COVID-19 Pandemic and Reimagination of Multilateralism through Global Health Diplomacy
7
Citation
15
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
The ongoing pandemic COVID-19 has made it very clear that no one is safe until everyone is safe. But how can everyone be safe when the pandemic has broken every nerve of the economy and put an extra burden on the already crippled healthcare systems in low-income countries? Thus, the pandemic has changed the orientation of domestic as well as global politics, with many geopolitical shifts. The exponential growing infected cases and more than four million deaths has demanded a global response in terms of multilateralism. However, declining multilateralism and the need for its reforms was a much-delayed response. Given this context, this paper aimed to link the decline of multilateralism in the face of the pandemic by highlighting various instances of its failure and success; and highlighting the need for its revival. The article critically examines and evaluates the responses of multilateralism and global health diplomacy (GHD) during the pandemic. The ongoing black swan kind of event (an unexpected event) has obligated global leadership to think in terms of the revival of multilateralism through GHD. Historically, multilateralism through GHD has been shown to play an important role in managing and combating pandemics. The article further discusses various theoretical aspects such as sovereignty and hegemonic stability theory as reasons for the failing of multilateralism. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of foresight in reviving multilateralism in the pursuit of a more sustainable future.Keywords:
Pandemic
As scholars and security specialists continue to call for a regional multilateral security framework for Northeast Asia, advocates of such a framework must contemplate the participation of the region’s most incorrigible actor, North Korea. However, one crucial question remains unanswered in the discourse: How does North Korea perceive multilateralism? To glean a better understanding I examine North Korean materials, statements, and behavior relevant to select cases of multilateralism, alongside secondary sources. North Korea’s realist interpretation suggests that Pyongyang largely equates multilateralism in the capitalist international system as ‘imperialism’. While some of North Korea’s statements and cooperative tendencies suggest it values rules and principles - one dimension of multilateralism - North Korea nevertheless does not subscribe to the western IR conception of the term, but rather equates multilateralism to that of a purely functional and strategic tool to pursue its own interests in an anarchical world.
Cite
Citations (0)
The conclusion brings together the main findings from the various chapters. It first focusses on the action and interaction of the US, China and the EU in the multilateral settings studied, and points to several broader insights that emerge from these case studies. These include among others that the effects of the Trump administration and its confrontational stance on multilateralism have been more limited than feared by most observers, and also that in some multilateral settings the three actors have managed to maintain a strong joint commitment to both institutional structure and the related norms. In a second step, the text proposes some general conclusions on multilateralism, i.e. beyond the specific actors and cases treated in this volume. While it appears that multipolar multilateralism is possible, in the sense of a commitment to the same set of fundamental norms by all major players involved, there are also instances of increasingly shallow normative agreement, which risk transforming multilateral institutions in simple diplomatic fora. At the same time, non-state actors are increasingly important in multilateral processes, which suggests the necessity of thinking about multi-level multilateralism. Taken together this suggests that multilateralism is probably not at peril but in a phase of profound transformation.
De facto
Cite
Citations (0)
At this moment, globalization and global governance are progressing on a nonlinear, diversified and multidimensional trajectory, with the focus shifting from who governs global issues to how to handle transnational affairs. Multilateralism is one of the essential characteristics for the discourse of global governance, with its underpinning focuses on which kind of multilateralism the world should adopt and how to consolidate multilateralism of this kind.
Global Governance
Underpinning
Cite
Citations (0)
On the international stage which takes bilateralism as the principal behavior,multilateralism appears,and develops and expanses,which plays important roles in regional and global affairs and it is the tendency in future development. The economy develops fast in southeast countries,and it plays more and more important roles on international stage. Although multilateralism in Southeast Asia is still on the primary level,it has a bright future. Therefore,it is essential to analyze the development,characteristics and prospect of multilateralism in Southeast Asia.
Bilateralism
Cite
Citations (0)
Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Introduction What is Multilateralism? Case Studies of the United Nations A Logic of Multilateralism in International Security An Emerging Logic of Multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific From Free Rider to Navigator Bibliography Index
Cite
Citations (1)
The main goal of this study is to discuss the evolution and the current state of U.S. multilateralism. I argue that after the 9.11, we can observe the emergence of a new multilateralism which is different from traditional multilateralism. This study aim to show the traits of “new multilateralism” with the case of Proliferation Security Initiative(PSI). The new multilateralism emerged after the end of Cold War and has intensified after the 9.11 is characterized by the promotion of the U.S. defined goals which are not necessarily for the benefit of all within multilateral framework. In the sense that the U.S. single-handedly defines the goal and principles and solicits participation it is not a genuine multilateralism. Since the elements of unilateralism are rooted in the new multilateralism, it often lacks enough legitimacy to persuade international community. Multilateral framework seems to be adopted only to achieve U.S. goal such as fighting terrorism effectively. The legitimacy of the new multilateralism is based on creative doctrines which are controversial and often violate existing international norms and laws. It often is in conflict with international law and existing multilateral institutions which have same purpose. Finally, the role of the U.N. is marginal in the new multilateralism. The U.N. is invited only for the purpose of legitimizing unilateral actions. If we accept that current U.S. foreign policy orientation is neither a unilateralism(at least in form) nor a genuine multilateralism, we should reject simple dichotomy(unilateralism vs. multilateralism) in understanding the U.S. foreign policy orientation.
Unilateralism
Cite
Citations (0)
Multilateralism is the practice of promoting trade among several countries through agreements concerning quantity and price of commodities, as the Common Market, and sometimes, restrictive tariffs and goods from outsiders. In this paper, the difference of perception between the Westerns and the Asians on the idea of multilateralism would be looked into in details.Also, this paper highlighted a few points that include the relationship between the stakeholders and the force driving the upholding of multilateralism. Information on this topic are gathered by doing research on published and unpublished materials that dated back to the early formation of the idea so as to support the reliability of this research. In a nutshell, this research paper is highly informative in the field of multilateralism.
Level playing field
Cite
Citations (0)
After World War II,the United States had advocated multilateralism in international politics in order to restructure the world order. However,since the end of the Cold War period,the United States as a country of unipolar hegemony has assumed an instrumental attitude towards multilateralism. This can be mainly accounted for by the following factors. Firstly,the American historical experience determines the American approach of regarding multilateralism as a means instead of an end for international order; Secondly,different parties hold different ideas about multilateralism,resulting in different policies concerning American involvement in international affairs; Thirdly,the concerns about different targets of foreign policies influence American policy-makers' decision about whether or not a multilateralism strategy should be adopted.
Cite
Citations (0)
Drawing on insights from differentiation theory, this book examines the participation of middle powers in multilateralism. Taking Australia, Indonesia and South Korea as examples, it sets out a valuable new framework to explain and understand the behaviour of middle powers in multilateralism.
Middle power
Asia-Pacific
Cite
Citations (0)
Multilateralism has become an increasingly significant part of Asia's international relations. This paper critiques the premise that there are two phases of regional multilateralism, pre- and post-global financial crisis and instead argues that there has been one long 25-year expansion phase. Initially, this was prompted by the risks and opportunities of globalization but was adapted as a strategy to manage a changing regional order. More recently, regional multilateralism has taken on competitive characteristics reflecting Asia's more contested dynamics. The US and its allies are trying to use multilateralism as part of their broader strategy to sustain the prevailing regional order. China is also attempting to use multilateralism as a part of its efforts to change the region to one more in line with its interests and values. Multilateralism has become a sublimated form of contestation over the form and function of Asia's international order. A key consequence of this will be to weaken the policy impact of existing institutional efforts and to promote zero-sum approaches to international policy among many Asian states.
Cite
Citations (13)