For decades, Western democracies and to some extent even some autocracies, have embraced multilateralism as the cornerstone of international relations.
International organizations were expected to play a central role in addressing major global challenges, with bilateral relations forming only a part of this broader framework. In Europe, this approach was epitomized by the primacy of the European Union, whose regulatory power superseded national sovereignty, even as stable alliances among leading member states remained politically significant in driving EU decision-making.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, however, this model has been increasingly challenged by the rise of new nationalisms. These movements, gaining both popularity and electoral strength, have criticized globalization and questioned the assumption that multilateralism and international cooperation are essential for growth. While nationalism has politically undermined multilateralism and strained the relationship between citizens and European institutions, it has not simply restored the dominance of bilateral agreements.
On one hand, certain legal frameworks have withstood nationalist pressures; on the other, heightened geopolitical tensions and political instability have made bilateral relations more uncertain than ever. As a result, national governments now engage in direct relations with selected partners—sometimes bilaterally, sometimes trilaterally and often in shifting configurations—eschewing a one-size-fits-all approach and moving to what we can call “poli-lateralism”.
At its core, poli-lateralism denotes a variable-geometry scheme in which bilateral and trilateral alliances among governments, particularly EU member states, form organically around specific shared political or policy interests. These alliances are not permanent or exclusive: multiple distinct groupings co-exist simultaneously across different dossiers, and the composition of any given alliance may itself shift as a dossier evolves. What defines poli-lateral cooperation is precisely this dynamic, politically driven fluidity: a willingness to partner selectively, pragmatically and temporarily, depending on the issue and the moment.
Poli-lateralism differs from the previous paradigms of multilateralism and plurilateralism. In fact, where multilateralism asks “what rules apply to all?” poli-lateralism asks “who shares our interest on this issue, right now?”
Moreover, plurilateral agreements—most familiar from the World Trade Organization’s practice—are formal, legally binding arrangements among a self-selected subset of states, usually focused on a defined sector. Participation is voluntary but, once established, the membership and scope tend to be fixed.
Poli-lateralism, as conceived here, is neither static nor primarily legal in character. It is informal, politically motivated and inherently dynamic: alliances crystallize around a shared interest, may reconfigure as that interest evolves and can coexist with entirely different alliances on adjacent dossiers, even among the same set of governments. In short, poli-lateralism is the informal political reality that often precedes, surrounds or bypasses such formalization.
A practical example of poli-lateralism came out of the recent discussions on competitiveness at the EU level.
In February 2026, an informal EU Competitiveness Council gathering took place at Alden Biesen Castle, Belgium. Convened by the leaders of Italy, Germany and Belgium, this event brought together representatives from many member states and the European Commission. The centerpiece was the presentation of a joint “Italian-German non-paper” that was quickly co-sponsored by Belgium, outlining a comprehensive agenda for EU competitiveness.
The non-paper called for regulatory simplification and deepening single market integration. The non-paper also demanded concrete initiatives, mandates and deadlines, aiming for full implementation of the competitiveness agenda by the end of 2026. This bilateral—later trilateral—initiative set the tone for the EU’s competitiveness debate, demonstrating how flexible, issue-driven alliances can shape the policy agenda.
The influence of this poli-lateral coalition was visible at the March 2026 formal Competitiveness Council in Brussels. The Council adopted the “One Europe, One Market” agenda, reflecting some of the priorities of the Italian-German-Belgian paper.
France, while not a co-author of the non-paper, aligned with Germany on several dossiers but diverged on others. On certain issues, all three (Italy, Germany and France) formed a united front. Yet, on other dossiers, bilateral axes (Italy-Germany, France-Germany) or broader groupings took precedence, with alliances shifting according to the topic at hand.
This episode crystallizes the logic of poli-lateralism in action: a small, self-selected group of governments, united by a specific shared interest, drove the agenda of a major EU institutional forum, without formal treaty authorization, without fixed membership and without claiming to speak for all member states.
Implications for Public Affairs: Skills for a Poli-Lateral World
The emergence of poli-lateralism demands a fundamental recalibration of public affairs practice. Advocacy strategies premised on stable, institutionalized decision-making pathways are no longer sufficient. Professionals must develop a new and broader competency set, one that prioritizes intelligence, agility and cross-border coordination.
Some of the key skills defining the public affairs practitioner suited to the poli-lateral environment include:
- Political and Policy Understanding: Combine deep understanding of both political dynamics and policy substance. Recognize that policy decisions are shaped as much by political relationships and timing as by technical arguments.
- Flexibility and Agility: Adapt engagement strategies rapidly as alliances, priorities or institutional actors shift. Remain open to recalibrating tactics as new coalitions emerge or dissolve.
- Multinational Coordination: Synchronize advocacy efforts across multiple member states and EU institutions, leveraging local insights and relationships to build momentum on dossier-specific issues.
- Scenario Planning and Contingency Design: Develop scenario models to anticipate possible policy or geopolitical developments. Prepare rapid-response plans for sudden shifts in the policy environment.
- Narrative Framing and Strategic Communication: Craft compelling, context-sensitive narratives that resonate with diverse audiences and align with prevailing political currents. Adapt messages for different member states or institutional audiences.
In an era defined by geopolitical volatility, institutional flux and the normalization of political ambiguity, public affairs is no longer a transactional or reactive function. The most effective advisors are those who combine intelligence-led advisory skills with the agility to navigate shifting alliances and policy windows.
Advisory-led public affairs is grounded in strategic counsel, deep sector expertise and proactive guidance and it empowers organizations to anticipate change, manage complexity, and create lasting impact. By moving beyond technical lobbying or one-off interventions, and instead providing ongoing, high-level advice that aligns advocacy with both immediate and long-term goals, public affairs professionals become indispensable partners in shaping outcomes.
In the complex, fluid world of poli-lateralism, this approach is essential to achieve meaningful results.
