Example collocations logo

Multilateral in sentence

1507 examples of Multilateral in a sentence

If the US first makes an effort to consult others and try a multilateral approach, its occasional unilateral tactics are more likely to be forgiven.
In such cases, the likelihood of failure increases, because of the intrinsically multilateral nature of transnational issues in a global age, and the costly effects on US soft power that unaccepted unilateral actions may impose.
This was one of many encounters that Obama has had with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in various forums since taking office, often in multilateral summits like the G-20, and it consolidated the new relationship that has emerged from a decade of dramatic change.
Existing global rules – embedded in multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade and investment agreements – are being challenged by the new processes that digitization is enabling.
In multilateral and bilateral agreements, developing countries accept restrictions on their “policy space” in exchange for better market access to advanced economies.
In this spirit of cooperation, the major multilateral development institutions – the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Islamic Development Bank, the United Nations, and the World Bank – have already begun to strengthen their joint efforts in producing and sharing development data.
The implication is that potential borrowers are not absorbing as many imports as they could and not relying, as they should, on the multilateral pooling of reserves that the Fund is meant to use to “give confidence” to its members.
Reforming the international monetary system, therefore, means reforming the governance of the multilateral financial institutions – an argument that China emphasized during its G20 presidency last year.
First, the IMF should promote financial stability through multilateral surveillance.
Action in these three areas would help to create a multilateral institution with the authority and expertise to advise countries on supervisory and regulatory issues of systemic importance.
At the outset of his first administration, Obama spoke of the need “for a global response to global challenges,” which was followed by a move toward multilateral engagement, most notably in Libya.
In a recent interview, Obama emphasized America’s “extremely effective” participation in multilateral organizations and its role in developing international rules and norms as successes of his first-term foreign policy.
The hard truth is that the US remains reluctant to trade its sovereignty for multilateral solutions.
Obama’s silence with regard to multilateral efforts to combat global warming is notable.
Nonetheless, the US-Russia relationship has always been compartmentalized, and there are pressing multilateral issues on which the US must work with Russia, particularly Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan (where the US will withdraw its troops this year).
Among his most controversial campaign statements were some suggesting that NATO was obsolete, a position that bodes ill for his attitude to other multilateral organizations and alliances.
As new South-led institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank work with established multilateral development banks, they are learning to be better partners, and adding momentum to global development efforts.
But unlike public health, for example, states have a natural disincentive to support legal empowerment, because it constrains state power – which is all the more reason for a multilateral financing mechanism.
That is why multilateral institutions need to be upgraded and restructured, with effective decision-making and implementation mechanisms for managing global development challenges such as infrastructure gaps, migration, climate change, and financial instability.
The challenge is even greater because some regulatory agencies must be multilateral, or at least intergovernmental, given the global nature of much economic activity.
The Broken Legs of Global TradeNEW YORK – The Doha Round, the latest phase of multilateral trade negotiations, failed in November 2011, after ten years of talks, despite official efforts by many countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, and by nearly all eminent trade scholars today.
The failure to achieve multilateral trade liberalization by concluding the Doha Round means that the world lost the gains from trade that a successful treaty would have brought.
But that is hardly the end of the matter: the failure of Doha will virtually halt multilateral trade liberalization for years to come.
Of course, multilateral trade negotiations are only one of three legs on which the World Trade Organization stands.
Until now, preferential trade agreements (PTAs) among small groups of countries co-existed with multilateral, non-discriminatory trade-liberalization rounds.
So, while powerful, “hegemonic” countries like the US managed to impose their own rules on weaker partners in the PTAs that they helped to proliferate, big emerging economies like India, Brazil, China, and South Africa insisted on rejecting such demands when made as part of multilateral trade rounds like Doha.
Now, however, with the era of multilateral trade rounds and system-wide rules behind us, the PTAs are the only game in town, and the templates established by the hegemonic powers in unequal trade treaties with economically weaker countries will increasingly carry the day.
That just might be an adequate rebuff to the rise of PTAs whose main objective is to serve hegemonic interests alone – perhaps even sufficient to get the multilateral approach back on track.
Such coordination would infringe on central-bank independence no more than multilateral cooperation undermines the sovereignty of the countries involved.
On multilateral issues, Obama’s performance is equally unimpressive.
BackNext