Wagle asks Jaishankar whether global cooperation is shifting towards ad hoc partnerships

Traditional multilateral institutions are broad cooperation frameworks built around formal commitments, rules and administrative structures. They aim to coordinate many countries over shared issues. Ad hoc partnerships are smaller, flexible arrangements among countries that share interests. They can focus on a particular problem without creating a large institution.

The main difference is how cooperation is organised. Jaishankar said negotiations in formal settings can become trapped in debates over funding, operational arrangements and rules. BRICS shows the flexible model: it operates without a secretariat or a written charter signed by all members. The International Solar Alliance shows that formalisation can still be useful when it is feasible.

The article presents neither model as universally best. Jaishankar said the right structure depends on the issue, the partners and their willingness to commit. The trend, he said, is toward more ad hoc partnerships that reduce administrative burdens while seeking practical results.

Wagle asked whether the changing global order is moving countries from traditional multilateral institutions toward smaller, more flexible partnerships among like-minded nations. He linked this question to a more fragmented international system, where major powers show less support for multilateralism and competing trade blocs have emerged.

He specifically asked whether bilateral, trilateral and subregional arrangements should receive more formal institutional structures. He highlighted disaster response, nutrition, energy and clean energy as areas where stronger cooperation could matter. He also asked whether a multipolar world requires a matching system of global governance.

The question reflected Nepal’s own experience. Wagle praised India’s assistance after the 2015 earthquake and a recent climate-linked disaster in the Rasuwa-Bhotekoshi area. Jaishankar responded that cooperation is clearly moving toward more ad hoc arrangements, although formalisation remains useful where feasible.

Jaishankar said India had established nearly 50 groupings during the preceding decade. These included trilateral, quadrilateral and other partnerships. The figure illustrates how quickly flexible cooperation has expanded alongside traditional international institutions.

The key mechanism is variety. These partnerships can involve different numbers of countries and cover different sectors. They are designed to bring countries together around shared interests without necessarily creating a large organisation. Jaishankar said countries increasingly want mechanisms that deliver tangible results with less administrative burden.

The figure also supports his broader argument about the direction of global cooperation. He said the trend was clearly toward ad hoc arrangements and partnerships among like-minded countries. The article does not provide a sector-by-sector breakdown of the nearly 50 groupings, but presents them as evidence of India’s expanding partnership-based approach.

Flexible partnerships can appeal to countries that want cooperation without lengthy negotiations or elaborate institutions. Jaishankar said formal commitments may take so much time and energy that the original purpose of cooperation is sidelined. This makes speed and practical delivery important.

The mechanism is simpler administration. Formal discussions can become stuck over funding, operational arrangements and rules. Countries may instead choose smaller partnerships among like-minded partners, where fewer participants and commitments can make coordination easier. Jaishankar said such arrangements seek tangible results while imposing less administrative burden.

This preference does not mean formal institutions are always rejected. Jaishankar said formalisation is good where feasible, citing the International Solar Alliance. He also said the suitable structure depends on the issue, the partners involved and their willingness to commit. The likely direction is therefore a mix of formal and flexible cooperation.

Delayed negotiations can weaken international cooperation by shifting attention away from the problem countries intended to solve. Jaishankar said negotiations may consume so much time and energy that the original objectives of cooperation are sidelined. Delay can therefore turn cooperation into a process focused more on structure than results.

The article identifies the main obstacles. Discussions can become bogged down in funding, operational arrangements and rules. These questions are important, but prolonged disputes can prevent countries from agreeing on how to act. Jaishankar also said many existing international groupings were themselves struggling, showing that formal structures do not automatically guarantee effective cooperation.

This helps explain the appeal of ad hoc partnerships. Smaller or more flexible arrangements may avoid some institutional delays and deliver practical outcomes faster. Still, the article does not say that all formal institutions should disappear. Jaishankar supports formalisation where it is feasible and appropriate to the issue and participating countries.

The three arrangements illustrate different levels of institutional structure. Jaishankar said BRICS operates without a secretariat or a written charter signed by all its members. He said formalisation is useful where feasible, using the International Solar Alliance as an example. He contrasted both approaches with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The key point is that no single structure fits every partnership. BRICS demonstrates that countries can cooperate without the formal features mentioned by Jaishankar. The International Solar Alliance demonstrates that a formal institutional framework can support cooperation when participating countries are willing and the arrangement can sustain it. The article does not describe the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s specific institutional details.

Jaishankar said the appropriate structure depends on the issue, the partners involved and their willingness to commit. This suggests that future cooperation may combine formal institutions with looser partnerships. Countries will increasingly choose the arrangement they believe can deliver results without unnecessary administrative burdens.

After the Cold War, multilateralism became widely regarded as the preferred framework for international cooperation, especially in trade and economics. It offered a way for countries to work through broad international arrangements rather than relying only on individual deals. The article presents this period as a time when multilateral cooperation was strongly favoured.

Regional arrangements were viewed as building blocks for that wider system. Wagle cited the North American Free Trade Agreement, the South Asian Free Trade Area and the ASEAN Free Trade Area. These agreements were seen as steps toward broader multilateral cooperation rather than alternatives to it.

The article says that model is now under pressure. Major powers show less support for multilateralism, while competing trade blocs and stronger national interests have emerged. That change has raised questions about whether global cooperation will remain centred on traditional institutions or shift toward regional and flexible partnerships.