Abstract
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is frequently criticized as being an inefficient talking shop. Such criticism is partially due to the fact that UNGA resolutions are not legally binding, and partially due to the considerable share of resolutions that are debated repeatedly in multiple UNGA sessions. This article shows that more than half of the resolutions on the negotiation agenda of the UNGA in a given year are not novel, but have been discussed in the same arena in the past. As this increases the negotiation workload and also the capacity requirements of the member states, the widespread phenomenon of repetitions is puzzling. Therefore, the article examines the reasons behind reoccurring resolutions. It distinguishes between incrementalist and symbolic rationales and sheds light on the different motivations for repetitions in a series of case studies. This reveals that both rationales matter for repeating resolutions and that neither symbolic politics nor incrementalism are confined to specific types of issues or actors.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
