26/10/2026

Between Power and Rules: The Transformations of Multilateralism

The United Nations amid Fragmentation and New Forms of Cooperation

Every September, the same diagnosis resurfaces: the United Nations is in crisis, multilateralism is losing relevance, and major decisions are being made outside its institutions. Yet, for one week, New York once again became the focus of global attention. The General Assembly brought together world leaders to debate wars, sovereignty, artificial intelligence, climate change and, above all, the rules that should underpin a changing international order.

The paradox is that a weakened organization remains the forum where almost all states bring their competing worldviews into debate. Perhaps what is in crisis is not multilateralism itself, but a particular historical model for organizing it.

The UN has grown from 51 members in 1945 to 193, each represented in the General Assembly with one vote. This expansion reflects a more diverse international society, yet it coexists with a Security Council whose architecture preserves the balance of power established in 1945. The tension is clear: near-universal representation alongside an unequal distribution of decision-making power.

The 81st General Assembly brought this contradiction to the fore. António Guterres called for greater African representation on the Security Council, while various governments demanded a stronger voice for the Global South. But behind these calls for reform lay a crucial question: who defines the rules of the new global order?

Sovereignty took centre stage, although its meaning varied. For some governments, it means safeguarding national interests; for much of the Global South, it means autonomy, non-interference and a refusal to become an arena for rivalry between major powers. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva challenged spheres of influence and electoral interference, as well as Latin America’s subordination to external powers.

Defending sovereignty does not mean rejecting international law. For small and medium-sized states, shared rules can constrain power asymmetries. When force replaces law, countries with fewer resources become more vulnerable. What matters, therefore, is not only which rules exist, but who formulates them, who applies them and whether they bind everyone equally.

Majorities without Consensus: The Limits of Multilateral Action

The votes held in 2026 show that universal participation does not amount to consensus. On 24 February, the Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-11/10 on a lasting peace in Ukraine by 107 votes in favour, 12 against and 51 abstentions; 23 countries did not vote. The text reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and called for an immediate ceasefire. The numerous abstentions reflect intermediate positions and strategies for preserving autonomy that transcend the traditional division into blocs.

On 17 September, resolution A/RES/81/1 on Palestine’s participation in the 81st session received 152 votes in favour, three against—from the United States, Israel and Paraguay—and four abstentions—from Colombia, Honduras, Panama and Peru. The broad majority demonstrates support for its participation, but also reveals specific alignments shaped by national interests that do not always correspond to familiar geopolitical divisions.

Both cases illustrate a paradox: the General Assembly can build broad majorities, but cannot necessarily translate them into effective decisions. The mechanisms for implementation remain constrained by power structures in which authority is concentrated in the hands of a few. Adoption is not implementation. The problem is not the disappearance of multilateralism, but the gap between representation, majority-building and the capacity to implement decisions.

In response to this gap, the possibility is emerging of a variable-geometry multilateralism that brings together universal institutions, regional organizations, South–South cooperation and issue-based coalitions. The aim is neither to replace the United Nations nor to create a parallel system, but to combine its universal legitimacy with mechanisms capable of delivering more agile responses. Flexibility, however, must not become an excuse for excluding those with less power.

Flexible alliances can expand autonomy and address specific problems without abandoning global institutions or fragmenting common rules.

The succession to António Guterres adds a political and symbolic dimension. In eight decades, no woman has led the UN. There is also an expectation that the next Secretary-General should come from Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that has not held the post since Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. Addressing the Assembly, Pedro Sánchez raised the possibility of a Latin American woman taking the helm. The decision will test not only regional and gender representation, but also the organization’s credibility and future direction.

Latin America can contribute a tradition grounded in the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-intervention, regional integration, international law and the pursuit of autonomy. This is more than an opportunity to hold office: it is a chance to help define the rules that will shape the future.

Wars, the climate crisis, migration, inequalities, artificial intelligence and technological dependencies cannot be addressed solely within national borders. Precisely when the United Nations appears weakened, the world needs forums capable of working through differences and sustaining collective commitments.

The answer lies neither in a nostalgic defence of existing institutions nor in accepting that force should replace rules. What is needed is a more representative, flexible and democratic multilateralism, capable of combining sovereignty with cooperation, autonomy with common rules, and diversity with collective action. Its legitimacy will depend as much on who participates as on who can set agendas, forge agreements and ensure compliance.

The attention received by the Assembly shows that multilateralism has not disappeared: it is being contested. The future order will depend on the outcome of that contest.

Sources: United Nations, A/RES/ES-11/10 (24 February 2026); GA/12784 and A/RES/81/1 (17 September 2026).

Dolores Gandulfo: Secretary for International Relations and Integration at PARLASUR; holds a master’s degree in Public Policy and is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at UNSAM.

Verónica Pérez Taffi: Director of International Relations at USAL, President of AERIA and doctoral candidate in International Relations.