Your policy brief opens with a stark diagnosis: we are living through a global governance “rupture,” not merely a transition. What makes this moment different from earlier crises of multilateralism, and why does that distinction matter for how the EU should respond?
Previous crises of multilateralism were generally understood as periods of turbulence within a fundamentally stable system, where reforms or renewed commitments could restore order. By contrast, the current moment is characterised by the deliberate and systematic weaponisation of economic integration, increasingly transactional and coercive strategies by great powers, and the proliferation of alternative governance arrangements that fragment rather than coordinate global efforts.
Multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN), and the Conference of the Parties (COP) are not merely under strain: their financial viability and very architecture are under threat. Consensus-based rule-making has slowed or stalled altogether. The second Trump administration’s withdrawal from, and obstruction of, key multilateral bodies has further accelerated this breakdown, creating governance gaps and undermining the credibility and effectiveness of international commitments.
The distinction between ‘transition’ and ‘rupture’ matters because it demands a shift from incremental, reactive measures to decisive, targeted action. For the EU, maintaining the status quo is neither realistic nor desirable. Rather than relying on procedural fixes or symbolic reforms, the EU must adopt a more strategic, prioritised approach to defend and transform multilateral governance. Without such a shift, the EU risks losing both its normative authority and its capacity to shape global rules, leaving it increasingly vulnerable to great-power competition and exposed to threats ranging from military aggression to economic coercion and humanitarian crises.
You argue that the EU must make hard strategic choices about where and how to engage. What are the most important of those choices, and where do you see the EU currently getting it wrong?
The most consequential choices involve prioritising policy areas where the EU’s interests and capabilities are strongest, such as trade, climate change, migration, and digital governance. The EU must also decide where to focus its efforts: whether in global or regional institutions, open or selective formats, and formal or informal arrangements. The answer will depend on the issue at hand, often requiring the EU to combine approaches rather than choosing between them. In trade, for example, it continues to defend the WTO’s relevance while relying on plurilateral and informal solutions when consensus proves elusive. In climate governance, it treats the Paris Agreement as central but acknowledges the need for stronger financing and implementation mechanisms. The EU must also choose partners carefully, focusing on coalition-building with like-minded actors, especially key BRICS countries and influential states in the ‘Plural South’, such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa.
"Multilateral institutions are not merely under strain: their financial viability and very architecture are under threat."
Where the EU gets it wrong is in spreading its resources too thin across multiple domains, relying excessively on soft-law instruments and voluntary commitments, and failing to address representation deficits that alienate emerging powers and civil society. Internal divisions among member states further dilute the EU’s external positions and slow decision-making, weakening its credibility. In migration governance, for instance, the EU’s reliance on selective multilateralism and underfunded, non-binding compacts reflects limited political will for reform. In digital governance, fragmented standards and insufficient engagement with global bodies hinder progress. Moving forward, the EU must move beyond symbolic reforms: it should secure predictable financing, strengthen compliance and monitoring mechanisms, better align domestic and global regulations, and ensure more inclusive participation. Without clear prioritisation and strategic coalition-building, the EU risks overcommitment, implementation fatigue, and – ultimately – limited impact.
Your brief warns that failure to act risks relegating the EU from rule-maker to rule-taker. What does that mean in practice and what is at stake for Europe if it gets this wrong?
In practical terms, becoming a rule-taker would mean losing the ability to shape global norms, standards, and governance frameworks, and instead being forced to comply with rules set by others – primarily by great powers or dominant coalitions. The EU would shift from a proactive, agenda-setting actor to a reactive one, increasingly vulnerable to external pressures.
The implications for Europe are significant. It would face heightened exposure to economic coercion from China and the United States, continued military threats from Russia, and – if global support structures weaken further – the destabilisation of humanitarian and refugee systems. At the same time, the EU’s normative authority, soft power, and diplomatic leverage would erode, undermining its ability to defend core values like democracy, human rights, and environmental sustainability. External actors could increasingly shape the EU’s internal market and regulatory standards, reducing its strategic autonomy and capacity to protect the interests of its member states and their citizens. More broadly, the legitimacy and effectiveness of international cooperation would suffer, as fragmented and exclusive arrangements privilege powerful actors and marginalise smaller states.
The stakes are existential for a multilateralist EU: failure to act decisively will result in higher economic, social, and security costs, weaken global equity, and risk the hollowing out of international multilateralism into a ‘rules-based order’ in name only. To avoid this outcome, the EU must prioritise reforms that strengthen compliance, ensure effective monitoring and delivery, secure sustainable financing, and promote inclusive participation. Otherwise, it risks losing both its role as a global leader and its ability to respond to humanity’s greatest shared challenges.
Steven Blockmans is an Associate Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and leads ENSURED's work package on EU foreign policy. This blog builds on his recent ENSURED policy brief.
Photo: Fer Troulik / Unsplash
.png)
