Quel multilatéralisme face aux enjeux globaux ?
This collective work retraces the history of multilateralism, reports back on its current state of affairs and analyses it from almost every angle. Published in the second half of 2021, it was obviously too early to be able to take account of the major crisis of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. A unilateral war being waged by the Kremlin on European soil and which has sparked a global multilateral response towards excluding Russia from the international community, with just 40 countries (all of them dictatorships or states dependent on or dominated by Russia) in the world refusing to call for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. Multilateralism, which has been strongly called into question in recent years by both the United States under Donald Trump and autocratic, vindictive and aggressive powers, as well as by the influence of China, which has an extremely restrictive conception of civil and political freedoms, is not only alive and well, but remains the West’s main weapon against Putin. It is, all the same, a weapon of uncertain effectiveness when deployed against the hubris of an autocrat and the savagery of his total war against Ukraine. The aid provided to the Ukrainian people is useful and the sanctions, on an unprecedented scale, are already showing their effects. They are nonetheless disproportionately small in relation to the challenge to humanity, democracy and civilisation itself posed by this war. European political figures could show greater courage and solidarity. In my view, the European Union should take account of the specific circumstances of this war and, at the very least, give Ukraine official accession candidate status.
In an article on Europe and relations between the US and China, former Swiss diplomat Jean Zwahlen and researcher Olivier Bichsel (Université de Laval) stressed that the “combination of the American withdrawal and the rise in power of China” has caused a “restructuring of multilateralism and its institutions” (our translation throughout). China has “greater involvement in the UN than ever and is creating its own ‘multilateral institutions’”, the authors observe, adding that “it has even gone so far as to try to create its own courts to hear international cases (maritime courts, specifically). It is to be expected that the Chinese Communist Party will, in one way or another, shape the future of our world. The country is aiming for political, ideological, military, technical, economic and social domination. The ‘new middle kingdom’ can rely on all those it has been able to draw to it, especially the developing countries, which are now benefiting from a powerful benefactor. This benefactor, which has little interest in the rule of law, is today legitimising powers that would not have been able to prosper in the world as it once was. This means that, if the ‘Bolsonaros of this world’ first found resonance in the Trump era, they will be sustained by the multilateralism of numbers and figures rather than principles promoted by China. In this regard, Brazil, Russia and India are on a worrying trajectory, a long way from the raisons d’être of the post-1945 system. But what about Europe? It can no longer count on the solidity of the Atlantic Alliance and is increasingly facing off against this all-conquering China. Furthermore, the Trump Presidency shored up the Russian position, leaving the European Union stuck fast, under pressure from three countries: Russia, the United States and China”.
“Europe’s great shortcoming will have been its failure to include Russia in this post-modern state of affairs. Because its closest neighbour has not moved on from this mindset of domination and expansion”, Zwahlen and Bichsel note. They add: “the European Union is unstable because the world around it is: the subsistence of the post-modern state is automatically reliant on its security. It is noteworthy that the crises that have affected the EU were never born in the EU. Although it is always bears the responsibility for them, the EU has never truly been the principal source of the global issues of the last 20 years. In some way, Europe is intrinsically in a state of peace, but constantly under pressure from the outside. This pressure causes friction inside the continent, which hampers the EU’s capacity to make progress”. The authors conclude by borrowing a quotation from Immanuel Kant: “today, Europe must no longer ‘make a tacit reservation in regard to old claims without elaborating them, because it is too exhausted to continue warring’. There is a real place for a Europe that is collective and united, the compass of a new multilateralism, which will allow a purpose to shine through, bringing concord through the discord of men, and even against their will”.
Stressing that the objectives of promoting multilateralism, the values of the European Union, which are seen in Brussels as being universal in nature, and the interests of the EU as set out in article 21 TEU are by no means easy to combine, Hugo Favier (Université de Bordeaux) notes a “tendency towards the prevalence of the defence of the interests of the EU and of its autonomy over the question of human rights, universality and multilateralism”. “Admittedly, the action of the EU in this area aims to comply with these idealistic precepts. The fact remains, however, that the rise in power of the discourse on strategic autonomy signifies a development of the way in which the EU sees its role on the international stage. Finally, it attests that the rise in power of the defence of the interests of the EU’s independence and integrity is no longer just words, but that it has operational consequences”, Favier writes.
Former Belgian diplomat Raoul Delcorde argues that “in a globalised world, interdependence takes precedence over sovereignty”. The author also notes that the “representation we had of public goods has changed a great deal over the last ten years (…): air quality and pandemic control are two examples of this. It has become clear that these goods cannot be shared out between states. Environmental goods, economic goods, natural resources do not lend themselves to sovereign management without this causing serious adverse effects. Deforestation in Brazil, pandemics and ethnic cleansing policies affect not only the national communities concerned, but the whole of humanity, due to their spread and propagation and their downstream consequences”. Delcorde considers that the concept of global public goods “helps us to admit that in the long term, and with concerted action, global interests and national interests cannot just be reconciled, but also mutually reinforce each other”. “The production of global public goods presupposes efforts by a large number of states or of all states, and these can draw the benefits of it. This characteristic of global public goods also enables ‘win-win’ approaches to common problems rather than a zero-sum game (‘I win, you lose’) which most frequently characterises current international negotiations”, the author observes, arguing that “at a time when political divisions between countries, regions and groups are growing, understanding the specific nature of global public goods helps to devise global solutions to the planet’s problems”. He goes on to state that “the major question in contemporary relationships, then, is that of the production of global public goods, their financing and the framework of standards that applies to them”.
Raoul Delcorde also points out that “Pascal Lamy believes that the major difficulty in contemporary global governance is of an ethical nature”. “The collective problems that we are going to have to deal with in the future are problems of values and ‘collective preferences”, writes the author, who goes on to stress that “there is enormous diversity in the systems of values in the different regions of the world in question. However, we need a pillar of common values to arrive at international agreements on global questions. This is the case for the management of health crises and environmental crises alike. Pascal Lamy also argues that in order to remain in control of globalisation and avoid the outbreak of conflicts, global geo-economic integration must be accompanied by a certain degree of globalisation of ethics and values: in other words, the economy must be ‘re-embedded’ in society and politics. The economy must be subordinate to the needs of people and not the other way round”. (Olivier Jehin)
Olivier Delas, Olivier Bichsel and Baptiste Jouzier. L’après Covid-19 : quel multilatéralisme face aux enjeux globaux ? – Regards croisés : Union européenne – Amérique du Nord - Asie (available in French only) - Bruylant. ISBN: 978-2-8027-6978-1. 479 pages. €95,00
Le droit international applicable aux opérations de paix
Bruylant has just published the French version of the “Leuven Manual”, the English-language original version of which was published in late 2017 by Cambridge University Press. The result of a lengthy project Carried out by experts from the legal and military fields, amongst others, the work is aimed at national civil servants and employees of international organisations, superior officers tasked with planning and executing peacekeeping operations, senior executives in non-government organisations carrying out humanitarian activities in operational peacekeeping zones and academics and researchers working on the matters.
The manual deals solely, but exhaustively, with so-called “consensual” peacekeeping operations, in other words traditional peacekeeping missions and multi-dimensional operations, including in the areas of peacekeeping, peace consolidation and support for the political conflict resolution process. It sets out the relevant law and related best practice in the form of 145 rules together with commentary. It looks at the various stages in the planning and execution of operations and tackles “all helpful questions, such as the legal basis for these operations, the legal regimes applicable to the conduct of operations, particularly international human rights law and international humanitarian law, peacekeeping relations with the host state, the home state and other stakeholders, the use of force in the framework of self-defence and for the execution of tasks defined in the mandate, support for the preservation of a stable environment and maintaining public order as well as the promotion of human rights and the rule of law”. It also deals with the protection of civilians, maintaining discipline, preventing abuse against the population, the various immunities of mission personnel and questions related to international and criminal responsibility in the event of breaches of international law. (OJ)
Terry Gill, Dieter Fleck, William H. Boothby and Alfons Vanheusden. Manuel de Leuven sur le droit international applicable aux opérations de paix. Bruylant. ISBN: 978-2-8027-6536-3. 407 pages. €60,00
Ungarns Umgang mit Nichtregierungsorganiationen
In the latest edition of the review Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, Melanie Hien (University of Regensburg) offers us a detailed analysis of the various stages in the Orban regime’s fight against non-government organisations. Hien describes how, following their defeat in the 2002 elections, Orban and his Fidesz party prompted the creation of new social movements (or civic circles) which helped to bring them to power in 2010. One year later, there followed the first restrictions on funding for NGOs on the grounds of a new definition of non-profit organisations and then, in 2017, a law restricting conditions for access to foreign financing, on the pretext of transparency. This law was, however, partially modified in 2021, following a judgment of the European Court of Justice. The author also discusses the transfer, in 2021, of 11 Hungarian universities and colleges into foundations in order to maintain control over them (as the law applicable to these foundations can only be amended with a two-thirds majority) in the event of defeat in the elections of April 2022. All of these laws, plus a number of indirect measures, have not only served to undermine the reputation of NGOs, but have enormously hindered their activities. (OJ)
Melanie Hien. Ungarns Umgang mit Nichtregierungsorganisationen – ein Kampf von David gegen Goliath? Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, 05/2021. ISSN: 0340-174X. 120 pages. €15,00