Pressure on multilateralism is growing every day. The most recent example of this was the decision of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin about the cancellation of the Declaration made by the Soviet Union, made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva conventions of 1949 relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. In his letter of October 16, 2019 in the name of the speaker of the lower house of the Russian Parliament about the “withdrawal of a Declaration made upon ratification”, he pointed out that the international Commission set up to investigate war crimes against the civilian population “does not actually perform its functions since 1991”. Some reports in the Western media suggested that this step is associated with the situation in Syria.
This step of Russia, as well as the decision of the President of the United States Donald trump in July 2018 to get out of the UN Council on human rights in Geneva, is a serious challenge to the world order established after the Second world war. Nikki Haley, the former at the time the permanent US representative to the UN in new York, called the Council on human rights “hypocritical organization with vested interests”. U.S. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo accused the Council to “protect the violators of human rights”. The latest criticism came recently in connection with the victory of Venezuela in the Council on human rights of the 47 members.Progress on the disarmament front is also going through the grief. Two major players, Russia and the United States seem unable to cope with the China factor. It is also partly due to the state of Affairs in bilateral relations. The us withdrawal from the Treaty on nuclear missiles and medium-range missiles (INF Treaty) of 1987, was officially completed on August 2, 2019. Recent reports indicate that negotiations between Russia and the United States on the renewal of the new start Treaty (the which expires at the beginning of 2021) encounter an obstacle in the form of the China factor. According to the Stockholm international Institute for peace studies, in 2018 Russia and the United States will have more than 6 thousand nuclear warheads, followed by France with 300, China has 290, UK — 200, India and Pakistan — more than 100, Israel — 80, and North Korea about 20-30 units.It undermines not only the liberal internationalism during the Second world war. In fact, the most dramatic scenes played out on the platforms, protect the environment and combat climate change. Scepticism about climate change increased significantly after the President of the United States Donald trump refused to participate in the Paris agreement. Even in disputes between the US and China, these issues receded into the background. Checkered history of the green movement has shown that countries do not aspire to take on legally binding commitments, but want others to put his signature under it. But what we are seeing now is a fundamental challenge to longstanding notions of transnational voprosah and problems.There’s more bad news about another serious problem — terrorism. International cooperation seems to fade under political duress, outweighs all other considerations, and in this regard, the absence of a comprehensive agreement with the generally accepted definition of “terrorist” and “terrorism” is a grim reminder. It is really enlightening to see how quickly shuffled the cards on the middle East Desk. Some countries are still anxious to stick to the medieval belief that sending assassins across border to attack innocent people is consistent with the ethics of the international community of Nations in the twenty-first century.Against this background it seems promising the emerging consensus on the need for the development. This is partly a result of the weakening of the European experiment and the dissonance between politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. However, a more important reason is the opportunities of development that have been observed in China and India and other parts of Asia. However, there are concerns about the intentions of China, especially regarding its initiative of “One belt, one road”. Some experts argue that the Chinese want to replace US as the world’s superpower; others have argued that cooperation in infrastructure development cannot and should not be interpreted incorrectly. From the point of view of India, it would be impossible to agree with arguments of China in relation to the corridor through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.In short, even in relation to positive aspects of development there are certain problems. Along with the weakening of the institutions that supported the liberal international order, especially those related to global trade, there is marginalization of small States in the global discourse. The role of regional arrangements, one side of the story, because small countries do not have a choice. The other side is that the fault lines between the opposing camps is so deep that these small States can no longer afford to remain neutral. The state of Affairs in the world Trade Organization dealing with the settlement of disputes, does not Bode well for the future of the global trading architecture. But, finally, there was some good news on the International court, which again intensified its activities. It is encouraging that countries began to apply a legal approach to resolving issues and disputes. Also, there is an increase in the number of territories that are controlled on the basis of the rule of law. Although it is not the wave of democratization, but throughout the world there was a growing desire for commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism.In conclusion, it is becoming more obvious that the failures in the humanitarian sphere and in the field of human rights, environmental issues, cross-border trade, security and disarmament are systemic, not sporadic. Perhaps it is a time when multilateralism with its multilateral approaches it is time to begin to consider these changes and accordingly adapt its norms, principles and institutions.