亚太地区外交政策趋同:来自联合国大会投票的证据

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2013-04-16 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12019
Peter Ferdinand
{"title":"亚太地区外交政策趋同:来自联合国大会投票的证据","authors":"Peter Ferdinand","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Research Highlights\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Comparative assessment of three indexes of voting cohesion</li>\n \n <li>Demonstrates the strong shared orientation towards global affairs among states in the Pacific Asian region, especially ASEAN and China, which is greater than that of the EU</li>\n \n <li>Shows the widespread reluctance of most Pacific Asian states publicly to criticize human rights abuses</li>\n \n <li>Shows the estrangement of the US from the foreign policy orientations of Pacific Asian states, even Japan and South Korea</li>\n </ul>\n <p>This article aims to do three things: (i) compare three different indexes for assessing the voting cohesion of regional groups of states in the UN General Assembly; (ii) use these indexes to assess the foreign policy convergence of states in Pacific Asia on global issues between 1974 and 2008; (iii) compare the extent of that convergence with the European Union (EU). All three indexes show a high degree of convergence in the voting records of states in Pacific Asia, but particularly in ASEAN, which is higher than in the EU. The most frequent cause of divergence since the end of the Cold War has been the reluctance of most states in the region, apart from Japan and South Korea, publicly to criticize the human rights records of other states. Although there are variations, the results also reveal the divergence in voting between states throughout the region and the US.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 4","pages":"662-679"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12019","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreign Policy Convergence in Pacific Asia: The Evidence from Voting in the UN General Assembly\",\"authors\":\"Peter Ferdinand\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Research Highlights\\n </p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Comparative assessment of three indexes of voting cohesion</li>\\n \\n <li>Demonstrates the strong shared orientation towards global affairs among states in the Pacific Asian region, especially ASEAN and China, which is greater than that of the EU</li>\\n \\n <li>Shows the widespread reluctance of most Pacific Asian states publicly to criticize human rights abuses</li>\\n \\n <li>Shows the estrangement of the US from the foreign policy orientations of Pacific Asian states, even Japan and South Korea</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>This article aims to do three things: (i) compare three different indexes for assessing the voting cohesion of regional groups of states in the UN General Assembly; (ii) use these indexes to assess the foreign policy convergence of states in Pacific Asia on global issues between 1974 and 2008; (iii) compare the extent of that convergence with the European Union (EU). All three indexes show a high degree of convergence in the voting records of states in Pacific Asia, but particularly in ASEAN, which is higher than in the EU. The most frequent cause of divergence since the end of the Cold War has been the reluctance of most states in the region, apart from Japan and South Korea, publicly to criticize the human rights records of other states. Although there are variations, the results also reveal the divergence in voting between states throughout the region and the US.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"662-679\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12019\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"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.12019\",\"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.12019","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: 26

摘要

投票凝聚力三个指标的比较评估表明,亚太地区各国,特别是东盟和中国,对全球事务有着强烈的共同取向。这表明大多数太平洋亚洲国家普遍不愿公开批评侵犯人权的行为,表明美国对太平洋亚洲国家,甚至日本和韩国的外交政策取向疏远。本文旨在做三件事:(i)比较评估联合国大会区域国家集团投票凝聚力的三个不同指标;(ii)利用这些指标评估1974 - 2008年间亚太地区国家在全球问题上的外交政策趋同;(iii)与欧洲联盟(EU)的趋同程度进行比较。这三个指数都显示出亚太地区国家投票记录的高度趋同,尤其是东盟,其趋同程度高于欧盟。冷战结束以来最常见的分歧原因是,除日本和韩国外,该地区大多数国家都不愿公开批评其他国家的人权记录。尽管存在差异,但结果也揭示了该地区各州和美国之间的投票差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Foreign Policy Convergence in Pacific Asia: The Evidence from Voting in the UN General Assembly

Research Highlights

  • Comparative assessment of three indexes of voting cohesion
  • Demonstrates the strong shared orientation towards global affairs among states in the Pacific Asian region, especially ASEAN and China, which is greater than that of the EU
  • Shows the widespread reluctance of most Pacific Asian states publicly to criticize human rights abuses
  • Shows the estrangement of the US from the foreign policy orientations of Pacific Asian states, even Japan and South Korea

This article aims to do three things: (i) compare three different indexes for assessing the voting cohesion of regional groups of states in the UN General Assembly; (ii) use these indexes to assess the foreign policy convergence of states in Pacific Asia on global issues between 1974 and 2008; (iii) compare the extent of that convergence with the European Union (EU). All three indexes show a high degree of convergence in the voting records of states in Pacific Asia, but particularly in ASEAN, which is higher than in the EU. The most frequent cause of divergence since the end of the Cold War has been the reluctance of most states in the region, apart from Japan and South Korea, publicly to criticize the human rights records of other states. Although there are variations, the results also reveal the divergence in voting between states throughout the region and the US.

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.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1