by Professor Wend Wendland, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town
Multilateral Matters
An occasional blog on international developments related to intellectual property, innovation, development and public policy
Key Points
In multilateral negotiations, in which up to 200 countries participate, most decisions are meant to be taken by “consensus”.
“Consensus” means the absence of opposition. “Unanimity”, on the other hand, means that all parties approve the decision.
In majority voting, all countries have an equal vote. However, voting creates “winners” and “losers”.
By contrast, consensual decision-making aims at reaching an overwhelming agreement among everyone at the table, maximizing joint gains and coming as close as possible to meeting the underlying interests of all countries. Decisions by consensus build a sense of cohesion, solidarity and joint ownership.
However, in practice, in consensual decision-making less powerful countries may not be able to or wish to express their objections. In some ways, consensual decision-making is, therefore, less democratic than voting.
Furthermore, achieving consensus in multilateral negotiations is proving an insurmountable obstacle, especially negotiations aimed at agreement among all countries on a detailed and legally binding treaty or convention. Some negotiations have not been able to conclude in over 20 years. There are also other disadvantages to consensual decision-making.
It is useful therefore to explore ways in which to relax the consensus principle and/or reduce the number of countries participating in a negotiation (by, for example, concluding plurilateral agreements). Additionally, it might be easier to achieve full consensus on outcomes that are not detailed, legally binding treaties and conventions.
Procedural questions aside, failing multilateralism is, in essence, a failure of Member State leadership. There are several ways in which countries could strengthen multilateralism through more effective leadership.
Continue reading →