Compromise vs. Confrontation

• Multilateralism, by definition, requires compromise. Multiple nations are always going to have multiple goals, backgrounds and methods of carrying things out. This means that in order to get anything done, every nation involved has to give a little -- the result may not be exactly what each party envisioned, but it will be close enough. Unilateralism, on the other hand, involves only one country, so it can essentially write itself a political blank check, as there is nobody to negotiate with.
  
  

Time-Consuming vs. Timely

• Multilateralism is time consuming. This is because the more people are involved in a decision, the longer it takes to make. There are more stakeholders, more consequences, more debate, and there is much more paperwork involved. Unilateralism, on the other hand, is much quicker. If a nation is operating by itself, its representatives don't have to consult with other nations before making a move, therefore making everything much quicker.
  
  

Global vs National

• As the world becomes more complex and connected, there are fewer and fewer problems that strictly belong to one nation. Most large-scale events have a global effect. Multilateralism is poised to deal with this aspect of the 21st century -- global problems require global solutions, with more consultation by more people. Unilateralism, on the other hand, only recognizes national problems, which Lindsey Powell of Yale University argues is too narrow a scope for most of the problems facing today's leaders.
  
  

Elastic vs. Rigid

• Multilateral solutions tend to be elastic. This is a necessity, as they need to answer to so many different people from different backgrounds. It is also useful, though, as the world is elastic, so solutions that deal with its problems arguably should be the same. Unilateralism, due to its single-state nature, tends to be more rigid, as it has fewer stakeholders.