IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v14y2023i2p349-360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who cares about the UN General Assembly? National delegations size from 1993 to 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Vaclav Vlcek

Abstract

The UN General Assembly is the central forum of world politics. While it formally allows the member states to delegate up to five representatives, the size of the national delegations is generally larger and significantly increases over time. In this paper, I explore the size of the national delegations to the General Assembly from 1993 to 2016. Generally, the major powers (USA, Russia) send the biggest delegations. Surprisingly, China sends significantly smaller delegations than it used to before 2008. Big delegations are also sent by some small (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland) or developing countries (Nigeria, Bangladesh). My analysis shows that national capacities and issue‐specific motivations drive up the delegation size. Although the issue‐specific explanations are relatively rare in UN‐related research (due to the general‐purpose nature of the organisation), I argue that human rights, international security, economic development, and UN governance are the agendas for which states care about the General Assembly.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaclav Vlcek, 2023. "Who cares about the UN General Assembly? National delegations size from 1993 to 2016," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 349-360, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:349-360
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13190
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13190?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward D. Mansfield & Helen V. Milner & B. Peter Rosendorff, 2015. "Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Edward D Mansfield (ed.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, chapter 11, pages 227-263, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Axel Dreher & Peter Nunnenkamp & Rainer Thiele, 2008. "Does US aid buy UN general assembly votes? A disaggregated analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 139-164, July.
    3. Pevehouse, Jon & Russett, Bruce, 2006. "Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(4), pages 969-1000, October.
    4. Keohane, Robert, 1969. "Who Cares About the General Assembly?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 141-149, January.
    5. Paul Novosad & Eric Werker, 2019. "Who runs the international system? Nationality and leadership in the United Nations Secretariat," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-33, March.
    6. John W McArthur & Krista Rasmussen, 2019. "An Assessment of Grant‐based Multilateral Funding Flows from 2014 to 2016," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(2), pages 238-249, May.
    7. Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2006. "Notes on CEPII’s distances measures," MPRA Paper 26469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Heike Schroeder & Maxwell T. Boykoff & Laura Spiers, 2012. "Equity and state representations in climate negotiations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 834-836, December.
    9. A. Burcu Bayram & Erin R. Graham, 2017. "Financing the United Nations: Explaining variation in how donors provide funding to the UN," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 421-459, September.
    10. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    11. Magnus Lundgren & Theresa Squatrito & Jonas Tallberg, 2018. "Stability and change in international policy-making: A punctuated equilibrium approach," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 547-572, December.
    12. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    13. Mansfield, Edward D. & Pevehouse, Jon C., 2006. "Democratization and International Organizations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(1), pages 137-167, January.
    14. Parizek, Michal & Stephen, Matthew D., 2021. "The Increasing Representativeness of International Organizations’ Secretariats: Evidence from the United Nations System, 1997–2015," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 65(1), pages 197-209.
    15. Devi Sridhar & Ngaire Woods, 2013. "Trojan Multilateralism: Global Cooperation in Health," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 325-335, November.
    16. Diana Panke, 2017. "Speech is silver, silence is golden? Examining state activity in international negotiations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 121-146, March.
    17. Bernhard Boockmann & Axel Dreher, 2011. "Do human rights offenders oppose human rights resolutions in the United Nations?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 443-467, March.
    18. Michal Parízek, 2017. "Control, soft information, and the politics of international organizations staffing," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 559-583, December.
    19. Diana Panke, 2020. "Regional cooperation through the lenses of states: Why do states nurture regional integration?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 475-504, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    2. Tobias Böhmelt & Edita Butkutė, 2018. "The self-selection of democracies into treaty design: insights from international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 351-367, June.
    3. Ana Carolina Garriga, 2009. "Regime Type and Bilateral Treaty Formalization," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 698-726, October.
    4. Manfred Elsig & Karolina Milewicz & Nikolas Stürchler, 2011. "Who is in love with multilateralism? Treaty commitment in the post-Cold War era," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 529-550, December.
    5. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    6. Toke S. Aidt & Facundo Albornoz & Esther Hauk, 2021. "Foreign Influence and Domestic Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 426-487, June.
    7. Edward D. Mansfield & Jon C. Pevehouse, 2008. "Democratization and the Varieties of International Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 269-294, April.
    8. Wagner, Wolfgang, 2007. "Problems of Democratic Control in European Security and Defense Politics – a View from Peace and Conflict Research," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt65b9q82m, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    9. Baccini, Leonardo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2014. "International institutions and domestic politics: can preferential trading agreements help leaders promote economic reform?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 55608, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. M. Rodwan Abouharb & David Cingranelli & Mikhail Filippov, 2019. "Too Many Cooks: Multiple International Principals Can Spoil the Quality of Governance," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Inken Borzyskowski & Felicity Vabulas, 2019. "Hello, goodbye: When do states withdraw from international organizations?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 335-366, June.
    12. Jason S. Davis, 2022. "Screening for losers: Trade institutions and information," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-37, January.
    13. Inken Borzyskowski, 2019. "Paul Poast and Johannes Urpelainen. 2018. Organizing Democracy: How International Organizations Assist New Democracies (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 577-580, September.
    14. Xuepeng Liu & Emanuel Ornelas, 2014. "Free Trade Agreements and the Consolidation of Democracy," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 29-70, April.
    15. Christodoulos Kaoutzanis & Paul Poast & Johannes Urpelainen, 2016. "Not letting ‘bad apples’ spoil the bunch: Democratization and strict international organization accession rules," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 399-418, December.
    16. Silve, Arthur & Verdier, Thierry, 2018. "A theory of regional conflict complexes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 434-447.
    17. Songying Fang & Erica Owen, 2011. "International institutions and credible commitment of non-democracies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 141-162, July.
    18. Jeffry Frieden & Stefanie Walter, 2019. "Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 134-151, March.
    19. Parizek, Michal & Stephen, Matthew D., 2021. "The long march through the institutions: Emerging powers and the staffing of international organizations," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 204-223.
    20. Angelika J. Budjan & Andreas Fuchs, 2021. "Democracy and Aid Donorship," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 217-238, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:349-360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.