ince the advent of the new Trump administration, the viability of multilateralism has come under sustained scrutiny. Major powers—most notably the United States, Russia, and China—have increasingly favored transactional, unilateral, or bilateral approaches to global challenges. This shift has led many to declare multilateralism in terminal decline. Yet that obituary may be premature. Countries such as Brazil, India, South Africa, Japan, and much of Europe continue to invest in multilateral frameworks. Still, the broader trajectory suggests mounting geopolitical fragmentation.
The erosion of multilateralism is not the sole driver of global instability, but it is among the most consequential. It evokes troubling parallels with the 1930s interwar period: the rise of authoritarian leaders, economic nationalism, collapsing trade regimes, and a retreat from collective problem solving. That path culminated in global war. Today’s disruptions—climate change, energy transition, and what Ivelaw Griffith in his book Challenged Sovereignty terms “problems without passports” (e.g., pandemics, transnational crime, terrorism)—demand coordinated responses. Yet the mechanisms for such cooperation are faltering.
Not all trends, however, point toward disintegration. The Covid pandemic spurred unprecedented scientific collaboration. International and regional bodies—such as Interpol, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Financial Action Task Force—continue to combat global crime and terrorism. Despite political headwinds, many states remain committed to joint action on climate and energy—and the various COPs on environmental action move forward.
This tension between international fragmentation and cooperation is one manifestation of what we call the Janus factor, after the Roman god who looked both forward and backward. In global politics, the Janus factor describes the instability that arises when two trends generate forces that pull in opposite directions. These trends are present, but in tension with one another, pulling in opposite directions. Eventually, one direction prevails. The transition is rarely peaceful.
The Janus factor defines several of today’s fundamental geopolitical issues. Enormous wealth creation and the alleviation of poverty for millions exists side–by–side with rising inequality and growing migration pressures from parts of the Global South to the Global North. Advances in technology simultaneously empower non–state actors while placing unheard of capabilities in the hands of states. There is a hyper–availability of information at the same time that there are growing press restrictions, data silos, and fake news.
In this landscape, multilateralism provides a path to often vociferously opposing points of view. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, escalating trade wars, and China’s crackdown on Hong Kong all suggest that unilateralism is gaining the upper hand. So, where does this leave multilateralism? Its survival hinges on relevance.
Today, multilateral institutions are often paralyzed by great power rivalry. The United Nations Security Council remains deadlocked over Haiti, unable to act as the country descends into chaos. Indeed, gangs are threatening to topple the last government stronghold in the capital, Port–au–Prince. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization are increasingly sidelined, bogged down by procedural inertia and political interference. These failures raise a critical question: Are we approaching a Janus moment—a decisive break where one trend overwhelms the other?
The current multilateral order was born of the wreckage of World War II. Its architects, mindful of the League of Nations’ impotence, built institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the WTO) to prevent a return to the 1930s. Although not perfect, Bretton Woods provided a constructive framework for global commerce and investment as well as a platform for ameliorating disputes, such as those over tariffs. That legacy is now at risk.
Multilateralism is not yet obsolete. The March 2025 G20 summit offered a glimmer of resolve. In a joint communiqué, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared: “Trust in multilateral institutions is under strain, yet the need for dialogue and global cooperation has never been greater. We must affirm that multilateralism, when ambitious and action–oriented, remains the most effective vehicle for addressing common interests.”
That affirmation must be met with action. Reform is essential. Without it, multilateral institutions risk becoming irrelevant—mere forums for rhetoric, not results. In such a world, the rule of law gives way to the rule of force. The Janus factor tips decisively toward disorder.
a global affairs media network
The decline of multilateralism and the Janus factor
Image from the 2015 World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings 2015. The legacy of Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank and IMF is now at risk. Photo courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
June 19, 2025
Multilateralism is eroding, having become a core driver of global instability, yet there are powerful trends pointing to unprecedented collaboration. This tension between fragmentation and cooperation is a manifestation of the Janus factor, write Andrew Novo and Scott B. MacDonald.
S
ince the advent of the new Trump administration, the viability of multilateralism has come under sustained scrutiny. Major powers—most notably the United States, Russia, and China—have increasingly favored transactional, unilateral, or bilateral approaches to global challenges. This shift has led many to declare multilateralism in terminal decline. Yet that obituary may be premature. Countries such as Brazil, India, South Africa, Japan, and much of Europe continue to invest in multilateral frameworks. Still, the broader trajectory suggests mounting geopolitical fragmentation.
The erosion of multilateralism is not the sole driver of global instability, but it is among the most consequential. It evokes troubling parallels with the 1930s interwar period: the rise of authoritarian leaders, economic nationalism, collapsing trade regimes, and a retreat from collective problem solving. That path culminated in global war. Today’s disruptions—climate change, energy transition, and what Ivelaw Griffith in his book Challenged Sovereignty terms “problems without passports” (e.g., pandemics, transnational crime, terrorism)—demand coordinated responses. Yet the mechanisms for such cooperation are faltering.
Not all trends, however, point toward disintegration. The Covid pandemic spurred unprecedented scientific collaboration. International and regional bodies—such as Interpol, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Financial Action Task Force—continue to combat global crime and terrorism. Despite political headwinds, many states remain committed to joint action on climate and energy—and the various COPs on environmental action move forward.
This tension between international fragmentation and cooperation is one manifestation of what we call the Janus factor, after the Roman god who looked both forward and backward. In global politics, the Janus factor describes the instability that arises when two trends generate forces that pull in opposite directions. These trends are present, but in tension with one another, pulling in opposite directions. Eventually, one direction prevails. The transition is rarely peaceful.
The Janus factor defines several of today’s fundamental geopolitical issues. Enormous wealth creation and the alleviation of poverty for millions exists side–by–side with rising inequality and growing migration pressures from parts of the Global South to the Global North. Advances in technology simultaneously empower non–state actors while placing unheard of capabilities in the hands of states. There is a hyper–availability of information at the same time that there are growing press restrictions, data silos, and fake news.
In this landscape, multilateralism provides a path to often vociferously opposing points of view. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, escalating trade wars, and China’s crackdown on Hong Kong all suggest that unilateralism is gaining the upper hand. So, where does this leave multilateralism? Its survival hinges on relevance.
Today, multilateral institutions are often paralyzed by great power rivalry. The United Nations Security Council remains deadlocked over Haiti, unable to act as the country descends into chaos. Indeed, gangs are threatening to topple the last government stronghold in the capital, Port–au–Prince. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization are increasingly sidelined, bogged down by procedural inertia and political interference. These failures raise a critical question: Are we approaching a Janus moment—a decisive break where one trend overwhelms the other?
The current multilateral order was born of the wreckage of World War II. Its architects, mindful of the League of Nations’ impotence, built institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the WTO) to prevent a return to the 1930s. Although not perfect, Bretton Woods provided a constructive framework for global commerce and investment as well as a platform for ameliorating disputes, such as those over tariffs. That legacy is now at risk.
Multilateralism is not yet obsolete. The March 2025 G20 summit offered a glimmer of resolve. In a joint communiqué, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared: “Trust in multilateral institutions is under strain, yet the need for dialogue and global cooperation has never been greater. We must affirm that multilateralism, when ambitious and action–oriented, remains the most effective vehicle for addressing common interests.”
That affirmation must be met with action. Reform is essential. Without it, multilateral institutions risk becoming irrelevant—mere forums for rhetoric, not results. In such a world, the rule of law gives way to the rule of force. The Janus factor tips decisively toward disorder.
