Article Details

This study explores selective multilateralism in the foreign policies of major powers, focusing on the United States (US), China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France in their engagement with the United Nations (UN) from 1990 to 2024. The end of the Cold War raised expectations of a strengthened rules-based international order anchored by the UN, with significant powers publicly committing to collective security and cooperative global governance. Over time, however, these commitments have remained uneven and largely interest-driven, often weakened by unilateral actions. Key examples include NATO's intervention in Kosovo without UN Security Council (UNSC) authorisation, the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the repeated use of vetoes by China and Russia on resolutions related to Syria and Ukraine. These cases reflect a recurring pattern in which the UN is utilised to legitimise action when it aligns with national interests and is sidelined when it constrains strategic autonomy. The study adopts a realist-institutionalist framework, acknowledging that while international institutions can shape state behaviour, powerful states frequently manipulate or bypass rules to advance geopolitical goals. Using qualitative case studies, the research reveals that selective engagement has eroded the UN's legitimacy, authority and consistency, particularly in the areas of collective security and peacekeeping. The findings highlight declining trust among small and medium-sized states, the erosion of sovereign equality, and growing global governance fatigue. The study recommends that emerging powers enhance their capacity and that financial reforms be pursued, including expanding the UNSC to improve multilateralism in line with the UN Charter.

Selective multilateralism, unilateralism, collective security, veto power, legitimacy,