Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mesquita, R.
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Seabra, P.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/20743
Resumo: Brazil and South Africa have long been regarded as archetypical regional powers, commanding more resources than their neighbours, spearheading regional projects and pursuing high-profile global status. Yet, recent years have also evidenced how the engagement with their regions and acceptance as leading players is often ambiguous and incomplete. How does one ascertain that a regional power privileges either the regional or the global stage? Through an original dataset of Brazilian and South African output at the UN General Assembly between 1994 and 2013, we monitor sponsorship patterns and thematic preferences in order to verify whether these countries indulged their regional partners and topics. Our findings suggest that Brazil and South Africa favoured their immediate neighbourhoods but have gradually engaged their regions in different ways: while Brazilian emphasis on regional peers and themes declined over the years, South Africa developed an increasingly more regionalised UNGA agenda.
id RCAP_dcdc8a7fa08abed62852b50dcf5328f8
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/20743
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General AssemblyBrazilSouth AfricaUN General AssemblyRegional powersBrazil and South Africa have long been regarded as archetypical regional powers, commanding more resources than their neighbours, spearheading regional projects and pursuing high-profile global status. Yet, recent years have also evidenced how the engagement with their regions and acceptance as leading players is often ambiguous and incomplete. How does one ascertain that a regional power privileges either the regional or the global stage? Through an original dataset of Brazilian and South African output at the UN General Assembly between 1994 and 2013, we monitor sponsorship patterns and thematic preferences in order to verify whether these countries indulged their regional partners and topics. Our findings suggest that Brazil and South Africa favoured their immediate neighbourhoods but have gradually engaged their regions in different ways: while Brazilian emphasis on regional peers and themes declined over the years, South Africa developed an increasingly more regionalised UNGA agenda.Routledge2022-01-19T00:00:00Z2020-01-01T00:00:00Z20202020-09-28T09:53:07Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/20743eng0258-934610.1080/02589346.2020.1796185Mesquita, 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:RCAAP2023-11-09T17:40:16Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/20743Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:18:37.907156Repositório 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 Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
title Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
spellingShingle Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
Mesquita, R.
Brazil
South Africa
UN General Assembly
Regional powers
title_short Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
title_full Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
title_fullStr Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
title_full_unstemmed Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
title_sort Go global or go home: comparing the regional vs. global engagement of Brazil and South Africa at the UN General Assembly
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 Brazil
South Africa
UN General Assembly
Regional powers
topic Brazil
South Africa
UN General Assembly
Regional powers
description Brazil and South Africa have long been regarded as archetypical regional powers, commanding more resources than their neighbours, spearheading regional projects and pursuing high-profile global status. Yet, recent years have also evidenced how the engagement with their regions and acceptance as leading players is often ambiguous and incomplete. How does one ascertain that a regional power privileges either the regional or the global stage? Through an original dataset of Brazilian and South African output at the UN General Assembly between 1994 and 2013, we monitor sponsorship patterns and thematic preferences in order to verify whether these countries indulged their regional partners and topics. Our findings suggest that Brazil and South Africa favoured their immediate neighbourhoods but have gradually engaged their regions in different ways: while Brazilian emphasis on regional peers and themes declined over the years, South Africa developed an increasingly more regionalised UNGA agenda.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
2020
2020-09-28T09:53:07Z
2022-01-19T00:00:00Z
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/10071/20743
url http://hdl.handle.net/10071/20743
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0258-9346
10.1080/02589346.2020.1796185
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 Routledge
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Routledge
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_ 1799134745560350720