This study analyzes how states express solidarity within international organizations, focusing on the Transatlantic Community, Organization of Islamic Countries, and ASEAN. Using the English School framework, we examine UNGA speeches (1991–2022) from these groupings, employing sentiment analysis and topic modeling to uncover thematic patterns in their narratives of solidarity. Our findings reveal distinct approaches to solidarity within each organization, despite shared participation in global dialogues. States prioritize different issues and demonstrate active agency in shaping institutional evolution through their discourse. This micro-perspective contributes to the understanding of solidarity-plurality, highlighting the complex interplay between state action and institution-building in a multipolar world. The research challenges simplistic views of state behavior within international organizations, demonstrating the importance of analyzing state narratives to understand the diverse expressions and practices of international solidarity.
AbbottK. W.Levi-FaurD.SnidalD. (2017). Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 670(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216688272
2.
AdlerE. (2005). Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations. Routledge.
AhrensB. (2019). The European Union between Solidarist Change and Pluralist Re-Enactment. In KnudsenT. B.NavariC. (Eds.), International Organization in the Anarchical Society: The Institutional Structure of World Order (pp. 265–292). Palgrave Macmillan.
BalciA. (2023). Do gladiators fight for their masters? Voting behavior of the US-Promoted United Nations Security Council members in the Early Cold War. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001019
7.
BarnettM. N.EmanuelA. (1998). Studying Security Communities in Theory, Comparison, and History. In AdlerE.BarnettM. (Eds.), Security Communities (pp. 413–441). Cambridge University Press.
8.
BaturoA.DasandiN.MikhaylovS. (2017). Understanding state preferences with text as data: introducing the UN General Debate corpus. Research & Politics, 4(2), 205316801771282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017712821
9.
BleiD.LaffertyJ. (2007). A correlated topic model of science. Annals of Applied Statistics, 1(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS114
10.
BullH. (1966). The Grotian Conception of International Society. In ButterfieldH.WightM. (Eds.), Diplomatic investigations (pp. 51–73). Allen & Unwin.
11.
BuzanB. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge University Press.
12.
BuzanB. (2006). Rethinking Hedley Bull on the Institutions of International Society. In LittleR.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World (pp. 75–96). Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
BuzanB. (2014). An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Polity Press.
14.
DavisK.FisherA.KingsburyB.MerryS. (eds.) (2012). Governance by Indicators. Oxford University Press.
15.
DeutschK. W. (1957). Political Community and the North American Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton University Press.
16.
GebhardC. (2017). The problem of coherence in the european union’s international relations. In HillC.SmithM.VanhoonackerS. (Eds.), International relations and the european union (pp. 123–142). Oxford University Press.
17.
GheciuA. (2005). Security institutions as agents of socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe.’. International Organization, 59(4), 973–1012. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050332
18.
HechtC. (2016). The shifting salience of democratic governance: evidence from the United Nations General Assembly General Debates. Review of International Studies, 42(5), 915–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210516000073
19.
HolstiK. J. (2004). Taming the Sovereigns. Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
20.
HoogheL.MarksG.SchakelA. H. (2020). Multilevel governance. In CaramaniD. (Ed.), Comparative Politics (pp. 193–210). Oxford University Press.
21.
HurrellA. (1993). International Society and the Study of Regimes: A Reflective Approach. In RittbergerV. (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (pp. 49–72). Oxford University Press.
22.
KatzensteinP. J. (ed) (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
23.
KeohaneR. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
24.
KeohaneR. O.NyeJ. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.
25.
KimY.KimB.ParkM. H.NamW.KimJ. H. (2023). A Soft Power Challenge, or an Opportunity? A Big Data Analysis on Chinese Soft Power during COVID-19 Pandemic. Foreign Policy Analysis, 19(3), orad011. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad011
26.
LenzT. (2021). Interorganizational Diffusion in International Relations: Regional Institutions and the Role of the European Union. Oxford University Press.
27.
LinklaterA. (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. University of South Carolina Press.
28.
LinklaterA.SuganamiH. (2006). The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge University Press.
29.
LuardE.HeaterD. (1994). The United Nations: How It Works and What It Does. St. Martin’s Press.
30.
MearsheimerJ. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
NavariC. (2011). The concept of practice in the English School. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110368143
33.
NeumannI. B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201
34.
NicholasH. G. (1959). The United Nations as a Political Institution. Oxford University Press.
RafaelM.PiresA. (2023). What are UN General Assembly resolutions for? four views on parliamentary diplomacy. International Studies Review, 25(1), viac058.https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac058
37.
RuggieJ. G. (1998). Constructing the World Polity. Essays on International Institutionalization. Routledge.
38.
SchouenborgL. (2011). A new institutionalism? the English School as international sociological theory. International Relations, 25(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117810396992
39.
SchouenborgL. (2014). The English School and Institutions: British Institutionalists? In NavariC.GreenD. (Eds.), Guide to the English School in International Studies (pp. 77–89). Wiley-Blackwell.
40.
SmithC. B. (2006). Politics and Process at the United Nations: The Global Dance. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
41.
SuganamiH. (1983). The structure of institutionalism: an anatomy of British mainstream international relations. International Relations, 7(5), 2363–2381. https://doi.org/10.1177/004711788300700508
42.
SuganamiH. (2003). Reflections on 11 September. In 11 September 2001 (pp. 14–23). Routledge.
43.
SvobodaE.ZyckS. A.OsmanD.HashiA. (2015). Islamic Humanitarianism?: The Evolving Role of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation in Somalia and Beyond. Humanitarian Policy Group Working Paper. London.
44.
TripathiS. P. M. (2010). Relevance of Regional Organizations. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 71(4), 1243–1250. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748951
WaltzK. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
47.
WendtA.DuvallR. (1989). Institutions and International Order. In CzempielE. O.RosenauJ. N. (Eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (pp. 51–73). Lexington Books.
48.
WightM. (1966). Power Politics. University of Chicago Press.
49.
WilsonP. (2012). The English School meets the Chicago School: the case for a grounded theory of international institutions. International Studies Review, 14(4), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12001
50.
YukawaT.SakamotoT. (2024). The evolution of monitoring: Evidence from text analysis of election monitoring reports. Foreign Policy Analysis, 20(1), orad034. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad034
