From multilateralism to “me first”? About members’ withdrawal from international organisations in times of polycrisis

Abstract

Polycrisis and entropy characterise the contemporary international system, where multiple crises converge simultaneously. In this environment, International Law faces the dual challenge of international commitments being questioned and a growing scepticism toward multilateralism from key actors. Recent examples include the initiation of the withdrawal process by the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United NationsPolycrisis and entropy characterise the contemporary international system, where multiple crises converge simultaneously. In this environment, International Law faces the dual challenge of international commitments being questioned and a growing scepticism toward multilateralism from key actors. Recent examples include the United States initiating withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), which also triggered a contagion effect in Argentina’s case. These events underscore the need to examine the international norms governing a state’s withdrawal from an international organisation, as well as their domestic and international implications. This article addresses two main questions: What are the characteristics and drivers of the recent United States withdrawals in the context of the polycrisis? How do they differ from other precedents in terms of motivation and international context? To answer these questions, cases from two key organizations are analyzed and compared: 1) International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), by examining the withdrawals of Bolivia (2007), Ecuador (2009-2021), Venezuela (2012), and Honduras (2024); 2) Organization of American States (OAS), with the cases of Nicaragua (2023) and Venezuela (whose withdrawal, submitted in 2017, was revoked in 2019).