The Middle Powers in the United Nations System

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Det. Glazebrook

The term “middle power” is a convenient one that has come into general use as a means of avoiding the unreality of a simple division of states into “great” and “small”. While attempts to find a yardstick for the measurement of states have been fruitless, there can be some agreement on the categories. For practical purposes the great powers at the present time are those which hold permanent seats on the Security Council, just as during the war they were those which participated in the meetings of heads of government on high policial and military policy. There are clearly also a number of smaller states which, because of limited resources or small population, or both, are commonly ranked as small powers. In between lie a number of countries which make no claim to the title of great power, but have been shown to be capable of exerting a degree of strength and influence not found in the small powers. These are the middle powers. There is no agreed list because, while there is a fixed, if arbitrary, boundary between them and the great powers, there are, as it were, marginal powers which might be classified as “middle” or “small”. Probably, however, the following members of the United Nations would generally be recognized as middle powers: in Europe — Belgium, the Netherlands, and Poland; in the Americas — Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico; in the Pacific — Australia, and India.

Author(s):  
Louise Riis Andersen

The future looks post-Western. But will it also be post-liberal? To gauge how and by whom liberal internationalism may be sustained in the coming order, the article provides a critical and historically grounded analysis of the role of the United Nations in the fading US-led order and the ordering potential and role of middle powers. The article suggests that in the current interregnum of global governance the conventional distinction between traditional and emerging middle powers is increasingly unhelpful. What matters is not their past history, but their present proclivity for seeking multilateral, negotiated solutions. It is this pragmatic version of liberal internationalism that may have a future in a post-Western world, and open up a more pluralist, inclusive approach to global governance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232110187
Author(s):  
Stephan Grohs ◽  
Daniel Rasch

This article asks how and why United Nations organizations reform their administrative structure and processes over time. It explores whether we can observe a convergence towards a coherent administrative model in the United Nations system. Like in most nation states, reform discussions according to models like New Public Management or post-New Public Management have permeated international public administrations. Against this background, the question of administrative convergence discussed for national administrative systems also arises for United Nations international public administrations. On the one hand, similar challenges, common reform ‘fashions’ and an increasing exchange within the United Nations system make convergence likely. Yet, on the other hand, distinct tasks, administrative styles and path dependencies might support divergent reform trajectories. This question of convergence is addressed by measuring the frequency, direction and rationales for reforms, using a sample of four international public administrations from the United Nations’ specialized agencies (the Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labour Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank). We find that convergence depends on the area of reform (human resources or organizational matters are more harmonized than others) and time (some international public administrations are faster or earlier than others). Points for practitioners This article identifies different drivers of reforms, as well as several supporting conditions, and obstacles to reform in international public administration, which is useful for understanding and planning change management. It highlights the issues policymakers should consider when implementing reform measures, especially institutional context, administrative styles and relevant actor constellations. Among other things, it shows that: the establishment of coordination bodies clearly leads to more homogeneous administrative practices; executive heads have a decisive role in the shaping of administrative reforms and have a specific interest to foster coordination and control in public organizations; and autonomy enables organizations to pursue reform policies apt to their individual challenges.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Sarah Teo

Abstract Differentiation is a foundational premise in the study of middle powers, as evident in the way that the relevant literature distinguishes these states from the great powers and smaller states. Despite the underlying assumption of differentiation, the middle power literature has rarely engaged theoretically with the concept. This paper seeks to make more explicit this basis of differentiation in the study of middle powers, by advancing a new framework for middle power behavior that draws on differentiation theory. The framework makes the case that it is the differentiated structure in international politics – a departure from the dominant neorealist understanding of structure – that enables the behavior of middle powers. The effects of this differentiated structure are activated by the relative, relational, and social power politics that middle powers engage in, in a particular time and place. Through this process, middle powers are able to leverage their ‘middlepowerness’ in international politics by weakening stratification particularly where the great powers are concerned, and strengthening functional differentiation through taking on key and distinctive roles. By putting differentiation at the core of a framework for middle power behavior, the paper strives to make a constructive contribution to the theorizing of middle powers.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002088172110567
Author(s):  
Shubhamitra Das

Indo-Pacific has emerged as a region of great movement, conflict and cooperation, contestations and coalition-building. The emergence of minilateral and multilateral cooperation by the middle powers is increasing in the region, with the regional countries enthusiastically mapping the region focussing on their centrality. History proves that the role of middle-power countries became more prominent during the moments of international transition. The two contrasting powers like India and Australia; one with a post-colonial identity in foreign policy-making, subtle emphasis on non-aligned movement (NAM) and emerging as an influential power, and, on the other, a traditional middle power with an alliance structure and regionalism akin to the Western model, have equal stakes in the region and it is inevitable for them to take a leadership position in building what is called a middle power communion in the Indo-Pacific. This article will explore the understanding of middle powers and how India and Australia, as middle powers; are strategically placed and, being great powers within their respective regions; take the responsibility of region-building and maintaining peace with great powers, and how the Indo-Pacific and Quad are emerging as discourses within their foreign policy-making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document