Authors: Bhumika Singh, Susanna Dasari, Deveshi Srivastava, Maryem Laghdaf, Abhishek

INTRODUCTION

The need for effective cooperation across the globe has never been so urgently needed, as a world with ever-more complex and interconnected challenges, from climate change, technological disruption, and uncertain geopolitics, to global pandemics—the threats to economic and social stability are far too big for a single nation to navigate alone.

Strangely enough, the very multilateral system that was designed to address these challenges is experiencing ever-increasing stress; nationalistic tendencies are becoming stronger, and traditional institutions seem unable to constrain and direct the aggressive impulses of geopolitics, leading to a general distrust in multilateral diplomacy. This is a crisis, thus through this research we analyse opportunities for rethinking, reforming and even innovating the processes of multilateral diplomacy and engagement.

2. CORE CHALLENGES IN THE 21st CENTURY MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY

Challenges like Geopolitical rivalries, economic protectionism, Trade Wars, migration and Refugee policy gridlocks have collectively weakened the multilateral system and have created distrust in Nation states, who are now questioning its credibility and responsiveness. Due to these very reasons, National states are looking for alternatives as these challenges hinder effective diplomacy because of which international cooperation is now at a risk of fragmentation. Some of these Challenges are discussed as follows:

2.1 GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS

Multilateral diplomacy in the past few years has fallen behind the pace and sophistication of great-power geopolitics. Increasingly, the tension between the United States and China has outlined this deeper divide. Initially a competition over trade, the dispute between the two powers has since spilled over to more profound disagreements about world order and models of governance. The U.S. remains committed to a liberal rules-based international order, while the latter espouses a model based upon national sovereignty and non-interference. These two worldviews have created institutional delays in important organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, particularly over contentious issues such as human rights, cybersecurity, and international health.

Apart from U.S – China tensions, Russia’s actions in international diplomacy have undermined trust in multilateralism further. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2022 all-out invasion of Ukraine consolidated Russia’s disregard for international norms. Russia claims it is responding to NATO expansionism, yet its actions encouraged universal censure and punishment in the form of economic sanctions and military counteractions from the West. Russia’s exercise of its veto in the UN Security Council in its favor has also foreclosed any consensus response, laying bare the greatest failing in the existing multilateral system.

The Middle East is also a case where multilateral diplomacy has fallen short. External military interventions through great powers such as the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in Syria, and regional powers Iran and Turkey have tended to complicate conflicts rather than creating a lasting resolution. Even when mediations have been made for example, the Geneva Syria peace negotiations or those convened and co-sponsored through the UN in Yemen and Libya they have achieved very little progress owing to the diversity and clash of strong stakeholders’ interests.

Overall, geopolitical partitions have produced a sharp erosion in international trust. Matters requiring joint action (the climate or pandemics )are increasingly pushed onto the sidelines in favor of struggle over power. International politics is increasingly divided and competitive in a way that is erasing the aim for genuine multilateral interaction. Unless and until important reform occurs, the danger exists that multilateral diplomacy will become outdated and irrelevant.

2.2 RISE OF POPULISM / NATIONALISM

While multilateral diplomacy does rely on cooperation as well as shared interests, the rise of Nationalism and Populism in the 21st Century has posed a challenge to it. Rooted in prioritising the Nation’s Sovereignty and National Identity along with a distrust in global elites and Multilateral institutions, both ideologies promote a foreign policy that is fundamentally opposed to the principles of Multilateral diplomacy.

Populism : As Cas Mudde (2004) has described, the society consists of two kinds of people, ‘the pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elites’. Since these populist leaders are Anti-elitist, they often sideline career diplomats, take diplomacy into their own hands and act in the name of ‘the people’ against global elites. Eiran, Ish-Shalom, and Kornprobst (2025), in their work, call this “champion diplomacy” where heads of state act as sole representatives and defenders of the people. These Populist leaders oppose global cooperation while calling it elite-driven and undemocratic, they also prefer bilateral deals over multilateral deals. Also, they undermine credibility and authenticity of the multilateral bodies and use aggressive, simplified rhetoric which is not suited for diplomatic negotiation. Donald Trump’s foreign policy best explains how populism challenges multilateral diplomacy. Due to his “America First” approach, the United States withdrew from some major international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord, the WHO, the Iran Nuclear Deal etc. These actions showcased a broader distrust in global institutions and a belief that international commitments limit national independence and decision-making. This results in the diplomatic process becoming less predictable, making multilateral agreements suffer.

Nationalism: Similar to Populists, Nationalists prioritize National issues over the international ones. These nationalist leaders reframe diplomacy as a political domestic tool. Nationalism challenges the very fundamentals of multilateralism as it undermines consensus, weakens institutional coherence, and shifts diplomacy towards unilateral or even regional blocs that are based on national interests rather than global cooperation. They often resist binding multilateral commitments and are skeptical towards supranational governance. This leads to an unstable global setting which is uncooperative and unpredictable.

India has reflected just how nationalism can influence and limit engagement with multilateral diplomacy. This was evident when India initiated “Atmanirbhar Bharat” for economic independence and also, when it withdrew from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), due to concerns over protecting domestic industries. Such actions illustrate how Nationalist leaders prioritize national interests over collective regional or global commitments. Similar is the case of BREXIT (2020) driven by a nationalist rhetoric about “taking back control”.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic clearly exposed the difficulty in achieving actual global solidarity. Instead of working together, some nations practiced vaccine diplomacy to expand their political influence. Meanwhile, several developed nations even engaged in vaccine hoarding or vaccine nationalism, putting their own populations first and sidelining the principles of fairness and global responsibility. This response revealed how nationalism continues to weaken and destabilize multilateral action, even if it’s a Global crisis.

The 21st century was anticipated to strengthen global cooperation, but in reality, national interests have so often taken priority over global cooperation and collective efforts, making it harder to formulate effective international frameworks. The rise of populism and nationalism significantly hampers international cooperation by promoting unilateralism, undermining trust in global institutions, and prioritizing domestic political agendas over any collective action. This, not only makes it more difficult to negotiate international agreements but also, weakens the implementation and enforcement of the existing treaties. As a result, the foundations of the multilateral system withers, leading to fragmentation, reduced institutional effectiveness, and a destabilized global diplomatic order.

2.3 INSTITUTIONAL DEADLOCK IN THE UN

As the main multilateral organisation in charge of maintaining world peace and security, the United Nations has long been beset by systemic deadlocks, which has led to harsh criticism from nations. Some of these deadlocks are as follows:

ABSENCE OF FUNDS AND EXISTING BIASES : UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the underfunding of conflict prevention and preparedness efforts in 2021’s “Our Common Agenda,” despite the fact that they are extremely cost-effective. He also underlined how inadequate the ongoing funding for peacebuilding is, which is a failure that is primarily due to the lack of political will of the member states. Since the UN receives about 60% of its funding from voluntary contributions, large donors have financial clout and influence over the agenda. This further distorts neutrality and establishes priorities according to the interests of the main funders.

LIMITED GROUP OF P5: The UN Security Council is a prime example of the issue of institutional deadlock. One of its main problems is its antiquated structure, especially the P5 ( Permanent 5 members- China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA). Instead of reflecting the geopolitical and economic realities of the twenty-first century, this arrangement reflects the global power balance following World War II. Important regional and emerging powers like Brazil, South Africa and India are left out because it hasn’t increased the number of permanent members, which frustrates Nation states, particularly in the Global South. As a result, there is growing doubt about the Council’s capacity to handle contemporary disputes. Real reform has been stalled for more than 25 years, despite the general consensus that the UN Security Council needs to be reformed. Consensus is still thwarted by veto power politics and regional rivalries, such as those between South Africa and Nigeria or India and Pakistan. Consequently, reform debates continue indefinitely without yielding tangible results.

VETO POWER: The UN Security Council’s frequent inaction stems mostly from its veto power. This allows any of the five permanent members (P5) to personally block significant decisions. Though the veto was intended to prevent one-sided aggression, it is now frequently used to defend national interests—even in cases of major violations of human rights or obvious transgression of international law. Russia, for instance, has blocked resolutions on Syria and Ukraine while the United States has done so on concerns pertaining to Israel and Palestine. This has stopped the UN from acting in big humanitarian crises.

OVERLAPPING RESOLUTIONS: TheMore than forty different agencies covering trade, health, development, and climate change are part of the United Nations system. Although this extensive network was designed to enable specialisation, it has instead resulted in conflicting roles, uncertainty, and even agency rivalry. Many of these bodies deal with similar problems without clear coordination, which leads to overlapping resolutions and slow decision-making by means of repeated attempts. This fragmentation makes it difficult to provide a consistent and timely response to world issues, compromising the UN’s general potency. Failure of peacekeeping operations including Rwanda (1994), Bosnia (Srebrenica), DR Congo etc. follows from this coordination gap as well.

Many nations are searching for alternatives as a result of the persistent problems with the UN system, which range from power disparities to impasses caused by vetoes. States that are fed up with inaction frequently use direct bilateral ties, informal coalitions, or regional alliances to address pressing issues. This growing trend indicates a lack of confidence in the UN’s leadership skills and a covert shift away from multilateral diplomacy towards more adaptable and responsive options.

2.4 UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION AND LACK OF INCLUSIVITY

One of the most wide-ranging and enduring objections to today’s multilateral system is the Unequal representation and the lack of inclusivity. Institutions that were originally intended to reflect international cooperation find themselves reinforcing the interests of a narrow club of important powers. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a case in point. Its permanent five (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) maintain the right to veto any resolution, and this gives them the veto power over any other position, regardless of the majority. This framework based on the post-World War II period no longer reflects the world’s geopolitical or demographic situation.

States from parts of the world such as Africa, Latin America, and South Asia where the majority of the world’s people live still do not have significant representation at the highest levels of international decision-making. Persistent requests for reforming the system, those put forward by the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) and the African Union, have resonated but have stopped at the point of making structural changes. There is increasingly mounting frustration from the perspective of those states who believe they bear the brunt of the world’s crises but have no say in the way the international world reacts to them.

Economic governance mirrors the same disparities. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank still function based on a system in which voting powers are directly related to contributions made towards the funds. Consequently, more powerful countries, and more so the Western world, wield greater influences over policy-making processes while developing countries get marginalized even when policies directly concern them. Undemocratic representation in the institutions fosters the belief that multilateralism benefits the privileged rather than the masses.

Beyond governments, the system also finds it difficult to incorporate the voices of civil society, youth, women, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups. Women, for example, continue according to recent UN Women evidence to be vastly underrepresented in official peace negotiations composing fewer than 10% of negotiators in 2023. Similarly, youth and community people impacted by concerns such as climate change or war are left out of the spaces where international policy is decided.

While some measures such as the UN75 Dialogue and the greater involvement of regional actors have attempted to introduce greater diversity in multilateral processes, progress has remained uneven. To remain credible and effective, multinational governance needs to transcend the stage of symbolic engagement and open up real avenues through which all voices can contribute. Inclusiveness cannot become secondary; it needs to become the essence through which multilateral diplomacy is conceived and worked out.

3. Innovations Reshaping Multilateral Diplomacy

The nature of the challenges facing the international community, ranging from climate change and global health crises to cybersecurity and technological governance, demands adaptive and collective approaches.

In response, multilateral diplomacy has become more agile and collaborative, promoting shared responsibility among diverse actors. These developments signal a shift towards a more inclusive and responsive model of diplomacy, better suited to navigate the complexities of 21st-century international relations. Thus these innovations have been reshaping multilateral diplomacy, indicating that multilateral diplomacy isn’t withering away, rather it is evolving.

Some of these new innovations are discussed as follows:

3.1 CLIMATE AND ENERGY DIPLOMACY

The Urgency for diplomatic Reform From concession to perpetration

The periodic UN Climate Change Conferences have been necessary in forging global agreement on climate action, climaxing in corner agreements like the Paris Accord. Still, nearly three decades into the process, the gap between high- position commitments and palpable action has come stark.

While the fabrics for climate ambition live, the world isn’t on track to meet the 1.5 °C target, with emigration reductions falling short and the threat of disastrous warming brewing.

Crucial Points

• COPs have established the policy frame for climate action, but perpetration lags behind commitments.

• The current structure of COPs is too slow and cumbrous to deliver the necessary exponential change.

• Without a shift from concession to delivery, the legality and effectiveness of global climate governance are at threat.

The Energy Transition Security, Innovation, and Geopolitics contemporaneously, the global energy system is witnessing a profound metamorphosis. Clean energy technologies are being stationed at unknown rates, and electricity demand is soaring- heralding what the International Energy Agency(IEA) calls the” Age of Electricity”still, this transition isn’t invariant, and is complicated by geopolitical pressures, supply chain vulnerabilities, and the need for energy security.

Crucial Points

• Clean energy is expanding fleetly, but reactionary energy demand is only projected to peak by the end of the decade, not decline.

• Geopolitical pitfalls similar to conflicts and trade controversies punctuate the fragility of energy supply chains and can both hamper and accelerate the energy transition, depending on policy responses.

• Investment in grids and storehouses is lagging behind the growth of renewables, changing the adaptability and trustability of RE energy systems.

Bridging Climate and Energy The Politic Nexus

The crossroad of climate and energy policy is now the fulcrum of multinational tactfulness. Effective climate action includes a secure, just, and accelerated energy transition plan of action. COP29 and analogous forums are decreasingly assigned with not just setting targets but enabling the fiscal, technological, and governance fabrics to deliver them.

Crucial Points

• COP29 concentrated on operationalizing climate finance, advancing RE energy, and supporting the just transition for vulnerable husbandry.

• Agreements on transnational carbon trading and increased climate finance are way forward, but debates over equity, patron liabilities, and the adequacy of backing persist.

• The energy transition requires holistic results that balance decarbonization, affordability, security, and development requirements especially for the Global South.

Reforming Multilateral Climate

Energy Diplomacy To remain applicable and effective, the COPs process and broader climate- energy tactfulness must suffer structural reforms.

1. Strengthen Responsibility and Delivery

• Shift COPs from large- scale accommodations to lower, more frequent, result- driven meetings concentrated on progress, benchmarking, and responsibility.

• Establish robust mechanisms for transparent shadowing of public commitments, with independent scientific oversight and peer review.

2. Reform COPs Governance and Representation

• Institute strict criteria for COPs host countries, icing alignment with climate pretensions and banning those advancing reactionary energy interests.

• Amplify the voices of vulnerable nations, indigenous peoples, and non-state actors, while limiting overdue influence from reactionary energy lobbyists.

3. Integrate Finance and Technology

• Enhance the role of multinational fiscal institutions to align climate finance with adaptation and mitigation requirements, prioritizing subventions over loans for vulnerable countries.

• Promote cooperative fabrics for participating technology and integrating renewable energy systems regionally.

4. Address Equity and Addition

• Fete that climate pitfalls complicate poverty and inequality; reforms must ensure that the benefits of the energy transition are participated and inclusive.

• Appoint a Climate- Poverty Policy Envoy to advocate for the requirements of the most affected communities.

Key Reforms

• Move from concession to action and responsibility.

• Ensure host countries and actors align with climate pretensions.

• Integrate finance, technology, and equity into the core of climate- energy tactfulness.

• Make COPs more nimble, inclusive, and wisdom- driven.

The Road Ahead Multilateralism for a safe-deposit box, Just unborn.

The evolving geography of climate and energy tactfulness is both a challenge and an occasion. The multinational system must acclimatize to deliver rapid-fire, indifferent, and flexible transitions- bridging the gap between ambition and action, and between climate imperatives and energy realities.

The legality and effectiveness of global climate tactfulness depend on critical and systemic reform. Energy transition and climate action are thick; both bear coordinated, inclusive, and responsible multinational fabrics. Therefore, the coming phase of tactfulness must deliver not just pledges, but measurable progress, icing a safe climate and secure energy future for all.

3.2 DIGITAL DIPLOMACY

The evolution of digital technologies in recent times has reshaped the practice of traditional diplomacy. Digital diplomacy is the use of the internet and digital communication tools to accomplish the work and objectives of diplomacy. India has adopted digital diplomacy to a growing degree and has also taken advantage of social media platforms and other digital technologies to build its international presence and connect with global audiences.

Historical Background:

The evolution of digital diplomacy can be divided into the following stages, before, during, and after the rise of digital communication tools:

Pre-Digital Era (Before 1990)

Previously, diplomacy followed traditional pathways involving official channels, embassies, and face-to-face negotiations. Public diplomacy attempted to establish or influence global thinking on policies by relying on newspapers, radio, and television. Media mattered, but the communication methods were either state owned or produced, and government went to great lengths – it was clearly politically motivated – to assert control over the narrative and remain predominately a unidirectional communicative force; government press releases, brochures, and other methods to educate and influence policy through citizen customers.

The Internet Era (1990 – Early 2000s)

When websites emerged, and e-mails were introduced, it moved us into the e-governance and e-diplomacy space. There was now a way for MFA’s (Ministries of Foreign Affairs) to host and distribute their information online, press releases, travel advisory, etc. There was very little public engagement, or an audience for those materials and the government still valued government-to-government communications.

The Social Media Era (Mid 2000s – 2010s)

In 2006, platforms like Twitter evolved / revolutionized the way real-time interactive opportunities with public participants were possible. In the genesis of allusion towards a turning point, Barack Obama adopted interactive media during his 2008 campaign and created a pivotal moment in the recognition of how influencing/hedging the digital world could shape issues via digital tools – invented platforms essentially.

Pivotal moment and therefore the MFA’s spent more political and public diplomatic time on use and recognition of social media and embassies became more engaged with their publics from their home foraging office.

1.Institutionalization of Digital Diplomacy(2010s)

Much of this decade was characterized by foreign ministries solidifying digital diplomacy units of various degrees (e.g. UK-Digital Diplomacy Hub, ship between government and non government approaches.

2.US – Virtual Embassy for Iran, digital embassies)

State / national governments formally engaged in digital campaigns promoting image to identify and respond to crisis engagement in conflict zones.

3.And the emergence of monitoring elections, and the expansion of dealing with citizens.

Digital Diplomacy in Global Crises (2020s- Present)

The COVID-19 pandemic supercharged a digital-only form of diplomacy, e.g., virtual summits, Zoom-based negotiations, and vaccine diplomacy, with the Russia-Ukraine war (2022-) showcasing the capabilities of digital diplomacy for real-time, war-on reporting, galvanizing international support, and countering misinformation.

Key Aspects of Digital Diplomacy of India

● Social Media Participation: Indian diplomats utilize social media channels including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to directly converse with public audiences and share India’s perspectives on global issues. Social media facilitates a more direct relationship with citizens that informs public perception and influences the country’s soft diplomacy.

● E-Diplomacy Initiative: The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has established a digital footprint by establishing a committee and an online presence dedicated to administering India’s digital diplomacy. Campaigns such as the #IncredibleIndia have a designated platform to promote tourism, culture, growth and achievements of the nation on an international scale.

● Cybersecurity and Digital Threats: India faces issues in the realm of cybersecurity given neighbouring geopolitical tensions. It is critical for organizations to develop assertive counter-measures to safeguard sensitive materials. The government has been responsive to bolster the country’s cybersecurity with measures to safeguard diplomatic material.

● Information Diplomacy: India has engaged in information diplomacy by utilizing digital platforms to share its views on India’s perspective on current events globally, particularly in times of crises. Initiatives to counter misinformation and deliver an authentic narrative relative to public awareness of the Indian policy agenda are on the rise.

Promenant Examples:

● A digital diplomacy strategy of India’s: The MEA is employing digital instruments to communicate policies, connect with India’s diaspora, and fight against disinformation against the country.

● Public diplomacy and social media campaigns: The campaigns like #ModiInJapan when Prime Minister Modi travelled overseas, demonstrate the utility of social media (like Twitter) to build bilateral relations and establish public support. The #DigitalIndia campaign seeks to demonstrate India’s ICT advancements and showcase its cooperation to establish international partnerships, especially in tech areas.

● Crisis management: Most recently, during the COVID-19 pandemic, India engaged in digital diplomacy with many nations regarding vaccine supply – demonstrating India’s growing role as a responsible global actor. Digital engagement platforms facilitated real-time communication with foreign countries, which enhanced collaboration for supporting public health measures.

Opportunities

If successfully reached, the Indian diaspora could result in greater communication and support for India’s international agenda. Digital diplomacy could also become an advocacy mechanism to generate support for skill-sharing and cooperation frameworks with other countries in emerging technologies.

Challenges and Adaptation

Even with progress, there are challenges facing India such as misinformation and information gaps, dangers of digital divides, and cyber threats. As part of its digital diplomacy efforts India must learn from the mistakes made (i.e. unknown mistakes behind not reaching a target audience) made by Sweden which maladapted social media campaigns.

India is continuing to evolve in processes of digital diplomacy requiring a focus on developing credibility, using strategic initiatives, and maintaining wide-ranging influence in the region, and broader digital foreign policy contexts.

Institutional Efforts and Strategic Initiatives

– Digital Engagement Units: The MEA established units to develop and improve digital diplomacy campaigns.

– Education and capacity building: The MEA provides educational programming for diplomats to engage social media, and develop sustainable tools.

– Partnerships: The MEA collaborates with settings of diaspora, tech firms, and other international organizations to advance feasible reach.

To sum up, India’s adoption of digital diplomacy showcases contemporary diplomatic practices in the twenty-first century. Rapidly employing technology and social media, India is expanding its international presence and supporting its global agenda. Centering digital practices has great potential for India in addressing obstacles and taking advantage of great opportunities as it relates to traditional diplomacy.

3.3 TRACK II DIPLOMACY

In an age of geopolitics and the emergence of non-state forces, Track II diplomacy has become a critical innovation in multilateral diplomacy. While Track I diplomacy refers to official negotiation among state representatives, Track II is informal, unofficial conversation among non-governmental entities like scholars, think tanks, religious leaders, civil society organizations, and retired diplomats. This type of diplomacy is intended to create conditions of trust-building, idea generation, and problem-solving that are less likely to be accomplished through formal negotiations.

Developed out of the work of Harold H. Saunders, Track II diplomacy was originally conceived as a citizen-initiated process of ongoing dialogue. It has since become progressively more significant as an adjunct and, sometimes, catalytic force within international negotiations, particularly in areas of conflict potential or where official diplomacy is hung up. Track II diplomacy helps fill the gap for the frequently inflexible and politically mandated formal diplomacy carried out in multilateral settings like the United Nations.

Where there is institutional deadlock—such as the UN Security Council’s breakdown in responding to the crisis in Ukraine—informal diplomacy can establish backchannels of dialogue, providing interested stakeholders with the breathing room to test compromises without the urgency of diplomatic posturing. Moreover, Track II diplomacy promotes inclusivity by engaging actors who are typically excluded from state-centric processes, thereby addressing one of the core critiques of 21st-century multilateral diplomacy: its democratic deficit.

Key Features and Benefits

• Flexibility: Unofficial character permits innovative solutions beyond the limits of formal foreign policy.
• Risk Reduction: Governments can test out options without formal commitment.
• Relationship-Building: Builds trust, empathy, and comprehension across divisions.
• Conflict De-escalation: Supports peace-building in highly divided societies.

Case Studies

Oslo Accords (1993) – Originally formed by backchannel negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli academics and negotiators in Norway, the accords set the groundwork for the initial official recognition by the PLO of Israel. This historic result demonstrates the innovative power of Track II diplomacy.

Geneva Initiative (2003) – An informal peace plan developed by Israeli and Palestinian civil society leaders resolving all final-status matters such as borders and refugees. Although not adopted, it had a remarkable impact on later Track I negotiations.

India-Pakistan Backchannel Talks – At times of high tensions—e.g., post-Kargil War and the 2001 Parliament attack—Track II conversations between retired military personnel, diplomats, and academics prevented escalation and set the stage for official negotiations.

For all its potential, Track II diplomacy is subject to constraints:

1. Lack of mandate: Results lack of legal force and frequently rely on whether states implement them.
2. Disconnect from policymaking: Without the sanction of official actors, Track II initiatives are potentially symbolic.
3. Legitimacy challenges: In closed political systems or in authoritarian regimes, Track II players may be disregarded or even suppressed.

Nevertheless, it’s worth lies in its preparatory and preventative role—staging formal diplomacy and building sustainable interpersonal trust transnationally and transculturally.

The usefulness of Track II diplomacy will also increase in an ever more multipolar, digitally interconnected, and splintered world. Online forums, online dialogue, and transnational civil society networks already have started remaking the workings of informal diplomacy. With global threats such as climate change, cyber warfare, and forced migration calling for inclusive and responsive solutions, Track II diplomacy provides an important instrument to increase the scope of multilateralism.

Reform and Inclusivity:

The multilateral diplomatic architecture, previously controlled by a small number of institutions that emerged in the aftermath of World War II such as the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, is being radically remade. The 21st century has seen the rise of new multilateral forums spearheaded by emerging markets and regional powers that aim to address perceived distortions in the old global order. These formations are a departure from Western, hierarchical models of governance towards more decentralized and pluralistic forms.

This phenomenon is both a critique of the current institutions and an aspiration to more agency by states in the Global South. These newer groupings place a focus on development finance, strategic independence, South-South solidarity, and regional autonomy.

BRICS: A Rising Counterbalance

Arguably the best-known is BRICS—an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Established in the late 2000s, BRICS accounts for more than 40% of the world’s population and close to 25% of world GDP. In contrast with classical Western alliances, BRICS prioritizes multipolarity, non-intervention, and economic cooperation without conditionality.

One of its greatest innovations is the New Development Bank (NDB), established in 2015 to fund development and infrastructure projects in emerging markets. By providing alternatives to IMF or World Bank loans, which typically include austerity conditions, the NDB represents a more balanced and sovereign-centric model of development.

African Union: From Regionalism to Global Voice

The African Union (AU) has evolved from a continent-spanning peacekeeping organization to a more forceful diplomatic player. Its efforts—such as the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)—are a daring effort to establish an integrated African economic and political sphere.

The AU has, in turn, insisted on permanent membership on the UN Security Council, contending that Africa is underrepresented while having to endure the lion’s share of most world crises—ranging from climate vulnerability to cross-border conflict.

ASEAN and Regional Multilateralism

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an example of how multilateral diplomacy is influenced by regional organizations through cooperative consensus. ASEAN-led platforms such as the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) have both regional and international powers such as the US, China, India, and Japan.

While ASEAN’s insistence on non-interference and consensus sometimes limits its ability to act decisively, its success in institutionalizing dialogue among diverse states makes it a model for regional diplomacy in the Global South.

Beyond States: Multi-Stakeholder Platforms

New multilateralism also includes hybrid platforms that engage civil society, private actors, and international NGOs—such as: The Paris Climate Agreement process (involving cities and non-state actors); COVAX vaccine distribution initiative, led by WHO, GAVI, and CEPI; Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) among tech firms, states, and civil society.

These are a post-Westphalian shift in diplomacy, where power and authority no longer rest with nation-states alone. Some of the Challenges and Critiques are- Lack of institutional coherence: Most new platforms have no enforcement authority or formal norms; Internal fragmentation: Convergent interests among members (e.g., India-China rivalry within BRICS); Limited global legitimacy: Certain platforms are perceived as strategic blocs and not genuinely cooperative institutions. Even with these limitations, these platforms cover critical gaps in the multilateral system, especially where older institutions have stagnated or lost credibility. New multilateral forums represent a rebalancing of international power. They disrupt the status quo not by tearing down existing institutions, but by diversifying diplomatic spaces and increasing global participation. In this way, they represent a more networked, inclusive, and adaptive conception of diplomacy one more appropriate to the 21st century’s complexities.

CONCLUSION

In confronting global challenges, multilateral diplomacy has remained the cardinal tool. However, its legitimacy is questioned, and there are other issues associated with complexity and adapting to a world that is changing at rapid speed. The 21st Century finds it at a defining crossroads, which will decide the very survival of multilateral diplomacy.

Innovations such as digital diplomacy and institutional reform are promising steps towards making multilateral cooperation more inclusive, transparent, and responsive to contemporary needs. The current scenario requires deliberate attempts like these for its complete revival but surely they are not enough. The existing institutions need genuine reforms to eradicate the deadlocks, especially in terms of representation and decision making, in order to restore the trust and legitimacy, particularly among the under-represented nations. Furthermore, multilateral diplomacy needs to become more inclusive by engaging and involving non-state actors, civil society and regional organizations, at least for policy agenda setting.

In the end, the effectiveness of Multilateral diplomacy will depend on its ability to strike a balance between sovereignty and solidarity. If approached carefully, the innovations we see today can help forge a Multilateral order which is not only more resilient but also more inclusive, fair, just and better equipped to tackle the challenges of the coming century.

REFERENCES:

Akindoyin, Dare Isaac. “International Relations in the 21st Century: The Role of Track-Two Diplomacy in Conflict Resolution.” Perspective Politice 17, no. 1–2 (December 2024). https://doi.org/10.25019/perspol/24.17.1.

“AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/.

“ASEAN and Multilateralism in the Indo-Pacific: Past, Present, and Future.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/asean-and-multilateralism-in-the-indo-pacific.

Blanchette, Jude, and Ryan Hass. “Know Your Rival, Know Yourself.” Foreign Affairs, January 7, 2025. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/know-your-rival-know-yourself-china.

“Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.chathamhouse.org/.

CPI. “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2023/.

DC, Arab Center Washington. “Syria Peace Talks in Geneva: A Road to Nowhere.” Arab Center Washington DC (blog), April 4, 2025. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/syria-peace-talks-in-geneva-a-road-to-nowhere/.

“Don’t Play ‘Geopolitical Games’ with Vulnerable Lives, Urges UN Assembly President | UN News.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138877.

“Forging Peace in Syria: Great Opportunities, Grave Risks | UN News,” December 10, 2024. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158021.

G.O, Administrator. “The Role of African Multilateralism in the New Agenda for Peace.” IPI Global Observatory (blog), September 13, 2023. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2023/09/the-role-of-african-multilateralism-in-the-new-agenda-for-peace/.

“Home | United Nations Development Programme.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.undp.org/.

IEA. “World Energy Outlook 2023 – Analysis,” October 24, 2023. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023.

“IRENA – International Renewable Energy Agency.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.irena.org/.

“Know Your Rival, Know Yourself: Rightsizing the China Challenge.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/know-your-rival-know-yourself-china.

“Meetings and Documents | Security Council.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/meetings.

“Ministerial-Level Meeting of G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) | Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/unp/page18e_000104.html.

“Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.mea.gov.in/.

“Multilateral Diplomacy | International Crisis Group,” May 16, 2025. https://www.crisisgroup.org/multilateral-diplomacy.

“Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership India: Why Did India Exit RCEP, Largest Trading Bloc in History with a Combined GDP of $38 Trillion?, ET Government.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/blog/why-did-india-exit-rcep-largest-trading-bloc-in-history-with-a-combined-gdp-of-38-trillion/113008013.

“Syria Peace Talks in Geneva: A Road to Nowhere.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/syria-peace-talks-in-geneva-a-road-to-nowhere/.

The Economist. “Geopolitics | Latest News and Analysis from The Economist.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.economist.com/topics/geopolitics.

“The UN Security Council between Rifts and Reform | International Crisis Group,” July 13, 2023. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/un-security-council-between-rifts-and-reform.

“Track-Two Diplomacy – Diplo.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/track-two-diplomacy/.

“Treading Paths Of Diplomacy: Track I & Track II.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.chronicleindia.in/articles/197-treading-paths-of-diplomacy-track-i-amp-track-ii.

UN Women – Headquarters. “Facts and Figures: Women, Peace, and Security.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-women-peace-and-security.

“UN75 Human Rights Dialogue: A Vision for the Next Decade | OHCHR.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://europe.ohchr.org/resources/speeches/un75-human-rights-dialogue-vision-next-decade.

“US-China Rivalry after COVID-19: Clues and Early Indications from Southeast Asia.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-china-rivalry-after-covid-19-clues-and-early-indications-from-southeast-asia/.

Winther, Bjarke Zinck. “United Nations Council Reform: New Approaches to Understanding and Unlocking the Gridlock,” Ph.d.-serien for Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, 2022. https://doi.org/10.54337/aau510591888.

World Economic Forum. “How Multistakeholder Platforms Can Strengthen Our Multilateral System,” June 26, 2019. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/how-multistakeholder-platforms-can-strengthen-our-multilateral-system/.

“As Geopolitical Tensions Escalate, United Nations, Regional Organizations Must Strengthen Cooperation, Preventive Diplomacy, Speakers Tell Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” Accessed May 25, 2025. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc14548.doc.htm.

“ASEAN and Multilateralism in the Indo-Pacific: Past, Present, and Future.” Accessed June 2, 2025. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/asean-and-multilateralism-in-the-indo-pacific.

Asther, Maria. “Governance, Nationalism, or Diplomacy for Global COVID-19 Outbreak Response.” Pakistan Social Sciences Review 6, no. 1 (March 31, 2022): 01–12. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2022(6-I)01.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order.” Accessed June 2, 2025. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/brics-summit-emerging-middle-powers-g7-g20?lang=en.

“Key+Concepts_+Track+1.5+and+Track+2+Diplomacy.Pdf.” Accessed June 2, 2025. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/645417eccab89a77aae9c71c/t/67213005fd1a7c364dc5a4c3/1730228229702/Key+Concepts_+Track+1.5+and+Track+2+Diplomacy.pdf.

“Ministerial-Level Meeting of G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) | Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.” Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/unp/page18e_000104.html.

Siddiqui, Rameen. “Crisis of Multilateralism: Is Global Cooperation a Relic of the Past?” Modern Diplomacy (blog), April 12, 2025. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/04/12/crisis-of-multilateralism-is-global-cooperation-a-relic-of-the-past/.

UN Women – Headquarters. “Facts and Figures: Women, Peace, and Security.” Accessed May 25, 2025. https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-women-peace-and-security

World Economic Forum. “How Multistakeholder Platforms Can Strengthen Our Multilateral System,” June 26, 2019. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/how-multistakeholder-platforms-can-strengthen-our-multilateral-system/