Puzzled by the disjunction between global trends and US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, mostly American scholars of political science, law, and economics explore the causes and consequences of US ambivalence to multilateral cooperation. They consider such dimensions as the growing influence of domestic factors, US grand strategy, the chemical weapons convention, and the International Criminal Court. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

The authors explore international reactions to U.S. conduct in world affairs.

The long-standing, but unresolved debate of the virtues and values of multilateralism vs. unilateralism in American foreign policy is critically important in today's complicated world. To understand the history of each approach is to understand their opportunities and challenges for the future. The Best Laid Plans answers two central questions. First, why did the United States embrace the principles and practices of liberal multilateralism during World War II? Second, why did it cling to this vision of world order despite the outbreak of the Cold War in the late 1940s, as the 'One World' that had been anticipated by U.S. postwar planners split into two rival global camps? The book contends that neither the U.S. turn to liberal multilateralism nor the persistence of this orientation during the Cold War can be attributed solely or even primarily to the global power structure or crude considerations of material self interest. Rather, Stewart Patrick argues that a combination of enduring identity commitments and new ideas, based on the lessons of recent, cataclysmic events, shaped the policy preferences of American central decision-makers in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. Although the book is steeped in history, its conclusions have tremendous relevance for the contemporary era, when the United States once again finds itself at the apex of world power, and debates are rife about the role of multilateral cooperation in the realization of U.S. foreign policy objectives.

This book examines the place of multilateralism in Russia’s foreign policy and Russia’s engagement with multilateral institutions. Throughout the post-Soviet period, both Yeltsin and Putin consistently professed a deep attachment to the principles of multilateralism. However, multilateralism as a value, concept, strategy or general phenomenon in Russian foreign policy has hitherto been neglected by scholars, seldom assessed in its own right or from a comparative perspective. This book fills that gap, combining wider conceptual perspectives on the place of multilateralism in Russian foreign policy thought and action with detailed empirical case studies of Russian engagement at the global, transatlantic and European levels, and also in Russia’s regional environment. It examines Russia’s role and relationship with the UN, NATO, G8, EU, OSCE, Arctic Council, Eurasian Economic Community, Commonwealth of Independent States, Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Collective Security Treaty Organization, covering a wide range of issue areas including nuclear non-proliferation and trade. Throughout, it considers the political, economic and security interests that shape Russia’ foreign relations, conception of multilateralism and activity in multilateral settings. Overall, this book is an important resource for anyone interested in Russian foreign policy and its role in international relations more generally.

Trust in International Cooperation challenges conventional wisdoms concerning the part which trust plays in international cooperation and the origins of American multilateralism. Brian C. Rathbun questions rational institutionalist arguments, demonstrating that trust precedes rather than follows the creation of international organizations. Drawing on social psychology, he shows that individuals placed in the same structural circumstances show markedly different propensities to cooperate based on their beliefs about the trustworthiness of others. Linking this finding to political psychology, Rathbun explains why liberals generally pursue a more multilateral foreign policy than conservatives, evident in the Democratic Party's greater support for a genuinely multilateral League of Nations, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rathbun argues that the post-World War Two bipartisan consensus on multilateralism is a myth, and differences between the parties are growing continually starker.

The pattern of multilateral engagement and unilateral retrenchment in American foreign policy from the Cold War through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years presents a puzzle. What accounts for the unilateralist turn? Is it a passing aberration attributable to the neoconservative ideology of the Bush administration? What then of the disengagement evident earlier during Clinton’s presidency, or its continuation under Obama? Was the U.S. investment in multilateral institutions following World War II an anomaly? Or is the more recent retreat from international institutions the irregularity? Skidmore traces U.S. unilateralism to the structural effects of the end of the Cold War, both domestically and abroad, to argue that the United States was more hegemonic than multilateralist—a rule-maker, not a rule-taker. An "institutional bargain" existed under the Cold War threat from the Soviets, but absent those imperatives the United States has been less willing to provide collective goods through strong international institutions and other states are less willing to defer to U.S. exemptions. On the home front, the post-Cold War political environment has made it more difficult for presidents to resist the appeals of powerful interests who are threatened by multilateral commitments. This book demonstrates that American unilateralism has deeper roots and more resilience than many expect. The unilateral temptation can only be overcome through new political bargains domestically and internationally that permit multilateral engagement, even the absence of great power rivalry.

This edited volume offers a timely examination of one of the most crucial and controversial questions in international relations, namely should states adopt a unilateral or multilateral approach to contemporary security challenges?

The book provides a novel analytical perspective on regional multilateralism in South Asia and its neighbouring regions and covers the genesis, evolution and status quo of the four major regional organizations.

World politics in the post-Cold War world has become increasingly institutionalized. However, the role of international organizations has been overlooked in much of the literature on international regimes. Now in paperback, The United States and Multilateral Institutions examines United States policy in areas ranging from international trade to human rights, and in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), GATT and the World Health Organization.