Where will the conference on multilateralism and the ethics of war be held?

The conference will take place in Bern, CHE.

What is the primary focus of this event?

The event focuses on the intersection of multilateralism, international institutions, and the ethics of war.

Multilateralism, International Institutions and the Ethics of War

Name: Multilateralism, International Institutions and the Ethics of War
Start: 2026-11-19T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-11-21T00:00:00Z
Location: Bern

Nov 19–21, 2026Bern, SwitzerlandIn-person

Registration open

This conference in Bern, CHE, will explore the intricate relationship between multilateralism, international institutions, and the ethical considerations surrounding warfare. It aims to foster dialogue on how global governance structures can navigate the moral complexities of conflict in an increasingly interconnected world. The event will bring together scholars and practitioners to discuss foundational ethical principles and their application to contemporary international relations.

Committees & topics

Topics
The Future of Multilateralism in a Fragmenting World Order · Reforming International Institutions · The Ethics of War: Just War Tradition and the Modern Laws of Armed Conflict

Why it matters

In an era marked by geopolitical shifts and evolving forms of conflict, understanding the ethical dimensions of war within a multilateral framework is more critical than ever. The rise of new powers and the challenges to established norms necessitate a re-evaluation of how international institutions uphold principles of justice and accountability during armed conflicts. This discussion is particularly salient given ongoing conflicts and the increasing reliance on international bodies to mediate disputes and enforce humanitarian law.

The conference's focus on the ethics of war directly addresses the practical and philosophical dilemmas faced by policymakers and international organizations. It seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical ethical frameworks and the realities of international conflict, offering insights into how multilateral approaches can either mitigate or exacerbate ethical challenges. By examining the role of international institutions, the event will shed light on their capacity to act as moral agents and enforcers of international law, or conversely, where their limitations lie.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for discussions on multilateralism and the ethics of war should engage with the concept of “just war theory” and its contemporary relevance. Understanding the historical evolution of international law pertaining to conflict, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, will provide a robust foundation. Consider how different states interpret and apply these principles, particularly in situations involving national sovereignty versus humanitarian intervention.

Furthermore, an exploration of specific case studies where international institutions have intervened, or failed to intervene, in conflicts will be beneficial. Analyzing the ethical dilemmas presented by these cases, such as the use of force, protection of civilians, and post-conflict justice, will allow for a more nuanced contribution to the discussions. Delegates should also consider the impact of emerging technologies on the ethics of warfare and the challenges they pose to existing international legal and ethical frameworks.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

Often champions multilateral institutions for collective security but reserves the right to unilateral action in perceived national interest, leading to ethical debates on intervention.

Role in topic

As a major global power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the USA plays a significant role in shaping international responses to conflict. Its historical interventions and leadership in various international bodies place it at the center of discussions regarding the ethics of war and the efficacy of multilateralism.

China

Emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, often advocating for a more restrained approach to intervention, which can be seen as a challenge to Western-led ethical frameworks.

Role in topic

CHN's growing global influence and its emphasis on non-interference in internal affairs present an alternative perspective on the ethics of war and the role of international institutions. Its stance often highlights the importance of national sovereignty over humanitarian intervention, influencing debates on the legitimate use of force.

Russia

Frequently challenges existing international norms and institutions, particularly regarding interventions in sovereign states, often citing national security interests.

Role in topic

RUS's actions in recent conflicts and its often confrontational stance towards Western-led international institutions make it a critical actor in discussions about the ethics of war. Its interpretations of international law and its use of veto power in the UN Security Council significantly impact multilateral responses to conflict.

Switzerland

Maintains a strong tradition of neutrality and humanitarianism, often hosting international organizations and advocating for peaceful resolution and adherence to international law.

Role in topic

As the host nation for this conference and a country with a long-standing commitment to neutrality and humanitarian principles, CHE provides a crucial perspective on the ethical conduct of war and the importance of international law. Its role as a mediator and a hub for international organizations underscores its dedication to multilateral solutions.

Germany

Strongly supports multilateral institutions and international law, advocating for a rules-based international order and often participating in peacekeeping missions.

Role in topic

DEU is a key proponent of a rules-based international order and a strong supporter of multilateral institutions. Its post-World War II foreign policy has been shaped by a commitment to peace and human rights, making its perspective on the ethics of war and the role of international bodies particularly relevant.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

The Future of Multilateralism in a Fragmenting World Order

Multilateralism — the practice of coordinating policy among three or more states through shared rules and institutions — emerged in its modern form from the wreckage of the Second World War. The 1944 Bretton Woods conference created the IMF and World Bank, the 1945 San Francisco conference established the United Nations, and the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade laid the groundwork for what became the WTO in 1995. These frameworks were designed primarily by the United States and its allies to prevent a return to the beggar-thy-neighbor economics and unrestrained great-power conflict of the interwar period, and they expanded steadily through decolonization, the end of the Cold War, and the globalization wave of the 1990s and 2000s. Since the mid-2010s, however, the multilateral order has come under sustained strain. The 2016 Brexit referendum, the first Trump administration's withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, the WHO, the JCPOA, and the UN Human Rights Council, and the paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body all signaled an erosion of Western support for the system the West built. Simultaneously, China and Russia have pushed alternative or parallel arrangements — the BRICS grouping, the SCO, the AIIB, and the Belt and Road Initiative — while the Global South has grown more assertive in demanding reform of voting weights, Security Council composition, and sovereign debt architecture. Today the core dispute is whether the post-1945 institutions can be reformed quickly enough to remain legitimate, or whether they will be displaced by a more transactional, bloc-based order. Debates over UNSC enlargement, IMF quota reform, climate finance under the UNFCCC, and the governance of artificial intelligence and outer space all turn on this question. The war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza have further exposed perceptions of double standards in how international law is applied, deepening the legitimacy crisis that any renewed multilateralism must address.

Key players

Reforming International Institutions

The principal international institutions in operation today were designed in the 1940s for a world of roughly fifty states, fixed exchange rates, and a bipolar security competition. The UN Security Council's five permanent members reflect the victors of 1945; the IMF and World Bank's quota and voting structures were calibrated to mid-twentieth-century economic weight; and the WTO inherited a consensus-based decision rule that worked for the GATT's smaller membership but has produced gridlock among 160-plus members. Successive reform efforts — the 1965 expansion of the UNSC's non-permanent seats, the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) campaign launched in 2004, the 2010 IMF quota reform, and the 'Ezulwini Consensus' demanding two permanent African seats — have delivered marginal change at best. The core dispute concerns both representation and effectiveness. Emerging powers argue that institutions dominated by their 1945 founders cannot credibly govern issues such as pandemic response, climate finance, sovereign debt restructuring, or the regulation of new technologies. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, vetoed at the UNSC by Russia itself, and the WHO's contested performance during COVID-19 have intensified calls for structural reform — including limits on the veto, expansion of permanent membership, and a redistribution of voting shares in the Bretton Woods institutions. The UN's 'Summit of the Future' in September 2024 produced a Pact for the Future that gestured toward such reforms but committed to few binding changes. The issue today is whether reform can proceed incrementally within existing institutions or whether parallel architectures — the BRICS New Development Bank, the AIIB, regional courts, and minilateral groupings such as the Quad and AUKUS — will progressively absorb the functions of the universal bodies. The outcome will shape not only the distribution of global power but the basic question of whether universal rules remain enforceable across rival blocs.

Key players

The Ethics of War: Just War Tradition and the Modern Laws of Armed Conflict

The ethics of war has been debated systematically in the Western tradition since Augustine and Aquinas articulated criteria distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate uses of force, later refined by Grotius in the seventeenth century into the foundations of international law. The modern legal expression of these ideas runs through the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact's renunciation of war as an instrument of policy, the 1945 UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force outside self-defense or Security Council authorization, and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols governing conduct in armed conflict. Together these instruments encode the twin frameworks of jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (right conduct within war), supplemented by the more recent concept of jus post bellum (justice after war). Since the end of the Cold War, several developments have reopened ethical disputes once thought settled. NATO's 1999 Kosovo intervention raised the question of humanitarian war without UNSC authorization; the 2003 Iraq invasion tested doctrines of preventive war; the 2011 Libya operation crystallized and then discredited the Responsibility to Protect; and the proliferation of armed drones, cyber operations, autonomous weapons, and private military companies has strained categories built for conventional interstate conflict. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have made discrimination, proportionality, and the protection of civilians live political questions rather than academic ones, with the ICJ and ICC actively seized of cases against state and non-state actors alike. The core contemporary dispute is whether the existing law of armed conflict can constrain twenty-first-century warfare — urban siege, AI-enabled targeting, hybrid and grey-zone operations — or whether it requires substantial revision. Closely linked are arguments over selective enforcement: critics from the Global South note that ICC indictments and sanctions regimes have fallen disproportionately on weaker states, while Western governments argue that accountability for Russian and other conduct is precisely what universal norms require. The committee's task is to weigh these competing claims against the enduring ethical questions of when, and how, organized violence can ever be justified.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for Multilateralism, International Institutions and the Ethics of War.

Recent reporting to ground your prep

House Ethics Committee Pushes Sexual Miscond.

Congressional Ethics Failures

Pope Leo's Encyclical on AI and Dignity

DeepMind UK Employees Unionize Over AI Ethics

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

Conflict Resolution

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Switzerland November 2026

By committee

Frequently asked questions

Multilateralism, International Institutions and the Ethics of War

Nov 19–21, 2026Bern, SwitzerlandIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
The Future of Multilateralism in a Fragmenting World Order · Reforming International Institutions · The Ethics of War: Just War Tradition and the Modern Laws of Armed Conflict

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

Often champions multilateral institutions for collective security but reserves the right to unilateral action in perceived national interest, leading to ethical debates on intervention.

Role in topic

China

Emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, often advocating for a more restrained approach to intervention, which can be seen as a challenge to Western-led ethical frameworks.

Role in topic

Russia

Frequently challenges existing international norms and institutions, particularly regarding interventions in sovereign states, often citing national security interests.

Role in topic

Switzerland

Maintains a strong tradition of neutrality and humanitarianism, often hosting international organizations and advocating for peaceful resolution and adherence to international law.

Role in topic

Germany

Strongly supports multilateral institutions and international law, advocating for a rules-based international order and often participating in peacekeeping missions.

Role in topic