How regional cooperation can save multilateralism Global governance in crisis

A recent Foreign Affairs article lays bare the fragility of international institutions in today’s multipolar world and makes a compelling case for regional organisations as the linchpins of future global governance. The piece argues that the decline of multilateralism is not solely a result of U.S. President Donald Trump’s confrontational policies—such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the WHO, and the UN Human Rights Council—but stems from deeper structural challenges.

Global institutions, largely designed in the twentieth century by North America and Europe, struggle to respond to contemporary issues like climate change, pandemics, artificial intelligence, and a renewed nuclear arms race. Their top-down, one-size-fits-all frameworks are often slow, bureaucratic, and poorly adapted to the realities of an increasingly interconnected yet regionally diverse world.

Against this backdrop, regional organisations offer a nimble alternative. Their proximity to local problems allows for faster diagnosis, tailored solutions, and fewer veto points in decision-making. Economic integration is a clear success story: Asia’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has strengthened regional supply chains, while the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has maintained robust trade flows even amid global disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Cross-regional partnerships, such as ASEAN’s collaboration with the Pacific Alliance or the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership launched in 2025, demonstrate how regional blocs can coordinate beyond geographic boundaries, facilitating trade, investment, and technological cooperation while providing a buffer against protectionist shocks from the U.S. or other major powers.

The article highlights that regional bodies are not just economic actors; they are increasingly taking on responsibilities in peace, security, and governance. Southeast Asia’s “ASEAN Way” has successfully mediated disputes and promoted stability, while Latin American organisations have historically resolved border conflicts and managed domestic unrest. The African Union’s peacekeeping efforts, particularly in Somalia, exemplify how regional institutions can stabilize post-conflict environments. In the nuclear sphere, Latin American nonproliferation frameworks and bilateral oversight mechanisms offer models that could inspire East Asian nuclear management, especially as China, North Korea, and South Korea expand their arsenals.

Technology and the digital economy are another frontier where regional bodies are proving effective. The EU’s AI Act, the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement between Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea, and Mercosur’s digital initiatives show that regional regulation can be both agile and influential. Such frameworks allow countries to experiment, iterate, and eventually converge on global standards that are both practical and widely accepted—compensating for the sluggish pace of international organisations like the UN.

Finally, regional groups can address health, human rights, and climate challenges with measurable success. Africa CDC and the Pan American Health Organization have enhanced pandemic response and public health coordination, while Latin American blocs have promoted migrant rights and climate policy alignment. Though regional bodies face internal disputes and governance challenges, the article underscores that empowering them is the most viable path to sustaining multilateralism and ensuring collective action in an era of waning global leadership.

By Vugar Khalilov