n an era of global crises, multilateralism remains the cornerstone of international cooperation. Treaties are often seen as its highest expression—from public health to narcotics to climate change—designed to harmonize policy, set minimum standards, and catalyze collective action.
Yet today’s multipolar world has exposed the treaty system’s fragility. It’s not only the geopolitical shocks—Trump’s foreign policy reset, Russia’s aggression, or a weakened United Nations—but also deep structural flaws that have long been ignored: a lack of transparency, rigid frameworks resistant to innovation, weak enforcement, and growing hostility toward the private sector.
These challenges call for reflection. Without a more agile, inclusive framework grounded in pragmatism, collaboration, and shared responsibility, the international treaty system risks slipping into irrelevance.
Adopted in 2003, the FCTC was celebrated as the first global public health treaty—a landmark in the fight against smoking. But two decades on, the world remains off track from its tobacco reduction goals, and the treaty’s closed–door culture has eroded trust. Originally justified as protection against industry interference, secrecy has instead become a habit. Equally troubling, the treaty remains anchored in an outdated view of nicotine use. By treating combustible cigarettes the same as far less harmful alternatives like vaping or heated tobacco, it discourages life–saving innovation. Rather than evolving with science, it clings to orthodoxy to the point where any dissenting views are dismissed and perspectives from legitimate stakeholders, including consumers, are not considered. Much of the agenda of the upcoming FCTC Conference of the Parties in Geneva this November has been based on the views of a handful of NGOs rather than parties to the Convention, putting the legitimacy of the outcomes in question.
The Covid pandemic exposed the world’s lack of preparedness, prompting negotiations for a pandemic treaty to improve surveillance, data sharing, and vaccine equity. Yet the process of addressing those failings has been marred by mistrust—between developed and developing nations, and over sovereignty concerns. Without credible mechanisms for transparency and enforcement, even the most ambitious framework risks joining the long list of aspirational treaties that bind no one.
The UN’s drug–control conventions, adopted between 1961 and 1988, were built for another era. Their intent was to curb addiction and trafficking, but their rigidity now punishes countries experimenting with evidence–based reforms such as cannabis regulation or safe–supply programs. By locking nations into outdated norms, they deter innovation and leave governments torn between treaty obligations and domestic policy. The result is a regime that enshrines failure instead of learning from it.
From the 1992 UNFCCC to the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate treaties have inspired awareness and investment in renewables. But enforcement remains optional. Large emitters can pledge, posture, and backslide with little consequence. Climate diplomacy risks becoming a cycle of summits without accountability—a symptom of a system too reliant on goodwill and too fearful of reform.
The ongoing negotiations for a global plastics treaty could provide a fresh start. Yet familiar tensions are emerging: competing national interests, ideological divides over “binding” versus “voluntary” measures, and disputes about industry participation. Whether this process repeats old mistakes or models a more inclusive, pragmatic approach may determine the future of global treaty–making itself.
Across all these examples, a common pattern emerges: treaties that are too rigid to adapt, too opaque to inspire trust, and too weak to enforce compliance. They are simultaneously overreaching and underperforming.
If treaties are to remain the backbone of international problem solving, they must evolve. That means opening the doors to transparency and public scrutiny, embracing innovation—including from the private sector—and designing flexible frameworks that encourage experimentation while upholding shared standards.
Multilateralism is not obsolete. But it will survive only if it becomes more open, pragmatic, and focused on outcomes over ideology.
a global affairs media network
Is the international treaty system fit for purpose?
Photo by Katja Anokhina on Unsplash
November 14, 2025
Today’s multipolar world is exposing the international treaty system’s fragility—exposing deep structural flaws that have long been ignored. Fixing those flaws requires transparency, embracing private sector innovation, and flexible frameworks, writes Lindsay Mark Lewis.
I
n an era of global crises, multilateralism remains the cornerstone of international cooperation. Treaties are often seen as its highest expression—from public health to narcotics to climate change—designed to harmonize policy, set minimum standards, and catalyze collective action.
Yet today’s multipolar world has exposed the treaty system’s fragility. It’s not only the geopolitical shocks—Trump’s foreign policy reset, Russia’s aggression, or a weakened United Nations—but also deep structural flaws that have long been ignored: a lack of transparency, rigid frameworks resistant to innovation, weak enforcement, and growing hostility toward the private sector.
These challenges call for reflection. Without a more agile, inclusive framework grounded in pragmatism, collaboration, and shared responsibility, the international treaty system risks slipping into irrelevance.
Adopted in 2003, the FCTC was celebrated as the first global public health treaty—a landmark in the fight against smoking. But two decades on, the world remains off track from its tobacco reduction goals, and the treaty’s closed–door culture has eroded trust. Originally justified as protection against industry interference, secrecy has instead become a habit. Equally troubling, the treaty remains anchored in an outdated view of nicotine use. By treating combustible cigarettes the same as far less harmful alternatives like vaping or heated tobacco, it discourages life–saving innovation. Rather than evolving with science, it clings to orthodoxy to the point where any dissenting views are dismissed and perspectives from legitimate stakeholders, including consumers, are not considered. Much of the agenda of the upcoming FCTC Conference of the Parties in Geneva this November has been based on the views of a handful of NGOs rather than parties to the Convention, putting the legitimacy of the outcomes in question.
The Covid pandemic exposed the world’s lack of preparedness, prompting negotiations for a pandemic treaty to improve surveillance, data sharing, and vaccine equity. Yet the process of addressing those failings has been marred by mistrust—between developed and developing nations, and over sovereignty concerns. Without credible mechanisms for transparency and enforcement, even the most ambitious framework risks joining the long list of aspirational treaties that bind no one.
The UN’s drug–control conventions, adopted between 1961 and 1988, were built for another era. Their intent was to curb addiction and trafficking, but their rigidity now punishes countries experimenting with evidence–based reforms such as cannabis regulation or safe–supply programs. By locking nations into outdated norms, they deter innovation and leave governments torn between treaty obligations and domestic policy. The result is a regime that enshrines failure instead of learning from it.
From the 1992 UNFCCC to the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate treaties have inspired awareness and investment in renewables. But enforcement remains optional. Large emitters can pledge, posture, and backslide with little consequence. Climate diplomacy risks becoming a cycle of summits without accountability—a symptom of a system too reliant on goodwill and too fearful of reform.
The ongoing negotiations for a global plastics treaty could provide a fresh start. Yet familiar tensions are emerging: competing national interests, ideological divides over “binding” versus “voluntary” measures, and disputes about industry participation. Whether this process repeats old mistakes or models a more inclusive, pragmatic approach may determine the future of global treaty–making itself.
Across all these examples, a common pattern emerges: treaties that are too rigid to adapt, too opaque to inspire trust, and too weak to enforce compliance. They are simultaneously overreaching and underperforming.
If treaties are to remain the backbone of international problem solving, they must evolve. That means opening the doors to transparency and public scrutiny, embracing innovation—including from the private sector—and designing flexible frameworks that encourage experimentation while upholding shared standards.
Multilateralism is not obsolete. But it will survive only if it becomes more open, pragmatic, and focused on outcomes over ideology.
