“Ad hoc multilateralism refers to multilateralism created for ‘a particular or specific purpose’. Sometimes also called single-issue multilateralism, the term was used by Robert Scalapino to describe collaborative mechanisms developed to deal with specific security problems in Eastern Asia before the creation of an effective regional security institution. […] Ad hoc multilateralism usually focuses specifically on a single problem or issue area, and membership tends to be restricted to parties with a close link to the matter at hand, although these do not necessarily need to be states. 

Capie, D.; Evans, P. (2002): The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, p. 11.

“Experience dictates that the United States must conceive of security structures suited to specific situations, whereby concentric arcs are constructed, arcs rather than circles so that contacts can flow among levels when necessary. In the case of the Korean peninsula, for example, the first arc is naturally composed of North and South Korea, the parties immediately concerned; beyond them, the four major states long involved with the Korean problem; as an outer arc, international bodies, both economic and political, that may provide services.”

Scalapino R. (1991): “The United States and Asia: Future Prospects”. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 5, 1991-92, 19-40; here: pp. 38-39.

Ad hoc multilateralism is a form of minilateralism. A group of actors specifically designed for a particular problem forms an informal cluster for multilateral exchange with the aim of solving the problem. The structure and composition of this ‘group’ can vary – ideally in line with the problem. The term was prominently used by only recently by leading European politicians in a call to cope with the corona pandemic. Ad-hoc coalitions should therefore complement established multilateral institutions.

One of the first who coined the term ad hoc multilateralism was Margaret Karns (1987) who used it to describe the diplomacy of the ‘contact group’ that tried to negotiate an agreement for the independence of the territory of Namibia from 1977 until 1982. But mostly, it is associated with a security structure according to Robert Scalapino (1991). Scalapino himself did not use the term explicitly, but rather it is attributed to him in the context of his reading by other authors.  In this sense, in ad hoc multilateralism, concentric arcs of actors, starting from the actors directly involved, should be constructed around a central problem. The levels of the actors' arcs are permeable “so that contacts can flow among levels when necessary” (Scalapino 1991: 38). The actors are not limited to states.

Robert A. Scalapino (* 1919, † 2011) was professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. He was one of the leading experts on the politics and history of East Asia, and co-founder as well as first chairman of the National Committee on United States-China Relations.

„Connectivity is about bringing countries, people and societies closer together. It facilitates access and is a means to foster deeper economic and people-to-people ties. It encompasses the hard and soft aspects, including the physical and institutional social-cultural linkages that are the fundamental supportive means to enhance […] economic, political-security, and socio-cultural ties”

ASEM Connectivity covers all modes of transport (aviation, maritime, rail and road) and also includes, among others, institutions, infrastructure, financial cooperation, IT, digital links, energy, education and research, human resources development, tourism, cultural exchanges as well as customs, trade and investment facilitation.

Becker, William; Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos; Neves, Ana Rita; Moura, Carlos Tacão; Saisana, Michaela, Jorge, Carlos 2019: Exploring ASEM Sustainable Connectivity. What brings Asia and Europe Together?

Connectivity in the multi-dimensional understanding of ASEM describes the connecting of countries, people, and societies and is closely linked to sustainability. However, connectivity is not a concept exclusively associated with ASEM. „Connectivity strategies can be found in a number of other intergovernmental organisations” (Becker et al. 2021), for example, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its diffuse definition and dimensional emphasis vary from context to context.

The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an informal, interregional dialogue forum of European and Asian states.

“’Contested multilateralism’ describes the situation that results from the pursuit of strategies by states, multilateral organizations, and non-state actors to use multilateral institutions, existing or newly created, to challenge rules, practices, or missions of existing multilateral institutions.”

Morse, J and R. O. Keohane. (2014): “Contested Multilateralism”, The Review of International Organizations 9: 385.

Keohane and Morse develop the concept of "contested multilateralism" to describe challenges to existing multilateral regimes through the means and practices of multilateralism, without questioning multilateralism itself in its generic form. If the internal mechanisms of a regime do not offer reform perspectives to actors dissatisfied with the status quo, conflicts arise not within but between multilateral institutions, with the challenger using "multilateralism against multilateralism". "Contested multilateralism" thereby describes both the situation and the strategies employed by revisionist state or non-state actors to bring it about. Among these, Keohane and Morse identify "regime shifting" – in which challengers seek to shift the focus of the regime to an alternative, pre-existing multilateral forum – and "competitive regime creation," in which new institutions or informal forms of cooperation are deliberately created to compete with existing institutions.

Robert O. Keohane (* 1941 in the USA) is a professor emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and a key figure in the development of liberal institutionalism. 

Julia C. Morse is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 

“Multilateralism can be defined as international cooperation among more than two states, designed to solve international problems and to deal with conflicts resulting from perceived or actual anarchy in international relations. Multilateralism has been a reality of international relations for six decades and has served many purposes. In most cases, it has been functionally oriented and either global or regional in scope.”

Krause, J. (2004): “Multilateralism: Behind European Views”. The Washington Quarterly 27(2): 44.

Joachim Krause defines multilateralism as a cooperation focused on different purposes between more than two states. The principle agenda of multilateralism is therefore open, inexhaustible and results from the (anarchical) problems of the international relations.Krause further identifies three types of multilateralism:

Open functional multilateralism ”[…] deals mainly under the UN umbrella with military and non-security-related aspects of international life. The agenda is, in principle, open ended and almost inexhaustible and, sometimes, unavoidably overlaps with collective security and multilateral trade institutions. […] It is this type of multilateralism which most critics refer to when they talk about the ineffectiveness of multilateralism.” 

Krause, J. (2008): “The Crisis of Multilateralism”. In: The Future of Multilateralism (Conference Report), Helsinki, June 10-11, 2008: 51.

Closed functional multilateralism: “[…] developed as instruments to seek opportunities for international co-operation when open multilateralism has failed to yield results. NATO is a typical case in kind. Closed multilateralism often takes the form of directorates or a cartel. Typical examples are the Group of Seven (G7) and Group of Eight (G8) […] As a rule, closed functional forms of multilateralism seem to yield better results than open functional forms of multilateralism“.

Krause, J. (2008): “The Crisis of Multilateralism”. In: The Future of Multilateralism (Conference Report), Helsinki, June 10-11, 2008: 51.

Epistemic multilateralism: “This type of multilateralism is the quasi-permanent co-operation that exists among like-minded states in a broad range of fields, such as the European Union (EU) and, to a lesser degree, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).” 

Krause, J. (2008): “The Crisis of Multilateralism”. In: The Future of Multilateralism (Conference Report), Helsinki, June 10-11, 2008: 52.

In his distinction between open and closed functional multilateralism, Joachim Krause links the exclusivity of multilateral formats to their effectiveness. Closed formats are more specific due to a narrow agenda and increase their effectiveness by ensuring closer exchange among their limited number of members. The aspect of time is an important part of Krause’s definition of epistemic multilateralism, which describes deep and long-term cooperation such as the EU and is usually seen as the most effective type of multilateralism. 

Joachim Krause (*1951 in Germany) is Professor for International Relations at the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel and member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

“[…] we should forget about trying to get the nearly 200 countries to agree. We need to abandon that fool’s errand in favour of a new approach: minilateralism. By this I mean a smarter, more targeted approach. We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism’s magic number.”

Naím, M. (2009): “Think Small to Tackle the World’s Biggest Problems”, Financial Times.

Naím argues that while the need for effective cooperation in the face of global challenges is constantly growing, multilateral talks fail, deadlines are missed and implementations stall. Multilateralism, then, does not always work as a panacea for global problems. Instead, Naím proposes the concept of "minilateralism": The smallest possible number of states that can effectively contribute to a specific solution should come together, without involving other states merely out of considerations for representation or other non-problem-related reasonings. 

Moisés Naím (* 1952 in Libya) served as Minister of Trade and Industry of Venezuela and Executive Director of the World Bank as well as editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy and continues to write on geopolitical and economics. 

“[Multilateralism I] simply means the coordinated diplomatic interaction of three or more states (or other actors) in international politics. […]. Multilateralism II refers to foreign and security policies that seek to establish, maintain and further develop a specific, normative international order through specific forms of international diplomacy. […] The fact that there is no broad consensus in world politics today on the principles and norms of the international order is ignored by the third meaning of the term multilateralism (“Multilateralism III”). Here, “multilateralism” refers to the “right” and “appropriate” answers to the current problems of world politics and thus stands for effective world governance”.

Maull, Hanns W. (2020): “Multilateralism. Variants, Potential, Constraints and Conditions for Success”. SWP Comment. No. 9, March 2020. 

Hanns. W. Maull distinguishes between three different conceptual levels, and definitions of multilateralism, depending on the role played by principles, norms and values in guiding multilateral action. While the minimal definition of "Multilateralism I" only distinguishes it from bilateral or unilateral action, the (still) predominant "Multilateralism II" seeks to maintain a "multilateral world order"of international organizations based on shared values which in turn provide the framework for multilateral action. "Multilateralism III", on the other hand, refers to the hope of finding effective solutions for pressing global problems, which requires being able to resolve or at least circumvent differences and conflicts regarding the values underlying "Multilateralism II". 

Prof. Dr. Hanns W. Maull (*1947 in Germany) is Senior Disinguished Fellow and Visiting Fellow with the Executive Board of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), and since 2013 Adjunct Professor of International Relations, Bologna Center, Johns Hopkins University Bologna.

Multilateralism & Trust

Brian C. Rathbun

„I argue that multilateralism is the expression of trust. In the context of strategic interdependence, trust is belief that cooperation will be reciprocated.”

Rathbun, B. C. (2011): Trust in International Cooperation: International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics and American Multilateralism. Cambridge University Press, p.2.

Brian C. Rathbun associates multilateralism with certain forms of trust and differentiates “strategic trust” – similar to the rationalistic understandings of transactional trust – and “generalized trust”  based on actors dispositions as a result of socialization processes. In this sense, generalized trust is understood as a worldview and lays the foundation for a distinction between “competitors” and “cooperators” (Rathbun 2012: 6). Here, trust is assigned to an “anarchical social capital”, which is the basis for multilateralism.

Brian C. Rathbun is Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California. He integrates insights from political, social, and cognitive psychology into the study of international relations, in particular how ideologies influence foreign policy decision-making.

Multilateralism

Robert O. Keohane

“The definition that is more consistent with ordinary usage conceives of multilateralism as institutionalized collective action by an inclusively determined set of independent states. Truly multilateral organizations are open to all states meeting specific criteria. The rules of multilateral organizations are publicly known and persist over a substantial period of time.”

Keohane, R. O. (2006): “The contingent legitimacy of multilateralism”. In: Newmann, Edward; Thakur, Ramesh; Tirman, John (ed). Multilateralism under challenge? Power, international order, and structural change. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, p. 56.

“Multilateralism can be defined as the practice of co-ordinating national policies in groups of three or more states, through ad hoc arrangements or by means of institutions.”

Keohane, R. O. (1990): “Multilateralism: An Agenda for Research”. In: International Journal 45(4): 731.

For Keohane, multilateralism in its basic minimal definition refers to inclusive, collective action by at least three independent states in a formal or informal institutional structure and thus deliberately does not presuppose further factors such as diffuse reciprocity between participating states (as opposed to, for example, John Ruggie).

Robert O. Keohane (* 1941 in the USA) is a professor emeritus of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and a key figure in the development of liberal institutionalism. 

Multilateralism

John Gerard Ruggie

“[…] multilateralism is an institutional form which coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of ‘generalized’ principles of conduct”

Ruggie, J. G. (1992): “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution”, International Organization, 46(3):567.

Ruggie conceptualizes multilateralism as coordinated and institutionalized relations between three or more states. Multilateralism distinguishes itself from other forms of international relations by three characteristics: (a) (indivisible) collective of members, (b) generalized rules and principles of conduct, and (c) diffuse reciprocity with roughly the same advantages for all participating states.

John Gerard Ruggie (* 1944 in Austria) is the Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at Harvard University as well as an Affiliated Professor in International Legal Studies at Harvard Law.