Multilateralism Under Fire

Human Rights, Sovereignty and Strategic Trade in a Changing International Order

By Roberto F. Salazar-Córdova

Multilateralism is entering one of the most significant periods of transformation since its post-1945 expansion. The growing emphasis on sovereignty, strategic industrial policy and constitutional accountability suggests that international cooperation is evolving rather than disappearing. For countries such as Chile, the challenge will be to preserve the economic benefits of openness while adapting to a world where geopolitical competition increasingly shapes international institutions, trade policy and legal frameworks.

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, three interconnected ideas have shaped much of the international liberal order: human rights, the rules-based international order and multilateral governance. Together, these principles have supported the expansion of international institutions, trade agreements and judicial cooperation across much of the world.

Today, however, this model faces one of its greatest challenges. The debate is no longer centered on whether human rights matter, but rather on who has the legitimate authority to define, interpret and enforce them. At the same time, strategic competition among major powers has expanded the discussion to include industrial policy, tariffs, supply chains and national sovereignty.

This article examines why multilateralism is increasingly under pressure and considers what these developments may mean for highly open economies such as Chile.

The Historical Evolution

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998 and entering into force in 2002. Its objective was to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, later, the crime of aggression.

The United States actively participated in negotiating the Rome Statute.

On December 31, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the treaty. However, he deliberately chose not to submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, arguing that significant American concerns regarding jurisdiction and constitutional protections remained unresolved.

In 2002, President George W. Bush formally informed the United Nations that the United States did not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute, effectively withdrawing the legal consequences of the previous signature. Congress also enacted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, reinforcing the position that American military personnel and government officials should remain subject exclusively to U.S. jurisdiction.

Although subsequent administrations differed in their level of cooperation with the Court, every U.S. administration has maintained reservations regarding ICC jurisdiction over American citizens.

Why Multilateralism Is Under Fire

The current Trump Administration has significantly strengthened this long-standing American position.

In July 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a diplomatic effort to weaken the International Criminal Court "brick by brick," arguing that unelected international judges should not exercise criminal jurisdiction over citizens of countries that never accepted the Court's authority. President Donald Trump has publicly supported this broader strategy.

The administration argues that:

• American sovereignty cannot be delegated to international judges.

• Constitutional accountability must remain domestic.

• International courts should not exercise jurisdiction without explicit national consent.

• Democratic legitimacy derives from national constitutions rather than supranational institutions.

Supporters describe this approach as a defense of constitutional sovereignty.

Critics argue that weakening the ICC could reduce international accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

From this perspective, the debate is no longer about rejecting human rights. Rather, it concerns who possesses the legitimate authority to enforce them.

The Sovereignty Debate

The contemporary discussion increasingly reflects two competing visions of international governance.

The first emphasizes stronger multilateral institutions, broader treaty obligations and greater judicial cooperation across national borders.

The second argues that sovereign democratic states should retain ultimate constitutional authority while continuing to cooperate internationally on matters of shared interest.

Both approaches recognize the importance of international cooperation.

Their principal disagreement concerns the location of final legal authority.

This distinction increasingly shapes discussions not only about international criminal justice but also about trade, investment, migration, security and technological regulation.

Trade Policy as Strategic Statecraft

The same strategic logic now appears in international trade.

Rather than viewing free trade as an objective in itself, major powers increasingly evaluate trade policy through the lenses of national security, industrial resilience and geopolitical competition.

Recent U.S. tariff policies seek to encourage domestic manufacturing, strengthen strategic supply chains, reduce dependence on geopolitical competitors and accelerate investment in critical industries.

These policies generate important short-term economic costs.

Consumers may face higher prices.

Businesses may experience higher production costs.

Trading partners may impose retaliatory measures.

Global supply chains may become less efficient.

However, supporters argue that these costs represent investments in long-term strategic objectives, including industrial capacity, technological leadership, national security and economic resilience.

The debate therefore extends well beyond tariffs themselves. It concerns the broader balance between economic efficiency and strategic autonomy.

Chile and the Future of Open Economies

Chile has historically been among Latin America's strongest supporters of international law, multilateral institutions, free trade and treaty-based economic integration.

This strategy has generated substantial benefits.

International credibility has strengthened investor confidence.

Trade agreements have expanded export opportunities.

Stable institutions have reduced transaction costs.

Predictable legal frameworks have supported long-term investment.

Nevertheless, the international environment is changing.

As major powers increasingly prioritize strategic autonomy and domestic industrial policy, highly open economies may need to adapt while preserving the advantages that openness has historically provided.

The challenge is therefore not to abandon multilateralism but to determine how it can remain compatible with national resilience and constitutional legitimacy in an increasingly competitive international system.

A Cost-Benefit Perspective

Multilateral institutions continue to provide important economic and political benefits.

They promote legal predictability.

They facilitate international investment.

They reduce transaction costs.

They create mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution.

They encourage long-term international cooperation.

At the same time, participation in supranational institutions may involve important costs.

National policy flexibility can become more limited.

Domestic governments may face external regulatory constraints.

Compliance costs may increase.

Geopolitical fragmentation may expose smaller economies to conflicting international expectations.

Balancing these costs and benefits has become an increasingly important strategic challenge for governments around the world.

Conclusion

Nearly three decades after the adoption of the Rome Statute, the international order is undergoing a significant transformation.

The central debate is no longer whether international cooperation remains desirable.

Instead, the discussion increasingly concerns how sovereignty, democratic legitimacy and multilateral governance should interact within a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.

For countries such as Chile, preserving the economic benefits of openness while adapting to a more competitive and strategically fragmented international environment will likely become one of the defining policy challenges of the coming decades.

Multilateralism is therefore not disappearing.

It is being redefined.

References

Clinton, B. (2000). Statement on the signing of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

International Criminal Court. Rome Statute (1998).

Bush Administration (2002). Notification to the United Nations regarding the Rome Statute.

Reuters (2026). Trump administration launches diplomatic effort to isolate the International Criminal Court.

Council on Foreign Relations (2026). The ICC Has Real Flaws. Dismantling It Without an Alternative Is Not the Answer.

Just Security (2026). Analyzing Secretary Rubio's International Law Claims.