초국적 다자주의 형성과 제도화에 관한 연구: 다자주의 연대와 파리평화포럼을 중심으로 = A Study on the Formation and Institutionalization of Polylateral Multilateralism: Alliance for Multilateralism and the Paris Peace Forum

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study begins with the observation that traditional multilateralism has struggled to function effectively amid the deepening structural rivalry between the United States and China and the recurrence of global crises. Existing research tends to focus on specific characteristics of emerging forms of multilateralism—such as informality or low-cost coordination—or relies heavily on the framework of “contested multilateralism,” which emphasizes institutional conflict and competition. To address these limitations, this study introduces the framework of “complementary multilateralism mechanism” to explain why new middle power–led coalitions—specifically the Alliance for Multilateralism and the Paris Peace Forum—have emerged under conditions of institutional degradation, and why these two initiatives have evolved through distinct institutional pathways despite operating within the same structural environment.
The complementary multilateralism mechanism conceptualizes the formation and institutionalization of polylateral multilateralism as a sequential process unfolding across the systemic, actor, institutional, and outcome levels. Using Atlas.ti to analyze speeches, documents, and program records, this study conducts a comparative empirical analysis of the Alliance for Multilateralism and the Paris Peace Forum. The findings show that when traditional multilateral institutions fail to respond effectively to the combined pressures of U.S.–China rivalry and complex global challenges—such as digital governance, health crises, and climate change—middle powers seek alternative cooperation channels grounded in normative leadership, thereby giving rise to new forms of polylateral multilateralism. Although both cases share key features—including selective participation, issue-specific agendas, and complementary relations with existing institutions—the nature of the crises they confronted and the way these crises were interpreted by actors produced divergent institutional outcomes. The Alliance for Multilateralism emerged as a state-led, declaratory mechanism aimed at safeguarding rules-based order and addressing normative deficits, ultimately dissolving once the WHO regained its functional capacity. In contrast, the Paris Peace Forum institutionalized itself as a continuous platform that supplements existing institutions through bottom-up, problem-solving approaches in areas they inadequately address, characterized by active participation from civil society and non-state actors.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by reframing multilateralism not as a static institutional structure but as a dynamic process in which external mechanisms supplement and restore traditional institutions during periods of crisis. The concept of complementary multilateralism mechanism moves beyond the predominant focus on negative institutional interactions and demonstrates empirically that the resilience of traditional multilateralism can be strengthened through external cooperative platforms. This study shows that middle powers are not limited to binary alliance choices even amid the entrenched U.S.–China strategic rivalry. Strategic and technology-intensive domains—such as semiconductors, AI governance, and critical minerals—require practical cooperation among states and a wide range of stakeholders. The Alliance for Multilateralism and the Paris Peace Forum demonstrate that middle powers can exercise normative leadership and build transnational networks in these areas. Through such mechanisms, they are able to create alternative pathways for cooperation beyond great-power competition. This insight highlights opportunities for South Korea to play a proactive role in shaping global public goods and international norms.
Nevertheless, the study has limitations. Because the analysis centers on institutional interactions, it does not fully address the micro-level motivations behind actors’ participation in each initiative. Future research should examine the actor-specific drivers and participation patterns across initiatives to better account for the sustainability and expansion of polylateral multilateralism. Such research would also help identify potential partners for Korea in various issue areas within the evolving landscape of global governance.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• Ⅱ. 선행연구와 분석틀 11
• 1. 다자주의의 위기: 미-중 경쟁과 글로벌 이슈 12
• 1) 미-중 경쟁으로 인한 다자주의 위기 12
• 2) 글로벌 이슈로 인한 다자주의 위기 15
• 2. 전통적 다자주의에서 초국적 다자주의로 18
• 1) 국가 중심적인 전통적 다자주의 18
• 2) 새로운 형태의 다자주의 21
• 3) 초국적 다자주의(polylateral multilateralism) 28
• 3. 보완적 다자주의 메커니즘 분석틀 32
• 1) 개념 정의와 작동 원리 33
• 2) 보완적 다자주의 메커니즘 단계별 구조 33
• 3) 이론적 의의 36
• 4) 텍스트 분석을 활용한 실증적 정성 분석 38
• Ⅲ. 초국적 다자주의로서 다자주의 연대 형성과 제도화 39
• 1. 국제구조적 수준: 규칙 기반의 국제질서의 위기 40
• 1) 규칙 기반 국제질서의 위기: 미국의 일방주의와 미-중 경쟁 40
• 2) 전통적 다자주의의 기능적 한계: 디지털 기술 위협과 코로나 19 팬데믹 43
• 2. 행위자 수준: 중견국 중심의 다자주의 연대 48
• 3. 제도적 수준: 보완적 다자주의로서 다자주의 연대 51
• 1) 초국적 다자주의로서 다자주의 연대 51
• 2) 제도 간 보완적 상호작용: 다자주의 연대와 WHO 간의 관계성 · 53
• 4. 결과 수준: WHO의 회복과 다자주의 연대의 해체 58
• 1) WHO의 정상화: 정치적 회복과 기능적 회복 58
• 2) 보완적 다자주의의 순화적 조정 경로와 다자주의 연대의 해체 60
• Ⅳ. 초국적 다자주의로서 파리평화포럼 형성과 제도화 62
• 1. 국제구조적 수준: 복합위기로 인한 글로벌 거버넌스의 위기 62
• 2. 행위자 수준: 중견국과 비국가 행위자 주도의 파리평화포럼 67
• 3. 제도적 수준: 보완적 다자주의로서 파리평화포럼 73
• 1) 초국적 다자주의로서 파리평화포럼 73
• 2) 제도 간 보완적 상호작용: 파리평화포럼과 UN 간의 관계성 77
• 4. 결과 수준: 지속되는 UN-파리평화포럼 간의 보완적 상호작용 81
• V. 결론 82