Unequal Actors in Equalising Institutions: Negotiations in the United Nations General Assembly

266 Pages·2013·1.48 MB·English

by  Diana Panke (auth.)

Unequal Actors in Equalising Institutions
This page intentionally left blank
Unequal Actors in Equalising
Institutions
Negotiations in the United Nations
General Assembly
Diana Panke
DepartmentofPoliticalScience,UniversityofFreiburg,Germany
palgrave
macmillan
©DianaPanke2013
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2013 978-1-137-36326-8
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedherrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork
inaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2013by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN 978-1-349-47294-9 ISBN 978-1-137-36327-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137363275
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
Contents
ListofTablesandFigures vii
Preface viii
ListofAbbreviations x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Theresearchquestionandtheargument 3
1.2 ContributionstoInternationalRelationsresearch 6
1.3 Chapteroutline 8
2 TheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly:FormalEquality
andSizeDifferences 13
2.1 TheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyandthe
equality-of-statesprinciple 13
2.2 TheUNmemberstates:Sizedifferencesandchallenges 15
2.3 MappingactiveparticipationintheUNGApolicycycle 22
2.4 Mappingeffectiveparticipation:Influenceandsuccess
intheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly 29
3 Theory 33
3.1 TheorisingactiveparticipationintheUNGApolicycycle 33
3.2 Theorisingeffectiveparticipation:Influenceandsuccess 49
4 EmpiricsI:ActiveParticipation 56
4.1 Participationinthepolicy-initiationstage(DV1a) 56
4.2 Participationinthenegotiationstage(DV1b) 67
4.3 Participationinthedecision-takingstage(DV1c) 77
4.4 Sizedifferencesandactiveparticipation 85
5 EmpiricsII:EffectiveParticipationintheUNGA 93
5.1 Thenegotiationstage:InfluenceintheUNGA(DV2a) 93
5.1.1 TheAfricandescentcaseandColombia:Aleast
likelycaseforsmallstateinfluence 95
5.1.2 TheICJfollow-upresolutiononnuclearweapons:
Asmallstateinabiggroup–negotiatingwith
stringsattached 102
5.1.3 MexicoandtheLatinAmerican
nuclear-weapon-free-zone:Howbiggerstates
negotiate 109
v
vi Contents
5.1.4 IndiaandtheConventionontheProhibitionofthe
UseofNuclearWeapons:Howbigstatescanexploit
biggroups 115
5.1.5 TheEUandtheMyanmarresolution:Howasmaller
groupnegotiates 120
5.1.6 TheG77andtheeliminationofracismcase:Howa
biggroup conductsmultilateralnegotiations 130
5.2 Thevotingstage:SuccessintheUNGA(DV2b) 137
5.3 Sizedifferences,influenceandsuccess 142
6 Conclusions 149
6.1 Theargumentandmajorfindings 149
6.2 Theimportanceofinstitutionaldesign 156
6.3 Smallstates:Punchingabovetheirweights
inmultilateralnegotiations? 158
Appendix 164
Notes 175
Literature 231
Index 247
Tables and Figures
Tables
2.1 Additivesizeindex(0–200) 18
2.2 AnnualaveragesofsponsorshipforUNGAresolutions
1999/2000–2009/2010 25
2.3 AgendaitemsintheUNGA(GA54–64) 26
2.4 VotingpatternintheUNGA,sessions1999/2000–2009/2010 26
2.5 Averageparticipationratesinthedecision-takingstageby
memberstates,sessions54–64 28
2.6 Averagesuccess-ratesbymemberstates,sessions54–64 31
3.1 Overviewofhypotheses(DV1:Activeparticipation) 43
3.2 Hypothesesoninfluence(DV2a)andsuccess(DV2b) 53
4.1 Regressionresults:Participationinthepolicy-initiation
stage(DV1a) 60
4.2 Regressionresults:Participationindecision-taking(DV1c) 78
4.3 Overviewoffindings–Activeparticipation(DV1) 86
5.1 Regressionresults:Successinthevotingstage(DV2b) 139
5.2 Overviewoffindings–effectiveparticipation(DV2) 143
A1 UNGAmemberstatesinthedecision-takingstage,averages
GA54–64(datasources,cf.Chapter2) 164
A2 Policysubsetmodels–DV1c(activeparticipationinthe
decision-takingstage) 167
A3 Policysubsetmodels–DV2b(successinthe
decision-takingstage) 171
Figures
3.1 Activeparticipation 34
3.2 Developmentofnationalpositions 36
3.3 Capital-basedcoordinationsystems 37
3.4 Mission-basedcoordinationsystems 38
4.1 Theactivitymodel 57
6.1 Position-formation,participation,influenceandsuccess 154
vii
Preface
ThemajorinterestdrivingtheprojectUnequalActorsinEqualisingInstitutions
has been to explore the interplay between formal rules and real-world dif-
ferences. More precisely, I wanted to examine to what extent variation in
size-relatedcapacitiesbetweenstatesmattersforthedynamicsandoutcomes
of negotiations taking place in an institutional environment that strongly
reflects the one-state, one-vote principle. In a previous project, I focused
on the role of small states in the European Union (EU). In this context,
size-relatedcapacitydifferencesbetweenthememberstatesarefarlesspro-
nounced than in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) where a
microstate, such as Tuvalu or Palau, can face a superpower more than sev-
eral hundred times its size, such as the USA or China. At the same time,
however,theformalrulesguidingordinarydecisionmakingdifferconsider-
ably:intheEU’sCouncilofMinisters,aweightedvotingsystemisinplace
grantingbiggerstatesmorepower,whileintheUNGAallstatesareformally
equal.Thus,IbecameinterestedintheUNGAbecauseitisaverygoodtest-
ing ground to examine how and under which conditions different types
of capacities matter and to what extent such real-world differences mod-
ify the equalising effect of an institutional design based on the equality of
sovereign states, which is dominant in today’s international organisations.
Iverymuchenjoyedtheprojectandhopethatthisisreflectedinthisbook,
whichsummarisesthemajorfindings.
Different aspects of the project were financially supported by Univer-
sity College Dublin (seed funding, “Small States in the United Nations –
ChallengesandOpportunities”),theFritz-ThyssenFoundation(travelgrant
(Az. 50.11.0.028), “Games Unequal Actors Play”) and the Irish Research
Council for Humanities and Social Sciences (New Ideas Scheme “EU @UN:
EffectivelySpeakingwithOneVoice?”).Withoutthesesmallgrants,Iwould
not have been able to collect the required data and to travel to New York
severaltimesbetween2010and2012,conductingmorethan160interviews
with diplomats from larger and smaller states. I am extremely grateful to
everyone who was willing to be interviewed in the various stages of the
project. This way I – as an academic outsider – got a good idea of how
negotiations are conducted in practice in such a big setting as the UNGA.
It goes without saying that the book would have been written very differ-
ently (if not accomplished at all) without the insights obtained from the
helpofthediplomats.
I presented different parts of my work at European and international
conferences and the book undoubtedly benefited from the inputs of con-
structive discussions. Special thanks go to the following colleagues for
viii
Preface ix
their very helpful comments: Samuel Brazys, Eugénia da Conceição-Heldt,
Nicole Deitelhoff, Adrian O’Hagan, Tobias Hofmann, Liesbet Hooghe, Koji
Kagotani,MichaelH.SmithandLoraViola.
I am also grateful to Finbar Hefferon, Christopher Lute, Stephen Massey,
Adrian O’Hagan, Paul Quinn and Michael Verspohl. These former students
worked as research assistants and did a very good job in supporting the
data collection stages of the project. Moreover, I would like to thank Sally
Hayden,StephaniePollhammerandSabineRoseforproofreadingtheentire
manuscript.