CHAPTER 19— BILATERAL VERSUS MULTILATERAL 

 DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIPS 



In the construction of institutional arrangements of the L^nited 

 States with other nations for sustained scientific research and tech- 

 nological development programs of common concern, an important 

 issue is whether to emplo}^ a separate bilateral, "one-to-one" relation- 

 ship with each participant, or to bring together all or many interested 

 nations in one or more multilateral arrangements. Manifestly theie 

 will be occasions on which one form will be unmistakably superior 

 to the other, as for example when the subject matter is of interest to 

 only two nations, or conversel} % when the participation of many 

 nations is essential to an enterprise. 



However, for many programs of international science and technol- 

 ogy with which the United States is concerned, there are no compel- 

 ling or obvious reasons for choosing either the bilateral or the multi- 

 lateral approach. The purpose of this section is to identify and discuss 

 some of the considerations on which such a choice might be based, 

 and to suggest the need — and some possible directions — for further 

 study of this matter. 



Historically, multilateral and bilateral treaties, treaty institutions, 

 formal and tacit agreements, and shared programs have existed 

 alongside each other. The 12 studies in the wScience, Technology, 

 and American Diplomacy series contain many references to the simul- 

 taneous occurrence of both multilateral and bilateral relationships 

 among nations. 



In drawing from the various studies examples of these contrasting 

 alternatives, the purpose is not to urge the superiority of either form 

 of relationship, nor even to define comprehensively the kinds of 

 substantive problem or task for Avhich each is better suited. Rather, 

 it is to document that some subjects are in fact more compatible ^ith 

 bilateral associations, and others with multilateral associations. From 

 this observation, the paper then suggests that extensiA'e further study 

 of the bilateral/multilateral alternatives could help to chart the future 

 course of American diplomac3\ Although the present focus is on 

 scientific and technological nuitters of diplomacy, it is likch' that the 

 principles adduced would be n>ore widely- applicable. 



Appearance of the Issue in Earlier Parts of the Study 



The bilateral-versus-multilateral approach to international rela- 

 tions does not appear to have received sufficiently systematic analysis 

 aimed at identifying opportunities for the advancement of diplomatic 

 goals. Repeated reference has been made in many of the 12 studies 

 to this dimension of U.S. foreign relations. The series demonstrates 

 a wide variation in form, purpose, scope, organization, degree of 

 formality, and backstaffing arrangements. As a general proposition, 

 purposeful standardization of forms aimed at optimizing cost-effective- 

 ness across the board could be a constructive exercise. Although 

 organizational forms need to be tailored to the endless varieties of 

 requirements of particular agreements or relationships, needless and 



(1741) 



