Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10071/26674 |
Resumo: | Political, military and humanitarian crises endanger regional order. But even though regional powers are expected to act as stabilizers in these cases, their responses to dire demands vary in intensity and loci. Reactions go from zealous engagement to prolonged indifference and reluctance, often leaning on global multilateral institutions as well as regional or ad hoc mechanisms. This study explores the variation in the provision of stability by regional powers via a mixed-methods approach. By contrasting the intensity of regional crises with issue salience at the UN General Assembly, we select crises that drew varying attention from regional powers, despite similar severity. Focusing on Brazil and South Africa as potential regional stabilizers, we compare responses to regional crises that displayed high (Haiti and Somalia) and low (Colombia and Congo-Brazzaville) salience. We find that domestic support, concerns with status and potential competition with other stabilizers tend to play a large part in calibrating regional power responses. |
id |
RCAP_2e4989f798dfece0eec353d50e80fe5e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/26674 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South AfricaRegional powersUnited Nations General AssemblyCrisesBrazilSouth AfricaPolitical, military and humanitarian crises endanger regional order. But even though regional powers are expected to act as stabilizers in these cases, their responses to dire demands vary in intensity and loci. Reactions go from zealous engagement to prolonged indifference and reluctance, often leaning on global multilateral institutions as well as regional or ad hoc mechanisms. This study explores the variation in the provision of stability by regional powers via a mixed-methods approach. By contrasting the intensity of regional crises with issue salience at the UN General Assembly, we select crises that drew varying attention from regional powers, despite similar severity. Focusing on Brazil and South Africa as potential regional stabilizers, we compare responses to regional crises that displayed high (Haiti and Somalia) and low (Colombia and Congo-Brazzaville) salience. We find that domestic support, concerns with status and potential competition with other stabilizers tend to play a large part in calibrating regional power responses.Springer2023-04-11T00:00:00Z2022-01-01T00:00:00Z20222022-12-19T11:34:28Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/26674eng1384-574810.1057/s41311-022-00392-xMesquita, R.Seabra, P.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-09T17:52:55Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/26674Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:26:26.315799Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
title |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
spellingShingle |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa Mesquita, R. Regional powers United Nations General Assembly Crises Brazil South Africa |
title_short |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
title_full |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
title_fullStr |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
title_full_unstemmed |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
title_sort |
Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa |
author |
Mesquita, R. |
author_facet |
Mesquita, R. Seabra, P. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Seabra, P. |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Mesquita, R. Seabra, P. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Regional powers United Nations General Assembly Crises Brazil South Africa |
topic |
Regional powers United Nations General Assembly Crises Brazil South Africa |
description |
Political, military and humanitarian crises endanger regional order. But even though regional powers are expected to act as stabilizers in these cases, their responses to dire demands vary in intensity and loci. Reactions go from zealous engagement to prolonged indifference and reluctance, often leaning on global multilateral institutions as well as regional or ad hoc mechanisms. This study explores the variation in the provision of stability by regional powers via a mixed-methods approach. By contrasting the intensity of regional crises with issue salience at the UN General Assembly, we select crises that drew varying attention from regional powers, despite similar severity. Focusing on Brazil and South Africa as potential regional stabilizers, we compare responses to regional crises that displayed high (Haiti and Somalia) and low (Colombia and Congo-Brazzaville) salience. We find that domestic support, concerns with status and potential competition with other stabilizers tend to play a large part in calibrating regional power responses. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z 2022 2022-12-19T11:34:28Z 2023-04-11T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10071/26674 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10071/26674 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
1384-5748 10.1057/s41311-022-00392-x |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134827744591872 |