From universalism to regionalism – the future of international law in a multipolar world

Download article
Article

From universalism to regionalism – the future of international law in a multipolar world

Karlis Ketners

Received 13.06.2025, Revised 20.10.2025, Accepted 15.12.2025

https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2025.16

Retrieved from Vol. 1, No. 1, 2025

Pages 16-29

Abstract

The relevance of the study is due to the accelerated transformation of international law under the influence of multipolarity, technological changes and the growing role of regional actors. The aim of the work was to determine the prospects of legal pluralism in the context of the evolving relationship between universalism and regionalism in the modern international legal system. The research methodology was based on a comprehensive analysis of international treaties, regional agreements. The study established that classical universal treaties lost effectiveness due to intensifying geopolitical competition, technological transformations and declining trust among leading states. Contemporary initiatives increasingly implement the principle of flexible universalism, offering framework arrangements instead of binding obligations. Regional agreements demonstrate higher practical applicability, yet simultaneously reinforce asymmetry in access to legal mechanisms. The concept of legal pluralism reflects the adaptive capacity of international law under conditions of multipolarity and rapid systemic change. Current tendencies indicate that universal and regional regimes coexist in a dynamic and mutually influential manner. Universalism provides legitimacy and general principles, while regionalism offers flexibility and technical effectiveness. Their interaction produces a pluralistic legal structure, which simultaneously ensures adaptability and generates risks of fragmentation. The growing geopolitical divide between the United States and China, as well as between Russia and the European Union, prevents the emergence of truly universal norms. Competing models of governance and legal interpretation deepen regional differentiation and transform international law into a field of normative rivalry rather than consensus. The sustainability of this model depends on harmonisation of overlapping regimes and recognition of mutual legitimacy. Prospects for international law are defined by several potential trajectories. The most realistic path involves integration of universal values with regional specificity, where pluralism functions as a mechanism of legitimacy and effectiveness. The practical significance of the study is the possibility of using its results to predict the development of international legal regimes

References
  1. Acharya, A., Estevadeordal, A., & Goodman, L.W. (2023). Multipolar or multiplex? Interaction capacity, global cooperation and world order. International Affairs, 99(6), 2339-2365. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiad242.
  2. Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court No. ICC-ASP/1/3. (2002, September). Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/23F24FDC-E9C2-4C43-BE19-A19F5DDE8882/140090/Agreement_on_Priv_and_Imm_120704EN.pdf.
  3. Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur. (2024, December). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_6244.
  4. Berger, T. (2020). The ‘Global South’ as a relational category – global hierarchies in the production of law and legal pluralism. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2001-2017. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2020.1827948.
  5. Berringer, T., & Ferreira, M.D. (2022). Open-access power blocs and regional organisations in Latin America: A poulantzian perspective. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 65(1). doi: 10.1590/0034-7329202200110.
  6. Bordin, F.L., & Odermatt, J. (2024). International law of regional organisations: A comparative perspective. International Organisations Law Review, 21(1), 19-42. doi: 10.1163/15723747-21010002.
  7. Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China Order No. 53 of the President. (2016, November). Retrieved from https://www.lawinfochina.com/Display.aspx?Id=22826&Lib=law&LookType=3.
  8. Dugard, J. (2023). The choice before us: International law or a ‘rules-based international order’? Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(2), 223-232. doi: 10.1017/S0922156523000043.
  9. Efstathopoulos, C. (2021). Southern middle powers and the liberal international order: The options for Brazil and South Africa. International Journal, 76(3), 384-403. doi: 10.1177/00207020211042915.
  10. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1950, November). Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng.
  11. García Escobar, G. (2023). Norms versus interpretations: Human rights universality revisited. Global Jurist, 23(2), 183-205. doi: 10.1515/gj-2023-0001.
  12. Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. (1949, August). Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/pages/showdetails.aspx?objid=0800000280158b1a.
  13. Gutierrez, M. (2025). Inter-American human rights system and social change in Latin America. Laws, 14(2), article number 14. doi: 10.3390/laws14020014.
  14. Hakimi, M. (2020). The integrative effects of global legal pluralism. In P. Schiff Berman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on global legal pluralism (pp. 557-574). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Hall, J., & Koen, L. (2024). Taking stock of the scholarship on the relationship between international investment law and the need for raised climate ambition. Climate Law, 14(1), 95-125. doi: 10.1163/18786561-bja10049.
  16. Halliday, T.C. (2023). Global legal change from below and above. Journal of Law and Society, 50(3), 295-321. doi: 10.1111/jols.12444.
  17. Han, E., & Li, X. (2024). Erosion of international organisations’ legitimacy under superpower rivalry: Evidence on the international court of justice. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 21-42. doi: 10.1017/S000842392300063X.
  18. Heller, K.J. (2024). The “great powers” and the formation of international law. Chinese Journal of International Law, 23(4), 637-687. doi: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae038.
  19. Hoffman, S.J., et al. (2022). International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(32), article number e2122854119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2122854119.
  20. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966, December). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights.
  21. Jennings, R.Y. (2024). The acquisition of territory in international law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. doi: 10.7765/9781526183910.
  22. Kim, R.E. (2020). Is global governance fragmented, polycentric, or complex? The state of the art of the network approach. International Studies Review, 22(4), 903-931. doi: 10.1093/isr/viz052.
  23. Kreuder-Sonnen, C., & Zürn, M. (2020). After fragmentation: Norm collisions, interface conflicts, and conflict management. Global Constitutionalism, 9(2), 241-267. doi: 10.1017/S2045381719000315.
  24. Kulaga, L., & Turnbull, K. (2024). Conflict of treaty norms and subsequent agreements in relation to the interpretation of treaties in international investment law. In P. Merkouris, A. Kulick, J.M. Álvarez-Zarate & M. Żenkiewicz (Eds.), Custom and its interpretation in international investment law: The rules of interpretation of customary international law (pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009255462.012.
  25. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1997, December). Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=xxvii-7-a&chapter=27&clang=_en.
  26. Li, P. (2023). Against multipolar imperialism: Toward socialist multipolarity. Retrieved from https://mirror.anarhija.net/usa.anarchistlibraries.net/mirror/p/pl/promise-li-against-multipolar-imperialism.a4.pdf.
  27. Mälksoo, L. (2021). International law and the 2020 amendments to the Russian constitution. American Journal of International Law, 115(1), 78-93. doi: 10.1017/ajil.2020.87.
  28. Marat, E., & McCarthy, L.A. (2020). Justice, crime and citizenship in Eurasia: A socio-legal perspective. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1080/09668136.2020.1844964.
  29. Marotti, L. (2022). An unlikely duo? Regionalism and jus cogens in international law. Göttingen Journal of International Law, 12(1), 219-239.
  30. Morrison, T.H., Bodin, Ö., Cumming, G.S., Lubell, M., Seppelt, R., Seppelt, T., & Weible, C.M. (2023). Building blocks of polycentric governance. Policy Studies Journal, 51(3), 475-499. doi: 10.1111/psj.12492.
  31. Olatunji, O.A. (2023). Between regional recommendations and national implementation: An analysis of the east African community partner states’ legislative responses to TRIPS obligations. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54, 673-709. doi: 10.1007/s40319-023-01318-7.
  32. Open-ended Working Group on Security of and in the Use of Information and Communications Technologies 2021-2025 Established Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 75/240. (2023, December). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4031979?ln=en.
  33. Paris Agreement. (2015, December). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
  34. Pompeo, M.R. (2019). U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty on August 2, 2019. Retrieved from https://2017-2021.state.gov/u-s-withdrawal-from-the-inf-treaty-on-august-2-2019/.
  35. Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers. (2012, March). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/reports/protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations-businesses-policymakers.
  36. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council “On the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)”. (2016, April). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng.
  37. Resolution of the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union No. 71 “Strategic Plan for the Union for 2024-2027”. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/council/Documents/basic-texts-2023/RES-071-E.pdf.
  38. Rosengrün, S. (2022). Why AI is a threat to the rule of law. Digital Society, 1, article number 10. doi: 10.1007/s44206-022-00011-5.
  39. Sanchez, M.A. (2023). The African court on human and peoples’ rights: Forging a jurisdictional frontier in post-colonial human rights. International Journal of Law in Context, 19(3), 352-366. doi: 10.1017/S1744552323000046.
  40. The Belt and Road Initiative: A Key Pillar of the Global Community of Shared Future. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.beltandroad.gov.hk/whitepaper.html.
  41. The European Green Deal. (2019). Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.
  42. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community No. C 306/1. (2007, December). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/lis/sign/eng.
  43. Treaty on elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles-between USA and USSR (INF TREATY). (1987, December). Retrieved from https://media.nti.org/documents/inf_treaty.pdf.
  44. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons No. INFCIRC/140. (1970, April). Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1970/infcirc140.pdf.
  45. U.S. Statement on Climate Change to OSCE (EPF509 04/06/01). (2001, April). Retrieved from https://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/010406/epf509.htm.
  46. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (1982, December). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
  47. United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. (2020, July). Retrieved from https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement.
  48. Van Engeland, A. (2022). Human rights: Between universalism and relativism. In S. Sayapin, R. Atadjanov, U. Kadam, G. Kemp, N. Zambrana-Tévar & N. Quénivet (Eds.), International conflict and security law (pp. 93-113). The Hague: TMC Asser Press. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_5.
  49. Vetterlein, A., & Schmidtke, T. (2025). Contextualising norms: International organisations and the creation of resilient policy norms. Journal of International Relations and Development, 28, 402-428. doi: 10.1057/s41268-025-00355-8.
  50. Von Benda-Beckmann, K., & Turner, B. (2020). Anthropological roots of global legal pluralism. In P. Schiff Berman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of global legal pluralism (pp. 66-141). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197516744.013.18.
  51. Weiffen, B., & Battistuzzi Penachioni, J. (2025). Interrogating transitional justice: The multiple meanings of a concept. Societies, 15(5), article number 123. doi: 10.3390/soc15050123.
  52. Zhang, F. (2023). Pluralism and world order: Theoretical perspectives and policy challenges. London: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-9872-0.
Suggested citation
Ketners, K. (2025). From universalism to regionalism – the future of international law in a multipolar world. Journal of Global Political Transformations, 1(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2025.16