Editorial: The Geneva Policy Outlook 2025

By Achim Wennmann

“Anything is possible in exceptional moments” said Jean Monnet, who pioneered the construction of a united Europe after the Second World War; but seizing the moment for change requires anticipation, preparation and a clear plan. The Geneva Policy Outlook 2025 takes these attributes as a guide for this year’s edition, underlying that Geneva has everything it takes to seize such an “exceptional moment” for the reinvention of multilateralism.

Yet, this reinvention takes place in an era in which a new mainstream of politics is profoundly sceptical about international cooperation, a trend aggravated by the US elections. Given the realities of a “multilateralism in crises” and the admittedly concerning outlook on funding, one message for 2025 is clear: Keeping Geneva relevant requires more than business as usual. 

This is why this year’s edition features courageous ideas and practice that can help Geneva – and more broadly multilateralism – stay relevant as a global hub for diplomacy and international cooperation. The GPO25 also points to demonstrations of policy entrepreneurship in the fields of intellectual property rights, health diplomacy, biodiversity, and peacebuilding as well as on upcoming issues the world should have on its radar. 

Towards Multilateralism 2.0

With so much going on in world politics, the first section emphasises the importance of sober judgement about continuity and change as a guide for decision-making, which according to former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a critical ingredient required to navigate any crisis. 

Jussi Hanhimäki embraces this wise counsel as he demystifies the US elections and its implications for Geneva by looking at broader trends of US foreign policy. As a superpower, the US has traditionally resisted the idea that it is accountable to global institutions or that it should share responsibility for addressing global problems. This attitude is likely to be amplified by the incoming US administration, resulting in “multilateralism à la carte”. Hanhimäki argues for countering Trump 2.0 with Multilateralism 2.0, based on a very simple fact: “The future of multilateralism cannot depend on the political currents in one country, no matter how powerful and rich it is.” The practical implications of this argument are more intense diplomacy on sharing the burden, responsibilities and power to build a more inclusive multilateral system – a “Multilateralism 2.0”. 

Hugo Slim takes the discussion of reinventing multilateralism into Geneva’s orbit of global policymaking. He argues that Geneva should address its “blind spot for nature” and “deepen its doctrine on humanity” which is currently focused on a human-centred diplomacy as in human rights, health, and humanitarianism. A reinvented multilateralism in Geneva should recognise humanity’s “shared identity and mutual interests with the wider Earth community of plants and animals and its ecosystems”. From an emphasis on One Health to brokering peace over shared resources, such as water or ecosystems, practical efforts representing a more integrated doctrine of humanity are already underway. However, there is an opportunity for Geneva to become much more proactive in moving nature from a “permanent observer” to a “permanent member of International Geneva”. 

Marie-Laure Salles expands this line of argument by suggesting that Geneva’s future as a global hub should evolve around a more integrated, new agenda for sustainability. This agenda works along three major lines of reconnections – of humanity with nature, of human beings with each other, and of individuals with their own humanity. The new agenda would mobilise the many actors and initiatives that already exist, in a new push for regenerative approaches, the reinvention of social contracts, and the development of human- and planet-centred technologies – all driven by “a courageous humanist perspective combined with international cooperation”. Salles underlines that “Geneva has all it takes to reinvent itself as a core hub for this epochal transformation. … This is a call we cannot miss!”

A reinvented multilateral system also needs an updated foundational document, argues Heba Aly. She reflects on a new initiative that aims to update the UN Charter based on its Article 109. Aly outlines the rationale and current movement building behind this effort, which will “face many obstacles, but given the large swath of the world that is not well-served by the current world order, a new system to govern the world is inevitable”. As a less politicised environment than New York, Geneva “lends itself to incubating bold ideas for the future of multilateralism”, including the scope for normative improvements to the UN Charter. A “UN Charter 2.0” might also be an avenue for a younger generation to discover and embrace international cooperation.

Solomon Dersso highlights the need for a much more networked multilateralism that, in the case of Africa, could project the ever-growing political agency of this continent. Specifically, he suggests building a stronger link between the two hubs: Addis Ababa, as a regional hub for the African region and Geneva as a global hub, contributing to a more global and less North-centric multilateralism. This effort would “leverage the role of the African Union, using its members standing as a major voting bloc in the UN” and increase exchanges on peace and security issues, human rights and the African Continental Free Trade Area. The year 2025 offers the prospect of testing out these different avenues of exchange with the goal of “knitting a more strongly networked multilateralism for the future”.

Richard Gowan concludes this section with recommendations for policy entrepreneurs that aim to advance their agendas within the UN system. He recommends employing the UN’s Pact for the Future as an advocacy instrument. While the Pact fails to offer a concrete road map to fix global challenges, it does offer “à la carte menu of options” for advocates. For example, it provides “an opening for human rights experts who want to assert the importance of rights-based approaches to conflict prevention and resolution”. Overall, the Pact can help on the pathways to achieve grand ambitions by offering “ideas and phrases that smart policy thinkers can use to advance their particular agendas”.     

The Geneva Policy Outlook 2025 offers several signposts for the journey towards a “Multilateralism 2.0”

In sum, the Geneva Policy Outlook 2025 offers several signposts for the journey towards a “Multilateralism 2.0”. These include a prioritization of sober judgement on continuities and change, the identification of blind spots that require attention, a unifying agenda for sustainability that sets out a clear purpose of multilateralism, the importance of updating foundational texts to present realities, the construction of a networked multilateralism that recognizes new spaces of political agency, and the stimulation of policy entrepreneurship. These elements on their own will not be in a position to construct a “Multilateralism 2.0” but they represent areas of work that can be undertaken in 2025 to walk the talk of reinventing multilateralism. 

Diplomacy in action

The second section of the GPO25 delves into selected issues of policy entrepreneurship that were gathered through the various dialogues and updates organised by the Geneva Policy Outlook throughout last year. These articles demonstrate that Geneva remains one of the world’s leading diplomatic platforms and policy labs that has a lot to offer for stimulating the reinvention of multilateralism. 

Margo A. Bagley reviews the path to consensus on the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge – known as the GRATK Treaty. She highlights that the changing geopolitical environment with the start of the war in Ukraine, gave way for opportunism, leading to an ultimate push in the negotiations. In a sense, the Ukraine war was this “exceptional moment” – noted by the quote from Monnet above – that negotiators seized to shape negotiation process towards successful conclusion. The GRATK treaty is a story of traditional diplomacy at its best, involving careful preparation, a balanced Chair’s text, skilful consensus-building, and behind-the-scenes support from WIPO and numerous negotiators. The success of the GRATK Treaty shows that there is a place for technical level negotiations in specialized international organizations within the broader discussion of the reinvention of multilateralism. Indeed, it shows that such multilateral diplomacy can work – albeit at its own pace, as in this case of some 10 years of negotiations. 

Unfortunately, the Pandemic Treaty negotiations cannot afford such a timeframe. Suerie Moon underlines that the risk of the next global pandemic should accelerate the negotiations, but difficult issues remain on the table, particularly around Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS), and declining development assistance of key countries. A renewed Trump administration is also likely to add to these challenges. The underlying assumption of the negotiations, however, remains: “The world will be safer if governments agree on fair, effective rules to govern pandemics in 2025”. Given the geopolitical contexts and underlying challenges on key issues, the pandemic treaty negotiations offer another opportunity for Geneva to facilitate diplomacy at its best. 

Beyond negotiation dynamics of specific issues, Geneva also continues to shape diplomatic initiative elsewhere. Tony Rinaudo, Juliet Bell, and Athena Peralta share their experience of scaling by shifting from programme interventions to movement building. The authors analyse the results from Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR), a “low-cost, high-impact approach to restoring degraded lands by nurturing existing vegetation”. In Niger alone, FMNR has restored an area of farmland larger than the territory of Switzerland. Globally, it has restored four times as much. FMNR is also a strategic tool for food security. The approach is currently expanding its reach and impact through faith-based movement building and policy advocacy, including on issues such as secure land tenure, financial incentives for farmers, and integrating FMNR into climate adaptation and disaster risk management planning. For the FMNR community, Geneva is an amplifier of this scaling process because it is a global policy platform, and it offers access to the global network of faith leaders.

Hiba Qasas sets out a bold idea of peace entrepreneurship for Israel and Palestine. She argues that “the current approach delivered neither security for Israelis nor dignity and self-determination for Palestinians. True realism today means recognising that peace, far from being an idealistic luxury, is the only pragmatic path forward”. She underlines that “there are partners for peace on each side” that are committed to work together. These construct common groups by embracing five guiding principles, namely “mutual recognition of both parties to self-determination, independence, and statehood; security and safety; dignity; agency and inclusion; and trust through healing”. There is an opportunity to build a reality for Israel and Palestine other than an “endless cycle of violence”, and the time to seize it is now.

Geneva is a source or accelerator of bold ideas that are then taken forward elsewhere. Enabling and protecting this safe space for strategic development, network building and problem solving across issues, sectors and positions will be a critical ingredient for keeping Geneva relevant as a global hub.

The previous two examples illustrate that Geneva is a source or accelerator of bold ideas that are then taken forward elsewhere. Enabling and protecting this safe space for strategic development, network building and problem solving across issues, sectors and positions will be a critical ingredient for keeping Geneva relevant as a global hub.

For the radar: New issues

There is a long list of issues that could benefit from such a safe space for policy innovation and in the GPO25 we highlight three such issues that result from our engagements last year. 

The first issue is the “new WMDs” – Weapons of Mass Disinformation. Jean-Marc Rickli highlights the importance to stimulate diplomatic action to counter the AI-enabled disinformation machine. If gone unchecked, this machine risks nothing less than completely disrupting democracies, primarily by “instilling doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the political institutions and the outcomes of democratic processes”. With the rapid evolution trajectory of disinformation technologies on the horizon, it is high time to develop a multilateral response. “Geneva is uniquely positioned to become the global governance hub on combating disinformation and creating an emerging regime on subversion control” that works like a weapons control regime. Such efforts would also underline that the topics of democracy and participatory governance have their relevance on Geneva’s diplomatic task board.

The second issue is about more concrete diplomacy connecting microplastics, human health and socio-economic stability. Aditya Bharadwaj raises the red flag based on the growing evidence from research on the impact of microplastics on fertility which “indicate[s] the potential for significant reproductive harm”. Bharadwaj highlights that most policy initiatives on microplastics currently focus on environmental impacts or waste management, but not on human health impacts. There is a significant opportunity for Geneva’s policy ecosystems to build a bridge between the microplastics and global health communities to develop integrated policies and a global alliance for action. 

The third issue is a “message from the field” highlighting how badly managed carbon credit schemes stimulate community conflict in Africa. The aim of carbon credits is to achieve a “quadruple win” that promotes land restoration, higher farmer incomes, more carbon sequestration, and companies achieving their ‘net zero’. However, Irene Ojuok and Alan Channer raise a red flag about climate finance as a driver of conflict within communities and families, particularly affecting women and youth. They stress the importance of incorporating conflict risk assessments into carbon finance feasibility studies and the role of Geneva in amplifying the voice of rural African communities in their interactions with the major corporate players involved. By raising the red flag, the authors demonstrate the importance of constant monitoring and iterative process design in implementing the climate finance agenda.

By invoking Jean Monnet in her article, Marie-Laure Salles affirms the type of leadership that can help navigate Geneva’s quest for relevance as a global hub in a rapidly changing world. It is a quest that requires a shift from relative complacency and an emphasis on continuity, to a more active form of renewal, reinvention and pioneering. As a global hub, Geneva can act as a guardian of ideals and values, provide a trusted space for diplomacy and ensure that all voices are heard and considered in multilateral processes. 

2025, therefore, requires ‘all hands on deck’ for Geneva to re-invent its role in a new world order, and for diplomacy and international cooperation to remain primary instruments for global politics. 

Those wanting to seize the current “exceptional moment” for reinventing multilateralism in Geneva can draw on the instruments, networks, and expertise of one of the world’s foremost hubs of policy entrepreneurship. But they should really do it now, before the financing, political support and self-confidence align in other capitals to shape the international cooperation agendas in their own particular ways. 2025, therefore, requires ‘all hands on deck’ for Geneva to re-invent its role in a new world order, and for diplomacy and international cooperation to remain primary instruments for global politics. 

About the Editor

Prof. Achim Wennmann is Director for Strategic Partnerships of the Geneva Graduate Institute where he is also Professor of Practice in the Interdisciplinary Programme and the Nagulendran Chair in Peace Mediation.