Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
1-26
The European Union Foreign
Policy: voting cohesion through
Europeanization of the Nordic
countries and the Netherlands in the
UN General Assembly, 1993-2018
1
A Política Externa da União Europeia:
coesão de votação através da
Europeização dos países nórdicos e dos
Países Baixos na Assembleia Geral da
ONU, 1993-2018
La Política Exterior de la Unión Europea:
cohesión de votación a través de la
Europeización de los países nórdicos y
los Países Bajos en la Asamblea General
de la ONU, 1993-2018
DOI: 10.21530/ci.v18n2.2023.1347
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque
2
Christian de Almeida Brandão
3
Summary
This article examines the voting patterns of Nordic countries and
the Netherlands in the UNGA, highlighting their longstanding
alignment. Notably, Norway and Iceland are not part of the
1 This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
2 Doutor em Ciência Política (UFPE). Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Relações
Internacionais da Universidade Federal de Sergipe (DRI/UFS). (albuquerque.
rodrigo@academico.ufs.br). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2315-9095
3 Mestrando em Ciência Política e Relações Internacionais (UFPE). Membro do
Centro de Estudos sobre a União Europeia (CEURO/UFS).
(christianbran@icloud.com). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6434-6560
Artigo submetido em 01/06/2023 e aprovado em 03/09/2023.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE
RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS
ISSN 2526-9038
Copyright:
• This is an open-access
article distributed under
the terms of a Creative
Commons Attribution
License, which permits
unrestricted use,
distribution, and
reproduction in any
medium, provided that
the original author and
source are credited.
• Este é um artigo
publicado em acesso aberto
e distribuído sob os termos
da Licença de Atribuição
Creative Commons,
que permite uso irrestrito,
distribuição e reprodução
em qualquer meio, desde
que o autor e a fonte
originais sejam creditados.
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
2-26
European Union, which has been enhancing its foreign policy coherence since 1993. The
central focus is to investigate if this integration has led to a divergence between EU member
states and non-members. By calculating the voting cohesion rate among these countries
in the UNGA from 1993 to 2021, the article found no significant variation in the cohesion
rate, suggesting that European integration has not ended their historic alignment.
Keywords: Middle powers; European Union; United Nations General Assembly; Common
Foreign Policy; Nordic Countries.
Resumo
Este artigo examina os padrões de votação dos países nórdicos e dos Países Baixos na AGNU,
destacando seu alinhamento. Vale ressaltar que Noruega e Islândia não fazem parte da
União Europeia, que tem aprimorado sua coerência na política externa desde 1993. O foco
central é investigar se essa integração levou a uma divergência entre os Estados membros
da UE e os não membros. Ao calcular a taxa de coesão de votação entre esses países na
AGNU de 1993 a 2021, o artigo não encontrou variação significativa na taxa de coesão,
sugerindo que a integração europeia não encerrou seu histórico alinhamento.
Palavras-chave: Potências intermediárias; União Europeia; Assembleia Geral das Nações
Unidas; Política Externa Comum; Países Nórdicos.
Resumen
Este artículo examina los patrones de votación de los países nórdicos y los Países Bajos
en la AGNU, destacando su alineación duradera. Es importante señalar que Noruega e
Islandia no forman parte de la UE, la cual ha estado fortaleciendo su coherencia en política
exterior desde 1993. El enfoque central es investigar si esta integración ha llevado a una
divergencia entre los estados miembros de la UE y los no miembros. Al calcular la tasa
de cohesión de votación entre estos países en la AGNU (1993-2021), el artículo encontró
que no ha habido una variación significativa en la tasa de cohesión, lo que sugiere que la
integración europea no ha acabado con su alineación histórica.
Palabras llave: Potencias medias; Unión Europea; Asamblea General de las Naciones
Unidas; Política Exterior Común; Países Nórdicos.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
3-26
Introduction
This article seeks to complement the work initiated by Laatikainen (2003,
2006). The author questions the impact of the European Union’s (EU) foreign
policy on the cohesion of the votes of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) and the Netherlands in the United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA). The Nordic countries and the Netherlands historically voted
very similarly in the General Assembly, with the Nordic countries constituting a
formal group named the “Nordic Council”. Through this group, the Nordic countries
coordinated their votes and published joint declarations, seeking to join forces
to increase their capacity to act within the United Nations (UN). If it is true that
the Nordic Council seeks to harmonize its positions in the UNGA with the EU’s
foreign policy, this is a process that the literature refers to as Europeanization4.
The Nordic countries and the Netherlands were selected because they are the
traditional European middle powers
5
, in the words of Laatikainen (2006, 3), they
“are foremost among the so-called good guys club which also includes Canada
and Australia.” The countries mentioned have held this position for several
decades. Do Laatikainen’s (2006) conclusions still hold after 18 years?
Iceland and Norway opted out of joining the EU
6
, while Denmark, Sweden,
Finland, and the Netherlands decided to become member states of the bloc. In the
last three decades, the European Union has deepened its integration process and
expanded its prerogatives in many areas. In 1993, with the Treaty of Maastricht,
it was agreed that the member states of the bloc should seek common positions
in international forums and thus harmonize their foreign policy. This significant
progress paved the way for deeper integration in subsequent years, ultimately
reaching its apex with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. This pivotal agreement
established a dedicated diplomatic service for the EU, bolstering the bloc’s
influence and representation at the UN.
4 This is not the only way Europeanization is characterized. As pointed out by Copsey (2015), Europeanization
may also refer to a process in which the EU member states gradually adopt the EU’s practices and procedures,
even when they are not obliged to by the EU regulations and directives.
5 The classification of Iceland's status as a middle power is a topic of debate. While some authors, like Laatikanen
(2006), emphasize foreign policy behavior over material capabilities and regard Iceland as a middle power,
others, such as Thorhallson (2018), classify it as a small country.
6 Norway decided not to participate in the EU in two different referenda, in 1972 and in 1994. In both referenda, the
“no” option won by a small margin. Iceland submitted a membership application in 2008, but due to government
changes, decided to suspend it by 2013. Both countries hold disagreements over the common fisheries policy
and resist the idea of surrendering “their waters to supranational bodies” (Thorhallsson 2015, 47).
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
4-26
These institutional changes were driven by the recognition that the numerous
challenges posed by the international system could be more effectively addressed
through unified efforts within the bloc. Authors, such as Farrell (2006) and
Birnberg (2009), have provided compelling evidence of the European Union
member states’ remarkable cohesion in their voting within the General Assembly.
Based on this keen observation and the notable cohesiveness among the Nordic
countries and the Netherlands, this article’s question arises: has the strengthening
of the Common Foreign Policy of the European Union led to a decline in the
voting unity of the Nordic countries and the Netherlands in the United Nations
General Assembly?
Laatikainen (2006) carried out a similar analysis, but the research developed
by the author only until 2003, that is, it does not include the recent strengthening
of the Common Foreign Policy of the European Union. In addition, other authors
(Smith 2017; Lucas 2012 ) were more concerned with solving the question of
cohesion of votes among members of the EU and not between member and non-
member countries. Thus, there is a gap in the literature that this article wants
to fill. The working hypothesis is that the cohesion of the votes of the Nordic
countries and the Netherlands in the United Nations General Assembly remained
stable over time, 18 years after the original Laatikainen (2006) research. This
would happen because the position of the EU in the General Assembly is similar
to the multilateralist positions that the Nordic middle powers had in the post-
World War II period. Moreover, Norway, even though not an EU member state,
coordinates its foreign policy with the Common Foreign Policy of the European
Union (Hillion 2019). And, in the case of Iceland, it coordinates with the other
Nordic countries, which in turn are influenced by the EU’s preferred position
(Thorhallsson 2018).
In this article, it was calculated the cohesion rate of the Nordic countries and
the Netherlands through the General Assembly votes between 1993 and 2021.
The time frame for this study is defined from the signing of the Maastricht Treaty
to the most recent year for which the dataset was fully available. Within this
time limit, despite some oscillations, no expressive variation was found in the
rate. Demonstrating that these countries maintained their similar voting pattern
even with the difference in the issue of membership and the strengthening of
the European Union’s foreign policy.
The Nordic countries and the Netherlands individual adherence rate to the
majority position of the group is also calculated, in the same conditions as the
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
5-26
group cohesion rate. All countries maintained high adherence to the majority’s
preference, as the rate only oscillated between 90% to 100%. Also, Norway and
Iceland did not present a pronounced downturn in their cohesion rate after the
European Union increased its efforts to coordinate its member states’ foreign
policy. Although a small decrease in Iceland’s adherence to the EU can be observed
after 2010, it remains more aligned with the majority’s preference than Sweden.
Apart from the introduction and conclusion, this article is structured into
four sections: middle powers, where the concept and definition of this category
will be worked on; Nordic countries and the Netherlands at the United Nations,
an analysis of the history of how these countries position themselves within
the institution; European Union foreign policy, a historical recapitulation and
analysis of the cohesion within the bloc; methodology and results, presenting
how we conducted our research, and our findings.
Middle Powers
Middle powers can be defined through the intersection of four categories:
material capacity; foreign policy; systemic role; and identity
7
(Laatikainen 2006).
When examining the material capabilities of a middle power, metrics such as gross
domestic product (GDP), per capita GDP, territory size, population, and military
spending are considered. The aim is to identify countries with capabilities lower
than those of the great powers, but which still have relevant resources and are
close to the great powers (Holbraad 1984).
Thus, the middle powers are in a privileged position where they do not
represent a threat to the great powers, and they are not expected to carry the weight
of great responsibilities in the international system. At the same time, they have
sufficient material capabilities to conduct a foreign policy that meets their interests
and to be efficiently present at all international forums they wish. Thus, when
mentioning the situation of the middle powers at the San Francisco conference,
which created the UN, Laatikainen (2006, 71) states that “unlike smaller powers
that were exposed and vulnerable, middle powers had options, and they chose
to pursue a multilateralism reflective of the ideals of liberal internationalism”.
7 Due to editorial space limitations, we are not able to fully address the differences between middle and great
powers or to compare their foreign policy strategies. For further information on this topic, we recommend
Navari (2016) and Onea (2021).
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
6-26
The characteristics of the foreign policy of a middle power are based on
multilateralism, support for International Organizations (IOs), creation of consensus
and bridges between different parties, and diplomacy based on technical knowledge
(Laatikainen 2006; Park 2022). Middle powers use their intermediary material
capacities and their positions in the IOs as a way of building legitimacy.
In addition to the search for legitimacy, the middle powers see the International
Organizations as effective mechanisms to contain the great powers through
the creation of regimental rules. IOs are also used as coalition-building sites.
Coalitions can help maintain the status quo, constrain the actions of the great
powers, or sometimes change international norms for the benefit of intermediary
countries (Hurrell 2000). As asserted by Cox (1989) the main objective of these
countries is to guarantee their national security through the maintenance of global
stability, in this way, they can be essential components for the maintenance of
a hegemonic order.
Among this group of countries, there is some diversity, the main division
being between traditional middle powers and emerging middle powers. The
traditional middle powers, on which the article focuses, are countries with
consolidated, stable, egalitarian democracies and with low regional influence
(Joordan 2003). These countries seek to preserve the status quo, absorb the
idea of a “good global citizen” and build identities that are different from the
great powers in their region. These middle powers highlight the importance of
the global commons and contribute to peace missions, humanitarian aid, and
the strengthening of human rights. Prominent examples of traditional middle
powers include Australia, Canada, Norway, and Sweden.
On the other hand, the emerging middle powers are semi-peripheral countries,
materially unequal, with young democracies, and have influence in their region.
These countries, despite supporting the organization of the international system in
general, seek to reform it. The emerging middle powers favor regional organizations
and seek to build identities different from the weaker countries in their region
(Joordan 2003). Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa have garnered
recognition as prominent emerging middle powers.
Other characteristics can also be used to create subdivisions within these
categories. Some countries have a foreign policy that is more focused on specific
niches where they can concentrate the application of their resources, such as
Norway, while others have a more diffuse attitude, such as Sweden. The middle
powers can also be divided into those who take risks in their foreign policy,
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
7-26
who take positions more firmly (Sweden), and those who prefer to act behind
the scenes seeking consensus (Norway). Furthermore, these countries can be
classified as having a combative (Malaysia) or accommodating (Argentina) policy
towards the United States (US), and whether they have a regional (Malaysia) or
multilateral/systemic (Argentina) focus (Cooper 1997).
Regarding the systemic role category, the middle powers are those that are
“too big to play no role in the balance of forces, but too small to keep the forces
in balance by itself” (Hurrell 2000, 3). These countries, and their leaders, seek
to influence the international system through small coalitions or International
Organizations (Keohane 1969; Jones 2019). Middle powers are also able to assume
some responsibilities in maintaining the system. This can be observed in their
participation in the United Nations peacekeeping missions or as non-permanent
members of the Security Council (Palou 1993).
Finally, in the last category, identity plays a key role in determining middle
power behavior. According to this perspective, a State assumes the role of a
middle power only when it perceives itself as such, sparking a process of self-
identification. This process involves introducing the concept of middle power
into the national elites and intellectual circles, eventually finding expression in
official speeches and foreign policy documents. As Wilkins (2019, 54) notes,
“an identity is brought into being not only by policy acts that can be said to
conform with such an “ideal-type” middle power model, but also by noting
when policymakers actually justify their actions in relation to the state being a
middle power.”
Some countries have their status as middle powers disputed, such as: Belgium;
Israel; and Thailand. While these countries have the material capabilities to be
considered in this category, they don’t behave in the international system as it
is expected of middle powers. Belgium historically sees itself as a small power,
self-limiting its material capabilities (Jacques, Swielande, and D’estmael 2022).
Consequently, the country fails to fulfill a crucial criterion of a middle power:
self-conception, which essentially requires acknowledging its status as a middle
power (Swieland 2019). Israel, despite having significant economic and military
power, is too dependent on the United States and on the Jewish diaspora support
to be considered a middle power (Merom 2022). In the context of Thailand,
internal conflicts have significantly impeded the country’s capacity to engage
effectively in regional and global forums. These ongoing internal tensions have
transformed Thailand’s foreign policy from a means of asserting its position in
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
8-26
the international system to a tool primarily utilized to influence domestic political
dynamics (Freedman 2022).
Besides, there is no definitive consensus on which countries should be
considered middle powers, and there may never be. Scholars have taken different
approaches to define them. While some have focused on assessing material
capabilities (Holbroad 1984), others have emphasized the systemic impact of a
country (Keohane 1969). Paiva and Mesquita (2022) have adopted Ruvalcaba’s
(2019) World Power Index, in order to classify countries as middle powers or
not. In line with the objective of this article, which is to reevaluate Laatikainen’s
(2003, 2006) conclusions in light of the EU’s strengthened foreign policy, we
adopted the author’s view of which European countries could be listed as middle
powers - the Nordic countries and the Netherlands. It is still a heterogeneous
group, composed of two non-members of the EU, Norway and Iceland, and four
EU members, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands. The next section
examines their participation at the United Nations.
The Nordic Countries and the Netherlands in the United Nations:
Active Engagement and Changing Dynamics
The Nordic countries and the Netherlands have a history of support and
activism for the multilateral actions of the United Nations since the creation of
the institution:
The Dutch and Nordics are frequent troop contributors to peacekeeping
operations as well as innovators in the areas of peace-building and civil police
functions; they have for many years met or exceeded UN development assistance
targets; they have been ardent promoters of human rights protections within the
United Nations system; and they enthusiastically embraced and integrated the
concept of “sustainable development” (Laatikainen 2006, 73)
The prominent positions of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the
Netherlands in the United Nations can be seen from their financial contributions
to different initiatives of the institution. These contributions are ranked in the
graph below: the position was only added if the country was among the top
twentieth largest contributors for that committee. The data refers to the years
(2018-2022):
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
9-26
Figure 1: Nordic and Dutch relevance in the funding of UN committees (2018-2022)
Source: own elaboration, with data from the UN committees’ annual reports (UN Department of Political and
Peacebuilding Affairs 2023; UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2018, 2023; UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs 2022; UN Human Rights Committee 2023; UN Fund for Environmental Protection 2023).
Another relevant aspect of the Nordic countries and the Netherlands is
the similarity of their economic and social indexes and their positions in the
United Nations. These nations are classified as liberal democracies by the V-Dem
Institute (2023) and are positioned among the world’s most socially developed
and affluent societies, as well as, among the least gender-unequal countries
(United Nations Development Programme, 2022). The Nordic countries not only
cooperated but coordinated their positions in the UN, aligning their votes as a
way of joining forces and asserting their positions. There was an informal duty
to consult the other Nordic partners if the country wanted to change its voting
position, whether there was a common position agreed upon. It was also usual
for these countries to issue joint declarations (Laatikainen 2003).
The Nordic group continues to be active in 2023. As an example, one area
of continuous cooperation is climate action. In 2019, the Nordic group countries
issued a joint declaration stating their ambition to provide climate leadership
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
10-26
globally, and to cooperate to achieve their Paris Agreement national goals. Also,
the members of the group which participates in the EU (Sweden, Denmark, and
Finland) traditionally consult with each other before the EU’s Council of Ministers’
meeting to align their declarations and votes in the institution (Andersen 2021).
Although these countries continued to adopt similar positions in the UN General
Assembly in the 1990s, Laatikainen (2003) identified many changes in the way the
Nordic group positioned itself in the United Nations: the Nordic group’s meetings no
longer aimed to align their votes in the UNGA, but to share information about the
position of the European Union as a whole; Iceland and Norway lost an important
forum without joining a powerful club like the EU, as the EU membership takes
precedence over participation in the United Nations groups (Smith 2017).
These two countries, compared to their Nordic partners, began to act more as
spectators of the decisions taken by the EU than active builders of a coalition that
served their interests. Both countries have to live with an economic and political giant
in their neighborhood, with Iceland being especially sensitive to trade with the EU
(Hilmarsson 2021), without having a formal voice in formulating the bloc’s positions.
Figure 2: Map of selected middle powers and the European Union
Source: own elaboration.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
11-26
Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, being members of the
European Union, have to consider the institution’s Common Foreign Policy. While
this is not the case for Norway and Iceland, both countries have opted to assign
several treaties, especially in the economic arena, with the EU. As a result, they
are members of the European Economic Area, an extension of the EU’s Single
Market. The economic security and opportunity of integration with great European
powers, the possibility to influence European politics, and to use the EU as a
platform to impact global affairs, represented the high costs of being an outsider
(Gron, Nedergaard, and Wivel 2015). For these reasons, these countries seem to
be interesting cases to analyze whether their cohesion in the UNGA was affected
by the strengthening of the European Union’s foreign policy. This analysis will
be carried on in the next section.
The European Union’s Foreign Policy and its Cohesion
in International Forums
The EU’s foreign policy is formulated by its members, and despite the
prominence of great European powers within the EU, the middle powers can
use windows of opportunity to advance their interests and ideals. In 1997, the
Netherlands achieved a more prominent position than its material capabilities
would indicate in the negotiation for the Kyoto Protocol. The country achieved this
feat thanks to its technical knowledge in the environmental area, its reputation
for successfully reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and also for assuming at
that time the rotating presidency of the European Council. The Netherlands,
using the prerogative and legitimacy of the presidency, coordinated the different
national proposals of the member states into a single proposal for the EU. This
raised the country’s position on the international stage (Kanie 2007).
The formal involvement of the EU in the foreign policy of its member countries
originated mainly from the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, which established the
Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. Among its objectives,
there are positions often found in the foreign policy of middle powers, such as
the defense of multilateralism and the preservation of the international system:
“to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the
principles of the United Nations Charter as well as the principles of the Helsinki
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
12-26
Final Act8 and the objectives of the Paris Charter9; to promote international
cooperation” (Treaty on European Union 1992, 58).
The European Union’s foreign policy, similarly to traditional middle powers,
has been guided by the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law. Also, the EU has a history of success as a mediator and “bridge-builder”
(Keukeleire and Delreux 2014). The European Union’s mediation has had a
stabilizing effect in at least three cases: Montenegro’s independence; Kosovo-
Serbia conflict; and between Georgia, and its breakaway provinces Abkhazia
and South Ossetia (Bergmann 2020).
Due to its structure, and its limitations, as an International Organization that
promotes peace and cooperation in Europe, the institution has as its values the
support of other IOs, a focus on normative power as opposed to military power,
and the construction of the idea of a good global citizen:
These values are not the result of balancing of interests among member
states but an expression of “fundamental values” such as the rule of law,
democracy and human rights, open market economics, social solidarity,
environmental and economic sustainability, and respect for cultural diversity.
In this perspective, EU foreign policy is essentially about values, while
member states may continue to have realpolitik interests (Laatikainen
2006, 85).
The Treaty of Lisbon (2009) strengthens this policy even further by creating a
diplomatic corps for the European Union, the European External Action Service,
and enhancing the position of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy. The EU uses its diplomatic corps to maintain delegations
both in New York and Geneva to help and encourage the coordination of national
delegations at the UN.
The material capabilities of the EU are enormous, as the organization has
at least two great powers within it, France and Germany. The EU had a GDP of
16.6 trillion dollars in 2022, which represents about 1/6 of the global economy
(IMF 2022). The European Union is the largest recipient and investor of foreign
8 Diplomatic agreement that aimed to improve relations between East and West during the Cold War and
addressed various issues such as human rights, security, and cooperation.
9 The charter reaffirmed principles of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, while also promoting
economic cooperation and security in the region.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
13-26
investment in the world (European Commission 2022b), as well as the largest donor
of humanitarian aid (European Commission 2022c). As for its systemic position,
France, one of the EU member States, holds a vital seat at the United Nations
Security Council as a permanent member, and possesses nuclear capabilities.
Even countries that are not members of the EU can be highly associated with
it, as it is the case with Iceland and Norway, which despite not being members
are part of the Schengen Treaty10 and the European Economic Area11 .
One of the main focuses of the European Union’s foreign policy is that
its member states adopt common positions in international forums. One way
to observe if the foreign policies of the European Union’s member states are
becoming more cohesive over time is through the vote in the United Nations
General Assembly. The cohesion rate between the European Union’s member
states in the General Assembly between 2005 and 2011 calculated by Lucas (2012)
is around 95% when considering abstentions as a contrary vote and around 80%
when they are considered as a “half” vote. Observing only the General Assembly
resolutions that deal with security policy, the cohesion rate when abstentions
are considered as a contrary vote drops to around 90%, while when abstentions
are considered as “half” a vote, the rate holds at around 80%.
Burmester and Jankowski (2014) corroborate this statement by pointing out
a cohesion rate in the votes on General Assembly resolutions, between 1990
and 2011, of 0.8 on a scale of 0 to 1, where the closer to 1 the more cohesive the
group. Abstentions were computed as a “half” vote. When voting becomes close,
the cohesion rate jumps to close to 1, indicating that the EU is more cohesive
when it is most necessary to coordinate votes. This is a differential between the
EU and other regional blocs, where the tighter the voting, the less the votes of
the countries in the groups converge.
Birnberg (2009) when analyzing the resolutions that were voted on in the
General Assembly, the cohesion between the member states of the European
Union, how each country voted, and what was the national interest of that
State, reached a similar conclusion. According to the author, even when there
is a divergence between the particular interest of the State and the position of
10 Treaty of 1985 that allows the free movement of people between the signatory countries.
11 Treaty of 1994 that allows the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital between the signatory
countries and the members of the European Union. Non-member countries must follow a series of regulations
unilaterally established by the European Union.
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
14-26
the majority of the other members of the EU, the State tends to vote with the
majority, forming a single voice in the institution.
However, this cohesion is not uniform, it tends to vary according to the
area of the resolution that is being voted on. Areas where the European Union
has more authority, such as trade, have greater cohesion than areas where the
national States are prominent, such as defense and security. Smith (2017) states
that the EU has difficulty coordinating votes, especially on issues of nuclear
disarmament and decolonization.
In areas of the United Nations seen as more consequential, such as sending
troops to UN peacekeeping operations, the EU coordination is very limited when
compared to the UNGA. This could be because the propositions in the General
Assembly range from a broad number of issues, some of which the smaller
EU member states may have no particular interest in. As a result of that, they
opt to embrace the EU position. This is commonly referred to as one of the
aspects of the Europeanization of member states’ foreign policy (Keukeleire and
Delreux 2014).
Another possible reason is that the votes in the General Assembly are
viewed as an extension of the “Declaratory Foreign Policy”, which has limited
consequences. An example of this can be seen in Hungary’s actions towards
the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hungary, together with the whole
EU, voted in the United Nations General Assembly in favor of a resolution
to condemn the Russian invasion (UN General Assembly 2022), but inside
the bloc, it has opposed many of the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia
(Bosse 2022).
Coordination is also asked by the European Union of non-member countries
with which it closely cooperates, such as Norway, Iceland, or members of its
Neighborhood Policy (European Commission 2022a). Since 2007, the EU has
urged these countries to join its foreign policy declarations, essentially requesting
them to align their foreign policy to the EU’s position. In the case of Norway and
Iceland, when analyzing the EU declarations related to sanctions it enacted against
other countries between 2007 and 2020, both countries participated in more than
80% of these declarations. Also, Iceland has replicated all EU sanctions since
2014, except for sanctions against Russia after its illegal annexation of Crimea
(Cardwell and Moret 2022). Notwithstanding, Iceland proceeded to implement
analogous sanctions against Russia, not formally replicating them as a way of
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
15-26
trying to contain domestic opposition and limit the damage in its relation with
Russia (Thorhallsson and Gunnarsson 2017).
Methodology and Results
This article’s problematization is whether the cohesion of the Nordic countries
and the Netherlands in the United Nations General Assembly has decreased as a
result of the strengthening of the Common Foreign Policy of the European Union.
This article hypothesizes that the cohesion of the votes of the Nordic countries
and the Netherlands in the United Nations General Assembly has remained
stable over time. This would occur because the position of the EU in the UNGA
is similar to the multilateralist positions that the Nordic middle powers had in
the post-World War II period.
To verify the level of cohesion between these countries, Erik Voeten’s
dataset was used (Voeten 2013). Only votes on entire resolutions in the General
Assembly were analyzed, i.e., votes on paragraphs or amendments were discarded.
Resolutions with non-attendances of the selected countries were also discarded,
in order to not equate absences with abstentions, as recommended by Voeten
(2013). A time frame was delimited from 1993 to 2021, starting with the signing
of the Maastricht Treaty, and ending in the latest year in which the dataset
was complete.
It was observed how many resolutions were passed and how many resolutions
the Nordic countries and the Netherlands voted unanimously, and the cohesion
index was produced by dividing these two results and multiplying them by
100 to obtain percentages. Following the example of Voeten (2000) and Volgy,
Frazier, and Ingersoll (2003), abstentions were considered votes against the
resolution. According to Voeten (2000) as UNGA resolutions lack binding force,
the crucial aspect is whether a State is willing to publicly declare its support for
a resolution. In practice, the likelihood of defeating a resolution is low, making
no practical distinction between voting against it or abstaining from voting.
Both methods essentially communicate the State’s reluctance to adhere to the
resolution’s wording. The results of the annual rates can be seen in the graph
below:
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
16-26
Figure 3: Graph of the cohesion rate of the selected countries
in the UN General Assembly
Source: Graph elaborated from records of the UN General Assembly votes, from 1993 to 2021, in Erik Voeten’s
dataset (Voeten 201312).
Based on these results, despite the occurrence of oscillations, there were no
major changes in the vote cohesion rate of these countries in the last twenty-eight
years. The lowest rate was in 1993 with 84% cohesive and the highest was in
2013 with 98% cohesive. The strengthening of the European Common Foreign
Policy, with the creation of the diplomatic corps, and with the European Union
missions in the United Nations, do not seem to have interfered with the voting
cohesion of the observed countries. From 2009, the date of signature of the Treaty
of Lisbon, onwards, was the best time to observe any change if it had occurred.
When the cohesion rate found in these results is compared with the cohesion
level found by the authors cited above for the EU, it can be inferred that both
groups tend to vote together. It is important to emphasize that it is not possible
to make a direct comparison between the cohesion rates, since the indexes are
calculated in different ways. Despite this, it is possible to conclude that both
groups are cohesive.
12 The dataframe was last updated in mid-2022, incorporating data from 2021. The dataframe’s year is referred
to as "2013" due to a specific request by its author.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
17-26
In order to analyze the countries’ individual adherence to the majority’s
preference, and verify the presence of outliers or patterns, the same dataset was
used, with the same conditions. The countries votes were coded in 0 (no and
abstentions) and 1 (yes), then added by resolution. If a resolution result was equal
to or higher than three, the majority position was considered as “yes”, otherwise
it was considered as “no”. When the group split in half, it was determined that
three “yes” votes would mean a “yes” majority. The Nordic Group only split in
half one time in 1993, 1995, 2010, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, and two times in 1997.
If the country voted with the majority in each specific resolution, it would be
attributed the number 1, otherwise it would receive a 0. After that, the country
score was added, divided by the number of resolutions, and multiplied by 100
to obtain the percentages. The results can be viewed in the graph below:
Figure 4: Graph of the cohesion rate by country of the selected group
in the UN General Assembly
Source: Graph elaborated from records of the UN General Assembly votes, from 1993 to 2021, in Erik Voeten’s
dataset (Voeten 2013).
When the countries are analyzed individually, it is possible to determine that
all the members of the Nordic Group maintain a high level of adherence to the
group’s majority, as the cohesion rate never dropped below 90% for any country.
Moreover, Denmark and Norway consistently voted 100% with the group majority
in 12 separate years, while Iceland and Finland did so in 11 different years. The
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
18-26
Netherlands aligned completely with the majority in 6 years, and Sweden did so
in 5 years. Notably, the non-EU members did not exhibit a consistent decline in
their adherence after 2009; rather, Iceland and Norway emerged as the countries
most aligned with the group majority since 2015. Interestingly, Sweden stood
out as the country that voted the least with the majority during this period.
As there is no significant decrease in the level of cohesion in the votes for
the General Assembly between the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, nor a
low cohesion between the members of the EU, it can be theorized that both vote
similarly. This claim is also supported by the decades of Norwegian adherence
to the EU position in the UNGA (Gunes and Ozkaleli 2022).
Although it is to be expected that further integration in the EU’s common
foreign policy should face no discrepancies among its members, the two
non-EU member states in the Nordic group, Norway and Iceland, have taken a
very different approach to the European Union and deserve more attention here.
Norway’s presence in the EU institutions can match the presence of a member
State country, and the Icelandic presence is very limited in comparison (Gron
and Wivel 2018).
Norway’s close political coordination with the EU can be observed in a
publication of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2015). In this document,
the Norwegian government reiterates that “cooperation with the EU is crucial
for safeguarding Norwegian interests in priority areas”(16). The publication also
states that besides the biannual foreign policy consultations between Norway,
Iceland, and Liechtenstein, policy coordination and consultation happen daily.
As opposed to other areas, the coordination in foreign policy between Norway
and the EU is largely based on ad hoc meetings and informal arrangements
(Hillion 2019).
According to this 2015 document, the goal of coordination is “to safeguard
common positions” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2015, 16). The
document continues to affirm Norway’s support for the European Neighborhood
Policy, and its intention to help to develop the EU’s military capabilities. Also, it
declares that one of the main tasks of The Mission of Norway to the European
Union is to “work closely with the EU institutions on the further development of
the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defense
Policy” (26).
In a report, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018, 5) reaffirms
the importance of the EU for Norway by stating that:
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
19-26
Norway’s security, freedom and prosperity depend on Europe as a whole
developing in a positive direction [...] Norway accepts its share of the
responsibility for contributing to this, by engaging in binding cooperation
[...] Due to Norway and the EU’s shared set of values and interests, the
Government’s priorities are often consistent with EU policy. This is reflected
in our close cooperation in multilateral forums such as [...] the UN. In these
settings, Norway and the EU stand side-by-side in defense of fundamental
values and common rules not only in Europe but also globally.
Norway also takes a series of initiatives to strengthen its bilateral ties with
countries that will assume the EU council presidency. As an example, the Norwegian
Prime Minister traditionally visits a country about six months before it assumes
the EU council presidency. These actions are taken in an attempt to increase its
influence and access in the EU decision-making process (Haugevik 2017).
In the case of Iceland, the political coordination with the EU is largely
restricted to European Economic Area matters. Iceland considers the United States
and NATO as the cornerstones of Icelandic security and defense (Government
of Iceland Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021). Iceland’s national security policy
reiterates this position by stating that NATO is “the main forum for Western
cooperation” (Iceland 2016, 1). In European affairs, the country closely coordinates
and cooperates with other Nordic countries, as it is also stated in its national
security policy.
Iceland’s participation in the European integration was largely a result of
the costs associated with losing its integration with the other Nordic countries.
Iceland does not show an interest in foreign policy coordination with the EU, as
it does not see the EU as a viable replacement for the security the US currently
provides (Bailes and Rafnsson 2012).
With the end of the Cold War, the United States lowered its interest in
Iceland, which culminated at the end of the US military presence in the country
in 2006. Faced with this new reality, Iceland increased its cooperation with other
Nordic countries. Even with the return of the US military to Iceland in 2016, the
other Nordic states continue to greatly influence Icelandic foreign policy and
its European policy (Thorhallson 2018). This great association between Iceland
and other Nordic nations means the country is indirectly very exposed to the
EU’s foreign policy (Gron and Wivel 2018). Ultimately, despite Iceland’s formal
autonomy from the European Union, it nevertheless tends to align with the EU’s
foreign policy objectives (Thorhallson and Gunnarsson 2017).
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
20-26
The Norwegian and EU positions in the UN General Assembly seem to result
from political coordination. As Keohane (1984) defined, policy coordination
does not mean harmony. Harmony is characterized by an automatic alignment
between parties’ interests and choices’ adjustments are not necessary. Not only
is there no automatic alignment between the Norwegian foreign policy with the
EU’s, but at times, they are not able to find a common position, as when Norway
refused to sanction Venezuela in 2017 (Cardwell and Moret 2022).
As for Iceland, more research on the country’s individual adherence to
the EU’s position in the General Assembly is needed, as this article largely
examines the Nordic countries and the Netherlands as a group. That being said,
a possible explanation is that both share common foreign policy principles, such
as: the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law; the defense
of multilateralism; and the preservation of the international system. And that
Iceland indirectly adheres to the EU’s preferred position by coordinating with
the other Nordic countries.
Therefore, this article arrives at a similar result to that found by Laatikainen
(2006). The analyzed countries transitioned smoothly from the concept of middle
power diplomacy to a Europeanized diplomacy, even if Iceland did so indirectly.
That being said, it is important to continue to observe the strengthening of the
European Union’s foreign policy and how this policy will behave in more sensitive
issues such as the ones that are discussed in the Security Council. It is not certain
that Iceland and Norway will continue to vote cohesively with their Nordic partners
and the Netherlands if the EU adopts a more great-power diplomacy.
Conclusion
In this article, it was demonstrated that the cohesion between the Nordic
countries and the Netherlands in the votes of the United Nations General Assembly
was maintained between 1993 and 2021, despite the strengthening of the European
Union’s foreign policy. It was possible to observe this result through the analysis
of the voting results of the resolutions approved by the General Assembly. Thus,
both the initial hypothesis of the article was confirmed, and our results corroborate
the argument presented by Laatikainen (2006) about the Europeanization of the
Nordic countries and the Netherlands in contrast to the concept of traditional
middle powers.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
21-26
It is also possible to conclude that there was no significant variation in
this cohesion index is not a result of the EU’s failure to coordinate its member
States, but because the principles and values of the EU’s foreign policy largely
resonate with the principles of a traditional middle power. Furthermore, it was
also observed that Norway coordinates much of its foreign policy with the EU
(Hillion 2019), in contrast with Iceland which preferred coordination with the
other Nordic countries (Thorhallsson 2018) and it is thus influenced by these
countries’ relations with the EU.
Examining the countries’ individual cohesion rates to the group’s majority,
it was found that Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland were the countries
that most times voted 100% with the majority. Significantly, non-EU members
did not consistently show a decrease in their adherence after 2009. Instead,
Iceland and Norway have stood out as the countries most aligned with the group
majority since 2015. It is worth highlighting that the cohesion rate in Iceland
has progressively risen over time. In contrast, Sweden diverged the most and
attained the lowest cohesion rate of the group, reaching 90% in two years.
Future research should address whether Iceland’s individual adherence to
the EU’s affects its relations with the other Nordic countries; how Iceland-US
relations affect its coordination with the other Nordic countries; what explains
Sweden’s positions as the least adherent country to the majority’s position; and
why Norway and the EU prefer ad hoc coordination rather than an institutionalized
coordination.
References
Andersen, Mikael Skou. 2021. “Governance, green finance and global climate advocacy
of the Nordic countries: small state syndrome or novel middle power?” In Climate
Governance Across the Globe: pioneers, leaders and followers, 200-216. Abingdon:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bailes, Alyson J. K., and Orval P. Rafnsson. 2012. “Iceland and the EU’s Common
Security and Defence Policy: challenge or opportunity?” Icelandic Review of Politics
and Administration 8, no.1: 109-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.13177/irpa.a.2012.8.1.5.
Bergmann, Jullian. 2020. The European Union as International Mediator: Brokering
Stability and Peace in the Neighbourhood. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
22-26
Birnberg, Gabriele. 2009. “The Voting Behaviour of the European Union Member
States in the United Nations General Assembly.” PhD diss., London School Of
Economics, London.
Bosse, Giselle. 2022. “Values, rights, and changing interests: the EU’s response to the
war against Ukraine and the responsibility to protect Europeans.” Contemporary
Security Policy 43, no.3: 531-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2099713.
Burmester, Nicolas, and Michael Jankowski. 2014. “Reassessing the European Union
in the United Nations General Assembly.” Journal Of European Public Policy 21,
no.10: 1491-1508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.919833.
Cardwell, Paul James, and Erica Moret. 2022. “The EU, sanctions and regional leadership.”
European Security 32, no.1: 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2085997.
Cooper, Andrew F. 1997. Niche Diplomacy: middle powers after the Cold War. London:
Macmillan Press.
Copsey, Nathaniel. 2015. Rethinking the European Union. Red Global Press.
Cox, R. W. 1989. “Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order.” International
Journal 44, no.4: 823-862.
European Commission. European neighbourhood policy. Retrieved from: https://commission.
europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/european-neighbourhood-policy_en#:~:
text=The%20European%20neighbourhood%20policy%20. Accessed on: Jun 8, 2022a.
European Commission. Investment. Retrieved from: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.
eu/help-exporters-and-importers/accessing-markets/investment_en. Accessed on:
Jul 5, 2022b.
European Commission. Recipients and results of EU aid. Retrieved from: https://
commission.europa.eu/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/human-
rights-non-eu-countries/recipients-and-results-eu-aid_en#:~:text=Related%20links-,
Overview,poverty%20and%20advance%20global%20development. Accessed on:
Jul 5, 2022c.
Farrel, Mary. 2006. “EU Representation and Coordination within the United Nations.”
In The European Union at the United Nations: intersecting multilateralism, 27-46.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Freedman, Amy. 2022. “Thailand as an AwkwardMiddle Power.” In Awkward Powers:
escaping traditional great and middle power theory, 131-149. Singapore: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Government of Iceland Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2021. “Foreign affairs: Excerpt
from the Report of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development
Cooperation to the Parliament 2021. ”Retrieved from: https://www.government.is/
library/01-Ministries/Ministry-for-Foreign-Affairs/PDF-skjol/Foreign%20Affairs%20
2021_excerpt_WEB.pdf. Accessed on: Jun 20, 2022.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
23-26
Gron, Caroline Howard, and Anders Wivel. 2018. “Scandinavia and the European
Union: pragmatic functionalism reconsidered.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Scandinavian Politics, 269-280. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gron, Caroline Howard, Peter Nedergaard and Anders Wivel. 2015. “Mr. Svensson goes
to Brussels: concluding on the nordic countries and the european union.” In The
Nordic Countries and the European Union: still the other european community,
243-257. Abingdon: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gunes, Ali, and F. Murat Ozkaleli. 2022. “An intertemporal statistical analysis to ideal
point estimates: EU cohesion at the UNGA revisited.” Comparative European
Politics 1, no.1: 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41295-022-00318-0.
Haugevkin, Kristin. 2017. “Diplomacy through the back door: Norway and the bilateral
route to EU decision-making.” Global Affairs 3, no.3: 277-291. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/23340460.2017.1378586.
Hillion, Christophe. Norway and the changing Common Foreign and Security Policy of
the European Union. 2019. Available at: https://www.nupi.no/en/publications/
cristin-pub/norway-and-the-changing-common-foreign-and-security-policy-of-the-
european-union. Accessed on: Sep 5, 2022.
Hilmarsson, Hilmar Pór. 2021. “Should Iceland Seek European Union and Euro Area
Membership?” Regional Formation and Development Studies 21, no.1: 53-67. http://
dx.doi.org/10.15181/rfds.v21i1.1409.
Holbraad, Carsten. 1984, Middle powers in international politics. London: Macmillan
Press.
Hurrell, Andrew. 2000. “Some Reflections on the Role of Intermediate Powers in
International Institutions.” Paths to Power: Foreign Policy Strategies of Brazil,
Canada, India, and Mexico. Washington D.C.
Iceland. Parliamentary Resolution (2016), on a National Security Policy for Iceland.
Retrieved from: https://www.government.is/media/utanrikisraduneyti-media/
media/Varnarmal/National-Security-Policy-ENS.pdf. Accessed on: Jun 20, 2022.
IMF. 2022. “World Economic Outlook database: October 2022.” Retrieved from: https://
www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/October/weo-report?a=
1&c=001,110,163,119,123,998,200,505,511,903,205,400,603,&s=NGDPD,&sy=20
20&ey=2027&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&-
ds=.&br=1. Accessed on: Aug 1, 2023.
Jacques, Marion, Tanguy Struye de Swieland and Tanguy de Wilde d’Estmael. 2022.
“Belgium: the capacities of a middle power, but the ambitions of a small power?”
In Awkward Powers: escaping traditional great and middle power theory, 349-371.
Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
24-26
Jones, Catherine. 2019. “Interrogating middle powers’ behaviour.” In Rethinking middle
powers in the Asian century, 99-110. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jordaan, E. 2003. “The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing
Between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers.” Politikon South African Journal
of Political Studies 30, no.2: 165-181.
Kanie, Norichika. 2007. “Middle power leadership in the climate change negotiations:
foreign policy of the Netherlands.” In Europe and Global Climate Change: politics,
foreign policy and regional cooperation, 87-112. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Keohane, Robert O. 1969. “Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: small states in international
politics.” International Organization 23, no.2: 291-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
s002081830003160x.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political
economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keukeleire, Stephan, and Tom Delreux. 2014. The Foreign Policy of the European Union.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Laatikainen, Katie Verlin, 2006. “Pushing Soft Power: middle power diplomacy at the
UN.” In The European Union at the United Nations: intersecting multilateralism,
70-91. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Laatikainen, Katie Verlin. 2003. “Norden’s Eclipse: the impact of the European Union’s
common foreign and security policy on the Nordic group in the United Nations.”
Cooperation and Conflict 28, no.4: 409-441.
LUCAS, Kirsten.1 + 1 = 3? EU-US Voting Cohesion in the United Nations General
Assembly. 2012. Available at: https://www.coleurope.eu/sites/default/files/research-
paper/edp_7_2012_lucas.pdf. Accessed on: Jun 5, 2022.
Merom, Gil. 2022. “Awkward and Peculiar: on Israel flying above its designated positional
pigeonhole.” In Awkward Powers: escaping traditional great and middle power
theory, 305-328. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Navari, Cornelia. 2016. “Great Power Diplomacy.” In The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy,
268-280. London: SAGE.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2015. “norway and the eu - partners for europe.”
Retrieved from: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/
vedlegg/europapolitikk/norway_eu.pdf. Accessed on: Jun 14, 2022.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2018. “Norway in Europe: The Norwegian
Government’s strategy for cooperation with the EU 2018–2021.” Retrieved from:
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/dokumenter/eu/
eu_strategy.pdf. Accessed on: Jun 14, 2022.
Onea, A Tudor. 2021. “The Grand Strategies of Great Powers.” Abingdon: Routledge.
Rodrigo Barros de Albuquerque; Christian de Almeida Brandão
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
25-26
Paiva, Felipe Lira, and Rafael Mesquita. 2022. “Liderando do meio? Dimensionando
a liderança das potências intermediárias nas organizações internacionais (1975-
2017).” Carta Internacional 17, n.1: 1-28.
Palou, Jordi. 1993. “El concepto de potencia media. Los casos de España y México.”
Afers Internacionals, no.26: 7-35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40585538.
Park, Albert Sanghoon. 2022. “Beyond Great Powers: Middle power paths to resilient
multilateralism.” Asian Journal of Peacebuilding 10, no.1: 131-157.
Ruvalcaba, Daniel. 2019. Database WPI. Retrieved from: worldpowerindex.com/data-
wpi/. Accessed on 31 July 2023.
Smith, Karen E. 2017. “The European Union.” In Group Politics in UN Multilateralism,
45-59. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Swieland, Tanguy de Struye. 2019. “Middle powers: A comprehensive definition and
typology.” In Rethinking middle powers in the Asian century, 19-31. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Thorhallsson, Baldur and Pétur Gunnarsson. 2017. Iceland’s alignment with the EU–US
sanctions on Russia: autonomy versus dependence. Global Affairs 3, no.3: 307-318.
Thorhallsson, Baldur. 2015. The outsiders: Norway and Iceland. In The Nordic Countries
and the European Union, 33-49. Abingdon: Routledge.
Thorhallsson, Baldur. 2018. “Nordicness as a shelter: the case of Iceland.” Global Affairs 4,
no.4-5: 377-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2018.1522507.
Treaty of Lisbon, 2009. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/238419/7901.pdf.
Accessed on Jun 2, 2022.
Treaty on European Union, 1992. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:11992M/TXT. Accessed on: Jun 1, 2022.
UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. 2023. “Funding Documents.”
Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Retrived from: https://dppa.un.org/en/funding-
documents. (Jun 9, 2023).
UN Fund for Environmental Protection. 2023. “UNEP’s Annual report.” UNEP. Retrieved
from: https://www.unep.org/resources/unep-annual-report. (Jun 9, 2023).
UN General Assembly. Resolution 11/1. GA Index: A/RES/ES-11/1, 2 march 2022.
Retrieved from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/293/36/
pdf/N2229336.pdf?OpenElement.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 2018. “Contributions to UNHCR - 2018.” UNHCR
Donor Ranking. Retrieved from: https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/
donor_ranking/2018%20-%20UNHCR%20Donor%20Ranking.pdf?origin=gr2018.
(Jun 9, 2023).
The European Union Foreign Policy: voting cohesion through Europeanization of the Nordic [...]
Rev. Carta Inter., Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 2, e1347, 2023
26-26
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 2023. “Contributions.” UNHCR Operations
Worldwide. Retrieved from: https://reporting.unhcr.org/dashboards/contributions.
(Jun 9, 2023).
UN Human Rights Committee. 2023. “Our Donors.” OHCHR Office of the High
Commissioner. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/about-us/funding-and-
budget/our-donors. (Jun 9, 2023).
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2022. “OCHA - Annual Report
2022.” OCHA. Retrieved from: https://annualreport.unocha.org. (Jun 9, 2023).
United Nations Development Programme. The 2021/2022 Human Development Report.
United Nations, 2022. Retrieved from: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/
global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf.
V-Dem institute. Democracy report 2023: Defiance in the face of autocratization. University
of Gothernbug, 2023. Retrieved from: https://v-dem.net/documents/29/V-dem_
democracyreport2023_lowres.pdf.
Voeten, Erik. 2000. “Clashes in the Assembly”. International Organization 54,
no.2: 185-215.
Voeten, Erik. 2013. “Data and analyses of voting in the United Nations General Assembly.”
In Routledge Handbook of International Organizations, 54-66. Abingdon: Routledge.
Volgy, Thomas J, Frazier, Derrick V and Ingersoll, Robert Stewart. 2003. “Preferences
similarities and group hegemony: G-7 voting cohesion in the UN General Assembly”.
Journal of International Relations and Development 6, no:1: 51-70.
Wilkins, Thomas S. 2019. “Defining middle powers through IR theory: Three images.”
In Rethinking middle powers in the Asian century, 45-61. Abingdon: Routledge.
