Contentiousness and change in the multilateral world order
Research addresses disputes about the multilateral order and the related dynamics within international organizations, as well as international standards and regimes.
Are international organizations being “liquefied”? How international organizations react to civil society disputes
Today, IOs are deeply involved in developing, monitoring, and interpreting regulatory compliance. Researchers have long imputed possible inefficiencies to specific principal-agent constellations or the advancing bureaucratization of such organizations.
Now, however, this analysis seems outdated. The worldwide trend toward new public management—to flexibilization, greater competition between international organizations, more short-term employment and consultancy contracts—has left its mark. One of our first projects will study how much transnational professional networks have contributed to IO liquefaction and informalization.
Specialization in multilateral diplomacy
How states act in multilateral decision-making bodies of international organizations is also changing. A trend toward specialization can be observed in many fields—from the earlier practice of dispatching carrier diplomats to sending experts from sector ministries. Although research describes this as an efficient, depoliticizing strategy, this specialization also displays unanticipated side effects, which will be examined in a second project.
International norm disputes: Contestation regarding the robustness of norms (DFG research grant)
The increasing contentiousness over standards and regimes in the multilateral world order is a third important aspect to study. On one hand, we observe that many international standards and regulations long considered sacrosanct—including the international prohibition of torture, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change—are being questioned, including by states that were deeply involved in their development. At the same time, however, the international system is also undergoing major power shifts.
The dominant agreement about “liberal” values in the international system that a Western coalition had supported since the 1990s seems to be crumbling, and “non-Western” states and regions are assuming ever more important roles in the international system. Will this change cause international standards to decline, or will they be reinvigorated? How much will international regulations become localized and changed, for example, how might the notion of the “responsibility to protect” change in China or Brazil? When do such localizations have repercussions on the current global consensus regarding international standards and regimes?