European values, which cont radict s t he essence of t he concept , since t he current int ernat ional societ y is increasingly m ore cosm opolit an and dem ands agreem ent s based on diversit y. Developing count ries pract ice a defensive m ult ilat eralism and t he em erging ones a r evisionist m ult ilat eralism .
The weakness of t he int ernat ional syst em in responding t o t he challenges of t he global agenda; t he em erging role of t he new st at e and non- governm ent al act ors wit h a clear calling t o influence and reshape t he st ruct ure of t he global foreign policy; t he consolidat ion of new blocs and t he st rengt hening of ot her regional blocs, reflect t he deficit s of t he int ernat ional syst em . I n t his sense, t he lim it ed answers of inst it ut ions
like t he Unit ed Nat ions, redirect t he sit uat ion t owards new m echanism s ad hoc like t he
G- 8 and t he G-20, where t he decision-m aking process result s m ore effect ive, alt hough t he int ernat ional dem ocrat ic legit im acy is reduced since t hey are exclusive.
The global st rat egic scene has changed decisively. The US unipolarit y is quest ioned by em erging powers, especially China, t he European Union t o a lesser ext ent , but also t he ot her m em bers of t he BRI CS and t he TI MBI s, which have appeared wit h st rengt h and im pose t heir st yle, dem anding higher quot as of power. Even non-st at e act ors, such as t he non- governm ent al organizat ions have been slowly acquiring m ore influence and dem and a prom inence in accordance wit h t heir specific weight . Therefore, in an int ernat ional syst em like t he current one which significant ly digresses in organizat ional, geopolit ical and econom ic issues, from t he previous ones, t he new challenges faced by t he syst em , in t he last decades, have t o be faced m ult ilat erally.
Wit hin t he current int ernat ional econom ic crisis, dist ort ions are even m ore evident . I n t his crisis occurring in t he “ cent er” , t he count ries in t he “ periphery” play an im port ant role cont ribut ing t o t he m aint enance of t he financial syst em , which shows t heir econom ic abilit y and solvency t oget her wit h t he int erdependence and acknowledgm ent t hat t he negat ive effect s of t he crisis have global repercussions. Joined t o t his feat ure, t he econom ic crisis im plies a reconsidering of cost s by t he classic act ors ( m ainly t he Unit ed St at es, t he European Union, Japan…) , reflect ing t he worsening of divergences which go furt her int o t he predom inance of t he collect ive over t he nat ional. Even when em erging powers have global int erest s t hat are clearly m anifest ed, t hey m ay not be fit t ed t o face responsibilit ies of leadership and financing at an int ernat ional level, especially on t he subj ect of int ernat ional safet y.
The XXI cent ury m ult ilat eralism is t oo int erdependent and com plex. I t dem ands a new fram ework of cooperat ion which, on t op of t he balances of power, should t ake int o account t he diversit y of t he cur rent challenges and t he need t o r eassert a norm at ive m odel. To sum up, t he st rengt hening of t he m ult ilat eralism is generat ing a great er
legit im acy in t he decision-m aking processes, eit her t hr ough ad hoc inst rum ent s or
82
Re fe re n ce s
Barbe, E. (2007) . Relaciones I nt ernacionales, Tecnos, Madrid.
Barbe, E. ( 2010) . “ Mult ilat eralism o: Adapt ación a un m undo con pot encias em ergent es” en Revist a Española de Derecho I nt ernacional (REDI ) , vol. LXI I , BOE, Madrid, pp. 21-50.
Burley, A.M. ( 1993) . “ Regulat ing t he world: Mult ilat eralism , int ernat ional law, and t he proj ect ion of t he New Deal regulat ory st at e” , en: Ruggie, John Gerard ( ed.) .
Mult ilat er alism m at t ers. The t heory and praxis of an inst it ut ional form. Nueva York:
Colum bia Universit y Press, 1993, p. 125- 156.
Caporaso, J. ( 1992) . “ I nt ernat ional Relat ions. Theory and Mult ilat eralism : The search
for Foundat ion” en I nt er nat ional Or ganit at ion, vol. 46, nº 3, sum m er, pp. 599-632.
Cast ells, M. ( 1997) . La er a de la inform ación. Econom ía, sociedad y cult ur a, Vol. 1: La
sociedad red, Alianza Edit orial, Madrid.
Cost a Fernández, O. ( 2013) . “ I nt roducción: el m ult ilat eralism o en crisis” en Revist a
CI DOB d’Affer s I nt er nat ionals, nº 101, abril, pp. 7- 25.
Cox, R. ( 1992) “ Mult ilat eralism and World Order” , en Review of I nt ernat ional St udies,
vol. 18, no. 2, april 1992.
Del Arenal, C. ( 2001) . “ La nueva sociedad m undial y las nuevas realidades
int ernacionales: un ret o para la t eoría y para la polít ica” en VV.AA. Cur sos de Der echo
I nt ernacional de Vit oria- Gast eiz, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, pp. 17-86.
Del Arenal, C. ( 2008) . “ Mundialización, crecient e int erdependencia y globalización en
las relaciones int ernacionales” , en VV.AA. Cur sos de Der echo I nt ernacional de Vit or
ia-Gast eiz, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao.
Evans, G. y Newnham , R. ( 1999) . The Pinguin Dict ionar y of I nt ernat ional Relat ions,
Penguin Books, Londres.
Garcia Segura, C. ( 1999) . “ La globalización en la sociedad int ernacional
cont em poránea: dim ensiones y problem as desde la perspect iva de las relaciones
int ernacionales” en VV.AA. Cursos de Der echo I nt er nacional de Vit oria- Gast eiz 1998,
Servicio Edit orial del País Vasco/ Tecnos, Madr id, pp. 315- 350.
Holst i, K.J. (2004) . Tam ing t he Sover eigns. I nst it ut ional Change in I nt ernat ional
Polit ics, Cam bridge Press, Cam brige, pp. 112- 131.
Mersheim er , J. ( 1994-95) . “The False Prom ise of I nt ernat ional I nst it ut ions” en
I nt ernat ional Securit y, 19 (3) , pp. 5- 49.
Mesa, M. ( 2006) . “ Mult ilat eralism o y poder: t endencias en el sist em a int ernacional” en
Anuario CI P, Poder y Dem ocr acia, I caria.
Mont obio, M. (2013) . Consider aciones sobre el m ult ilat er alism o efect ivo y la
gober nanza global com o concept os guía de la Est r at egia Global Europea, Real I nst it ut o El Cano, Madrid, 19 de m arzo, pp. 1- 11.
Rice, S. E. y Pat rick ( 2008) . I ndex of St at e Weakness in t he Developing World. The
83
Risse, T, ( 2008) . “The crisis of t he t rasat lant ic securit y com m unit y” , en Bour ant onis, D.
et alt er, Mult ilat eralism and Securit y inst it ut ions in a Er a of Globalizat ion, Rout ledge,
London.
Ruggie, J.G. (1992) . “ Mult ilat eralism : The Anat om y of an I nst it ut ion” en I nt ernat ional
Or ganizat ion, vol. 46, nº 3, 1992, sum m er.
Rüland, J. (2012) . “ The rise of < dim ininished m ult ilat eralism > : East Asian and
European forum shopping in global governance” , en Asia Eur ope Journal, n.º 9, pp.
255- 270.
Sachs, G. ( 2003) . “ Dream ing wit h BRI CS: The Pat h t o 2050” , en Global Econom ics
Paper, nº 99, Nueva Cork, Goldm an Sachs Global Research Cent er.
Sanahuj a, J.A. ( 2007) . “ ¿Un m undo unipolar, m ult ipolar o apolar? El poder est ruct ural y
las t ransform aciones de la sociedad int ernacional cont em poránea” , en VV AA, Cur sos de
Der echo I nt er nacional de Vit or ia- Gast eiz 2007, Bilbao, Servicio Edit orial de la Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 297- 384.
Sanahuj a, J.A. ( 2013) . “ Narrat ivas del Mult ilat eralism o: < efect o Rashom on> y cam bio
de poder” , en Revist a CI DOB d’Affers I nt ernacionals, nº 101, abril, Barcelona, pp.
27-54.
Sobrino Heredia, J. M. ( 2006) . “ Las Organizaciones I nt ernacionales: Generalidades“ , en
Díez de Velasco, M., Las Organizaciones I nt er nacionales, Tecnos, Madrid.
Tilly, C. ( 1992) . Coer ción, Capit al and Eur opean St at us, AD 990- 1992, Blackwell
Publisher Cam bridge and Oxford.
