【Report】Fragile Orders? Ongoing Transformations of Global Governance Prof. Stephanie Hofmann and Prof. Alexandros Kentikelenis

On April 16, Prof. Stephanie Hofmann and Prof. Alexandros Kentikelenis delivered a presentation about the ongoing transformations of global governance at Ritsumeikan University.

Professor Hofmann opened the presentation by asking the audience for opinions regarding current transformations in global governance and international relations. She then discussed the effects of the Trump administration’s policies on global governance by providing examples from the news. Prof. Hofmann pointed to two longer-term structural developments that are influencing global governance, such as China’s growing engagement in multilateral organizations and the United States’ withdrawal from key multilateral frameworks, generating widespread concern about the durability of postwar international cooperation. Against this backdrop, Prof. Hofmann posed the central question animating the research: Should we expect the demise of postwar multilateralism and the end of international cooperation?

Prof. Hofmann noted that existing scholarly discussions frequently consider that multilateralism has been core to the liberal order and treat the international order as a single, static entity. She argued that discussions about end/change focused on either endogenous causes or exogenous shocks. She pointed out that this approach ignores dynamic processes and compensatory mechanisms. Then, Prof. Kentikelenis presented the primary theoretical contribution of their research. They argue that multilateralism is not in decline; rather, it is evolving. The mechanism through which this evolution occurs is what they call institutional ‘workarounds,’ which are adaptive strategies through which states maintain cooperation. These workarounds, they argue, are the expression of what they term ‘elastic multilateralism,’ which refers to the ability to change and adapt to shocks and crises while preserving multilateral cooperation.

Prof. Kentikelenis explained two types of workarounds in terms of international cooperation: across organizations and within organizations. He argued that states facing difficulties in one institution do not simply abandon multilateral cooperation; they seek alternative venues, which they define as workarounds across organizations. He mapped several categories, including formal organizations, informal organizations, networks, ad hoc coalitions, and public-private partnerships, providing examples for each. Then he explained the workarounds within organizations, enabling states to maintain cooperation within existing institutions. He noted that such workarounds can be achieved through mechanisms like working-level/technical cooperation, rebalancing staffing, earmarking, strengthening elements of organizational action, and mission creep/scope expansion. Then he explained the typology of workarounds, including organizational creation, organizational shifting, innovation, and rebalancing. He demonstrated these concepts through various case studies, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, cyberspace governance at the UN, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The presenters highlighted that international orders have always been fragile. They argued that scholarship in International Organization overemphasized international cooperation during the 1990s while downplaying it in today’s political landscape. Many states do not abandon multilateral arrangements; instead, they leverage existing organizational frameworks and create new ones. These workarounds demonstrate the elasticity build into a dense institutional environment. Taken together, these findings suggest that international cooperation is continuing, often beneath the surface of the widely discussed ‘crisis of the order’.

The presentation was followed by a Q&A session in which the audience raised a range of questions, including the agency of secondary states and the role of vulnerable states in global governance— specifically, how much power they have to affect outcomes, and through what means, and the structure of international organizations.