未解之谜:亚太地区在联合国大会中的投票凝聚力——对彼得·费迪南德的回应

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Nicolas Burmester, Michael Jankowski
{"title":"未解之谜:亚太地区在联合国大会中的投票凝聚力——对彼得·费迪南德的回应","authors":"Nicolas Burmester,&nbsp;Michael Jankowski","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Offers a refined research design for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly;</li>\n \n <li>Demonstrates that ASEAN's integration process is unlikely to explain the observed high level of voting cohesion in Pacific Asia;</li>\n \n <li>Specifies the ASEAN-China and ASEAN-Japan alignment;</li>\n \n <li>Shows that the alignment of South Korea is closer with the USA than with North Korea in contested votes in the United Nations General Assembly.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>In this paper, we propose a refined research agenda for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly. Although we respond specifically to Ferdinand, our four points of critique and suggestions concerning the research design are applicable to a larger corpus of literature. First, we include a longer period of observation to interpret the effects of regional integration. Second, we demonstrate the necessity to control for the year of accession of member states. Third, we propose to look at time series rather than arithmetical means to compare changes in voting cohesion. Finally, we exclude nearly unanimous votes from our analysis to enhance the explanatory values of our cases. This refined design has important effects on the analysis of Pacific Asia's voting cohesion in the UNGA. We conclude from our findings that regional integration is unlikely to explain the high level of voting cohesion within ASEAN and the region.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 4","pages":"680-689"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12028","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unsolved Puzzle: Pacific Asia's Voting Cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly—A Response to Peter Ferdinand\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Burmester,&nbsp;Michael Jankowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This article\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Offers a refined research design for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly;</li>\\n \\n <li>Demonstrates that ASEAN's integration process is unlikely to explain the observed high level of voting cohesion in Pacific Asia;</li>\\n \\n <li>Specifies the ASEAN-China and ASEAN-Japan alignment;</li>\\n \\n <li>Shows that the alignment of South Korea is closer with the USA than with North Korea in contested votes in the United Nations General Assembly.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>In this paper, we propose a refined research agenda for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly. Although we respond specifically to Ferdinand, our four points of critique and suggestions concerning the research design are applicable to a larger corpus of literature. First, we include a longer period of observation to interpret the effects of regional integration. Second, we demonstrate the necessity to control for the year of accession of member states. Third, we propose to look at time series rather than arithmetical means to compare changes in voting cohesion. Finally, we exclude nearly unanimous votes from our analysis to enhance the explanatory values of our cases. This refined design has important effects on the analysis of Pacific Asia's voting cohesion in the UNGA. We conclude from our findings that regional integration is unlikely to explain the high level of voting cohesion within ASEAN and the region.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"680-689\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12028\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12028\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文为分析联合国大会投票凝聚力提供了一种完善的研究设计;证明东盟的一体化进程不太可能解释观察到的高水平投票凝聚力在太平洋亚洲;指定东盟-中国和东盟-日本结盟;这表明在联合国大会有争议的投票中,韩国与美国的关系比与朝鲜的关系更紧密。在本文中,我们提出了一个改进的研究议程,以分析联合国大会的投票凝聚力。虽然我们专门回应了费迪南德,但我们关于研究设计的四点批评和建议适用于更大的文献语料库。首先,我们纳入了较长时间的观察来解释区域一体化的影响。第二,我们论证了对成员国加入年份进行控制的必要性。第三,我们建议用时间序列而不是算术方法来比较投票凝聚的变化。最后,我们从分析中排除了几乎一致的投票,以增强案例的解释价值。这种精细化的设计对分析亚太地区在联大的投票凝聚力具有重要影响。我们从研究结果中得出结论,区域一体化不太可能解释东盟和该地区的高水平投票凝聚力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Unsolved Puzzle: Pacific Asia's Voting Cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly—A Response to Peter Ferdinand

This article

  • Offers a refined research design for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly;
  • Demonstrates that ASEAN's integration process is unlikely to explain the observed high level of voting cohesion in Pacific Asia;
  • Specifies the ASEAN-China and ASEAN-Japan alignment;
  • Shows that the alignment of South Korea is closer with the USA than with North Korea in contested votes in the United Nations General Assembly.

In this paper, we propose a refined research agenda for analysing voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly. Although we respond specifically to Ferdinand, our four points of critique and suggestions concerning the research design are applicable to a larger corpus of literature. First, we include a longer period of observation to interpret the effects of regional integration. Second, we demonstrate the necessity to control for the year of accession of member states. Third, we propose to look at time series rather than arithmetical means to compare changes in voting cohesion. Finally, we exclude nearly unanimous votes from our analysis to enhance the explanatory values of our cases. This refined design has important effects on the analysis of Pacific Asia's voting cohesion in the UNGA. We conclude from our findings that regional integration is unlikely to explain the high level of voting cohesion within ASEAN and the region.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信