Abstract：Multilateralism is widely upheld as the basic paradigm for building orders in the contemporary international society. It is theoretically opposed to conservative notions like nationalism, unilateralism, etc. that advocate particularism and power politics. At present, the multilateral international system is witnessing a discourse competition between openness and monopoly as well as inclusiveness and exclusion. Discharging the true connotation of multilateralism and promoting the evolution of international orders are issues of this millennium faced by all members of the international community and even all mankind. In reality, the institutional realization and effective operation of order-oriented functionality of multilateralism lay the political foundation and legal basis for the international community to tackle global risks and the common challenges of the humanity through collective actions.Multilateralism in the new era is intended to provide the elementary means to restrain unilateral propensity. Its order-oriented functionality originates from the legitimacy-shaping power it contains. The pluralistic characteristic of the world prompts the social construction of national identities and interests, and under such a circumstance, multilateralism supplies the potential paths and policy tools for dealing with externalities and achieving balance among multiple values and objectives. International law plays the normative roles in curbing hegemony, restricting arbitrary power and facilitating international cooperation. Multilateralism possesses both negative and positive functional dimensions in building international orders, with the former serving to reduce the level of anarchic condition of the international community through general rules of conduct, while the latter offering institutions or arrangements with purposes of attaining common objectives and improving the concordance between national interest and that of international community as a whole. The order-oriented functions of a multilateral international system include confirming equal identities, consolidating agreed rules, prioritizing legal governance, and ensuring order stability, all of which aim at developing an international order carrying out fundamental principles such as egalitarian governance, international democracy, and rule of international law.It is the substance of multilateralism that countries universally accept the normative constraints of international law, which are basically embodied in four legal principles enunciated as follows. Firstly, the states participate in the construction of the legitimacy of international order as an equal trustee of the humanity, establish the community identity expectation, and generate international public goods by adopting collective approaches. Secondly, the states comply with the systemic principles of openness and non-discrimination, put forward a pattern of orders that is inclusive rather than exclusive of pluralistic reality, and ensure that all members share the governance benefits fairly. Thirdly, the states jointly safeguard the stability and predictability of the international system and advance the general expectations and interests of the international community. Finally, the states implement international law by resorting to common will, strengthen institutional effectiveness through coordinated efforts, and limit the negative consequences of arbitrary reciprocity.Along with multilateralism, unilateralism constitutes an essential part of the normativity of international relations, which in essence reflects the attempts to influence international legitimacy in an individual form. For acts that pursue national policies or values through unilateral measures instead of international cooperation, multilateralism tends to impose stricter primary and secondary legal controls. The primary control determines the unilateral interests or values that may be accommodated in the multilateral international system, and the secondary one demonstrates the existence of a genuine, necessary and reasonable link between unilateral measures and the accommodated interests or protected values. The multilateral legal control exerting on unilateral measures usually includes three phases concerning good faith obligation, substantive standards and procedural conditions respectively.In the context of global governance, the international balance of power has been undergoing huge changes, and the global needs for equal, fair and effective governance in various areas become more urgent, which makes the multilateral international system face stronger impetus for reconstructing legitimacy and enhancing institutional build-up. China advocates the practice of true multilateralism, which would, through gaining active and constructive global momentum, give full play to the functionality of multilateralism in equal participation, effective operation and fair enjoyment in the new international order.
李将. 论多边主义的秩序功能及其法治构成[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(11): 26-39.
Li Jiang. On the Order-oriented Functionality of Multilateralism and Its Legal Constitutive Elements. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(11): 26-39.
1 钱文荣： 《关于多边主义、多边外交的几点理论和政策思考》，《世界经济与政治》2001年第10期，第14-20页。 2 Alvarez J. E.， “Multilateralism and its discontents，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 11， No. 2 （2000）， pp. 393-411. 3 孙世彦： 《中国的国际法学：问题与思考》，《政法论坛》2005年第4期，第30-40页。 4 Krisch N.， “International law in times of hegemony： unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 16， No. 3 （2005）， pp. 369-408. 5 Zhou W.， “In defence of the WTO： why do we need a multilateral trading system？” Legal Issues of Economic Integration， Vol. 47， No. 1 （2020）， pp. 9-42. 6 McGinnis J. O.， “The political economy of global multilateralism，” Chicago Journal of International Law， Vol. 1， No. 2 （2000）， pp. 381-399. 7 El-Ghalayini Y.， “Multilateralism： theoretical perspectives on the policy，” Public Policy and Administration Research， Vol. 7， No. 11 （2017）， pp. 53-58. 8 Bull H.， The Anarchical Society： A Study of Order in World Politics， London： Palgrave Macmillan， 2012. 9 Henkin L.， How Nations Behave （2nd edition）， New York： Columbia University Press， 1979. 10 Friedman W.， The Changing Structure of International Law， London： Stevens & Sons， 1964. 11 Evans M. D.， International Law， Cambridge： Oxford University Press， 2003. 12 Weil P.， “Towards relative normativity in international law？” American Journal of International Law， Vol. 77， No. 3 （1983）， pp. 413-442. 13 Hakimi M.， “The work of international law，” Harvard International Law Journal， Vol. 58， No. 1 （2007）， pp. 1-46. 14 英］詹宁斯、瓦茨修订： 《奥本海国际法》第１卷第１分册，王铁崖等译，北京：中国大百科全书出版社，1995年。 15 赵骏： 《国际法的守正与创新——以全球治理体系变革的规范需求为视角》，《中国社会科学》2021年第2期，第26-36页。 16 Waldron J.， “The rule of international law，” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy， Vol. 30， No. 1 （2006）， pp. 15-30. 17 Wedgwood R.， “Unilateral action in a multilateral world，” in Patrick S. & Forman S. （eds.）， Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy： Ambivalence Engagement， London： Lynne Rienner Publishers， 2002， pp. 167-190. 18 Gorobets K.， “The international rule of law and the idea of normative authority，” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law， Vol. 12， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 227-249. 19 赵骏： 《全球治理视野下的国际法治与国内法治》，《中国社会科学》2014年第10期，第79-99页。 20 李鸣： 《国际法的性质及作用：批判国际法学的反思》，《中外法学》2020年第3期，第801-825页。 21 Abbasi S.， “Egalitarian multilateralism versus particularism in multilevel international law-makings，” Journal of Transnational Law & Policy， Vol. 28 （2019）， pp. 23-44. 22 车丕照： 《包容也是一种公平：国际经济法的包容性及其实现》，《国际经济法学刊》2018年第1期，第17-26页。 23 龚柏华： 《“三共”原则是构建人类命运共同体的国际法基石》，《东方法学》2018年第1期，第30-37页。 24 van den Bossche P. & Zdouc W.， The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization： Law， Text， Cases and Materials （3rd edition）， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2013. 25 Matsushita M.， Schoenbaum T. & Mavroidis P. C.， The World Trade Organization： Law， Practice， and Policy （3rd edition）， Cambridge： Oxford University Press， 2015. 26 Howse R.， “The World Trade Organization 20 years on： global governance by judiciary，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 27， No. 1 （2016）， pp. 9-77. 27 Criddle E. J. & Fox-Decent E.， “Mandatory multilateralism，” American Journal of International Law， Vol. 113， No. 2 （2019）， pp. 272-325. 28 石静霞： 《WTO〈多方临时上诉仲裁安排〉：基于仲裁的上诉替代》，《法学研究》2020年第6期，第167-185页。 29 Agon S. S.， “Sustaining multilateralism from the bench，” Berkeley Journal of International Law， Vol. 38， No. 1 （2020）， pp. 65-118. 30 Howse R. & Langille J.， “Spheres of commerce： the WTO legal system and regional trading blocs—a reconsideration，” Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law， Vol. 46， No. 3 （2018）， pp. 649-688. 31 Yarbrough B. V. & Yarbrough R. M.， “Reciprocity， bilateralism， and economic ‘hostages’： self-enforcing agreements in international trade，” International Studies Quarterly， Vol. 30， No. 1 （1986）， pp. 7-21. 32 Frédéric M.， “International law as law，” in Crawford J. & Koskenniemi M. （eds.）， The Cambridge Companion to International Law， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2012. 33 Ausar V.， “Anti-dumping， retaliation threats， and export prices，” The World Bank Economic Review， Vol. 27， No. 1 （2013）， pp. 133-148. 34 Brewster R.， “Analyzing the Trump administration’s international trade strategy，” Fordham International Law Journal， Vol. 42， No. 5 （2019）， pp. 1419-1429. 35 Bayard T. O.， “Comment on Alan Sykes’ mandatory retaliation for breach of trade agreements： some thoughts on the strategic design of section 301，” Boston University International Law Journal， Vol. 8， No. 2 （1990）， pp. 325-332. 36 Davis C. L.， “Cashing in on cooperation： democracy， free trade， and international rules，” Harvard International Review， Vol. 31， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 56-60. 37 韩立余： 《当代单边主义与多边主义的碰撞及其发展前景》，《国际经济法学刊》2018年第4期，第23-41页。 38 Tago A.， “Multilateralism， bilateralism， and unilateralism in foreign policy，” 2017-08-22， https：//doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.449， 2022-01-09. 39 de Chazournes L. B.， “Unilateralism and environmental protection： issues of perception and reality of issues，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 11， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 315-338. 40 Dupuy P. M.， “The place and role of unilateralism in contemporary international law，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 11， No. 1 （2000）， pp. 19-29. 41 Hakimi M.， “Unfriendly unilateralism，” Harvard International Law Journal， Vol. 55， No. 1 （2014）， pp. 105-150. 42 Schill S. & Briese R.， “‘If the state considers’： self-judging clauses in international dispute settlement，” in von Bogdandy A. & Wolfrum R. （eds.）， Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law， vol. 13， Leiden： Brill， 2009， pp. 61-140. 43 Sands P.， “‘Unilateralism’， values and international law，” European Journal of International Law， Vol. 11， No. 2 （2000）， pp. 291-302. 44 Heath B. J.， “The new national security challenge to the economic order，” The Yale Law Journal， Vol. 129， No. 4 （2020）， pp. 1020-1096. 45 Gross O. & Aolain F. N.， Law in Times of Crisis： Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2006. 46 Rogoff M. A.， “The obligation to negotiate in international law： rules and realities，” Michigan Journal of International Law， Vol. 16， No. 1 （1994）， pp. 141-186. 47 Hartmann S.， “Introductory note to Russia—measures concerning traffic in transit （WTO），” International Legal Materials， Vol. 58， No. 5 （2019）， pp. 899-901. 48 Vermeule A.， “Our Schmittian administrative law，” Harvard Law Review， Vol. 122， No. 4 （2009）， pp. 1095-1145. 49 Kolb R.， “Principles as sources of international law （with special reference to good faith），” Netherlands International Law Review，Vol. 53， No. 1 （2006）， pp. 1-36. 50 Hahn M. J.， “Vital interests and the law of the GATT： an analysis of GATT’s security exception，” Michigan Journal of International Law， Vol. 12， No. 3 （1991）， pp. 558-620. 51 Schloemann H. L. & Ohlhoff S.， “Constitutionalization and dispute settlement in the WTO： national security as an issue of competence，” American Journal of International Law， Vol. 93， No. 2 （1999）， pp. 424-451. 52 Cann W. A.， “Creating standards and accountability for the use of the WTO security exception，” Yale Journal of International Law， Vol. 26， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 413-484.
2022, Vol. 52 
