Deliberating international politics: Listening and consensus-orientation in the United Nations Security Council

Gisela Hirschmann,Monika Heupel,Evgenija Kröker
{"title":"Deliberating international politics: Listening and consensus-orientation in the United Nations Security Council","authors":"Gisela Hirschmann,Monika Heupel,Evgenija Kröker","doi":"10.1007/s11558-026-09650-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is typically seen as a forum in which states engage in bargaining: Powerful states pressure others to vote in their favor, and weaker states go along with this in exchange for support on other issues. We complement this view by redirecting the analytical lens from voting outcomes to the discursive processes that shape them. We argue that UNSC members also engage in deliberative behavior – specifically, listening and consensus-orientation – to foster cooperative solutions. We suggest that variation in deliberative practices can be explained by selected debate- and speaker-related factors. To test our claims, we analyze 27,812 speeches from UNSC meetings between 1995 and 2020, using a custom dictionary to identify deliberative cues, and corroborate our findings through six interviews with current and former UNSC members. We show that listening and consensus-orientation are indeed central to UNSC debates but vary based on the timing and format of a debate, the contestedness of the issue, and the economic wealth of a speaker’s country. This article calls on scholars to take deliberative behavior in the study of UNSC politics seriously to develop a more comprehensive understanding of international cooperation.","PeriodicalId":75182,"journal":{"name":"The review of international organizations","volume":"149 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The review of international organizations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-026-09650-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is typically seen as a forum in which states engage in bargaining: Powerful states pressure others to vote in their favor, and weaker states go along with this in exchange for support on other issues. We complement this view by redirecting the analytical lens from voting outcomes to the discursive processes that shape them. We argue that UNSC members also engage in deliberative behavior – specifically, listening and consensus-orientation – to foster cooperative solutions. We suggest that variation in deliberative practices can be explained by selected debate- and speaker-related factors. To test our claims, we analyze 27,812 speeches from UNSC meetings between 1995 and 2020, using a custom dictionary to identify deliberative cues, and corroborate our findings through six interviews with current and former UNSC members. We show that listening and consensus-orientation are indeed central to UNSC debates but vary based on the timing and format of a debate, the contestedness of the issue, and the economic wealth of a speaker’s country. This article calls on scholars to take deliberative behavior in the study of UNSC politics seriously to develop a more comprehensive understanding of international cooperation.
探讨国际政治:联合国安理会的倾听与共识导向
联合国安理会(UNSC)通常被视为各国进行讨价还价的论坛:强国向其他国家施加压力,让它们投自己的票,而弱国则顺势而为,以换取在其他问题上的支持。我们通过将分析镜头从投票结果转向塑造投票结果的话语过程来补充这一观点。我们认为,安理会成员也应采取协商行为,即倾听和共识导向,以促进合作解决方案。我们认为,审议实践的变化可以通过选定的辩论和演讲者相关因素来解释。为了验证我们的观点,我们分析了1995年至2020年期间联合国安理会会议上的27,812次演讲,使用自定义词典来识别审议线索,并通过对现任和前任联合国安理会成员的六次采访来证实我们的发现。我们表明,倾听和共识导向确实是联合国安理会辩论的核心,但会因辩论的时间和形式、问题的争议性以及演讲者所在国家的经济富裕程度而有所不同。本文呼吁学者重视联合国安理会政治研究中的协商行为,对国际合作有更全面的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书