The word “negotiation” has barely appeared in the vision statements of the candidates running for United Nations secretary- general this year. Yet, 80 years after the UN’s founding, bringing back “win-win” negotiations — both as a mindset and a method — is precisely what the organization needs most.

Since the UN Charter was negotiated in 1945, member states have relied on multilateral negotiations in New York, Geneva and other multilateral hubs to deliver landmark achievements, from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

But established practices are now undermining the ability to forge deals that are both acceptable and capable of addressing global challenges.

A blame game that gets us nowhere

In August 2025, failed plastics treaty talks in Geneva dealt another blow to multilateralism. In May 2026, four weeks of the NPT review conference in New York ended without consensus despite rising nuclear risks.

Failure is often followed by a blame game: cross-accusations pointing to economic interests and geopolitics serve as an excuse for stalemates. This was also the case with the unfinished annex on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing, necessary for the entry into force of the pandemic agreement.

Economic interests, often intertwined with geopolitical rivalries, clearly impact multilateral negotiations, and the UN precisely exists to provide a space to overcome — real or perceived — divisions and forge common ground. But this requires sound design and management of negotiation processes, and the incoming UN secretary-general could provide impetus, along with member states, to fill the existing gap. 

A negotiation support unit to fix process-related issues

Most candidates have pledged to exercise more of a mediatory role, to prevent or resolve conflicts, notably through the Secretariat’s underused “good offices,” a UN Mediation Support Unit was created in 2016.

The incoming top UN official could pilot another agile unit to support multilateral processes with experts providing advice before and during negotiations. It could be leveraged for the negotiation of legally binding instruments as well as outcomes of summits and conferences, or the challenging ongoing negotiation on the representation and membership of the Security Council.

The UN could build on the experience of our organization, the Institute for Global Negotiation, and our Global Negotiation Support initiative, which engages with the chairs, facilitators and negotiating bodies across UN and other multilateral processes. 

Negotiation expertise can address process-related issues, reviewing the roles and prerogatives of the chair, the bureau and secretariat and how they interplay and experimenting with tailored formats that go beyond the standard “Friends of the Chair” or “Contact Groups.” 

Sound process management and design can trigger a shift in the negotiation mindset. When 193 states engage in win-lose positional bargaining where they trade red lines, the result is often deadlock or a lowest-common-denominator agreement. Instead, multilateral negotiations can be managed and designed to make way for collaborative or integrative negotiation methods with a win-win mindset.

The plastics treaty talks are a case in point, where simplistic binary posture opposing self-proclaimed high-level ambition countries and oil-producing countries are portrayed as blockers has left them in deadlock. For this and other negotiations, focusing on interests and needs rather than positions is one way to create value at the negotiation table and is key to meaningful multilateral agreements.

Better UN negotiation processes for better UN delivery

But rocking the boat is bound to invite resistance, unless the UN and member states see an interest in rowing in the same boat. The incoming secretary-general should craft the unit proposal in a way that all states can see its benefits. Similar to our own Global Support Initiative, the UN could provide process expertise detached from substantive positions, alleviating concerns that some UN agencies promote particular interests in multilateral negotiations. 

Ambassadors and diplomats acting as chairs, facilitators or lead negotiators would be better equipped to leverage negotiation tools and techniques, evolving with AI and other technologies. Coaching and training could also accompany this advice.

While the ongoing UN80 reform initiative and resource constraints risk creating pushback, a negotiation support unit would, in fact, contribute to reform and UN delivery. As states engage in rationalizing a bloated portfolio of UN mandates and merge institutions to cut costs, effective negotiation processes are essential for success.

The unit would also cut the cost of prolonged, inefficient negotiations, including logistics and travel, for hundreds of delegates shuttling between sessions. Most important, it would prevent the far higher indirect costs of plastic pollution, future pandemics or a nuclear war — threats that grow more dangerous with every day of diplomatic delay, and test the ability for the UN and states to collectively deliver on “We the peoples of the United Nations” aspirations enshrined in the UN Charter’s preamble.

This opinion essay was co-published with Geneva Solutions.