Page - (000105) - in Knowledge and Networks

97 The 57th session (2002–2003) shows the growing importance of regional groups for all member states, European or otherwise. The G77 plus China maintained its central position, and NAM moved to a more peripheral position. All other groups that appear affirmed regional integration as one of their main objectives. Once again, the EU was a component isolated from other countries and included only member states (and candidates). This picture confirms previous results according to which the EU is simultaneously one of the most cohesive groups in the UNGA and one of the most isolated because it is unable to attract support from other actors (Gowan & Brantner, 2008). The situation in 2009—not reproduced here because the density of the graph renders it unreadable—confirms this evolution: the rising importance of regional groups, the rising number of states supporting several groups depending on the topic examined, and the cohesiveness and isolation of the EU. Further studies are needed, especially to investigate concrete mechanisms of cooperation that groups set up to achieve these results. One can assume that this trend reflects an increasingly pressing need for member states to see that taking action through a supranational framework is more efficient than taking action as individual member states. However, major powers—the best example being the United States, which never appears on these graphs—do not necessarily need regional groups. When political regionalization occurs, it is primarily for actors unable to influence world decisions by themselves. Another question concerns how the UNGA itself functions. As regional groups become more active (sponsoring resolutions, making statements, and collaborating with one another), will the orga- nization be able to change its procedures to take this dynamic into account or will it remain a strictly international organ? The fact that the EU recently gained a higher participation status—EU representatives (rather than representatives of the state leading the EU) can now make statements and propose resolutions—indicates that organizational change is possible to reinforce the role of regional groups.3 From Empirical Observations to Models of Cooperation and Regionalization A complementary approach to this discursive regionalization dynamic is to build ideal types based on the expected behavior of actors instead of measuring the expan- sion of phenomena from one session to the next. This exercise is interesting princi- pally because it identifies the relation between actors and their motivations and 3 http://www.unbrussels.org/general-assembly-grants-eu-higher-participation-status.html (retrieved June 16, 2014) Fig. 5.3 (continued) G77 Group of 77, LAC Latin America and the Caribbean, LDC Least Developed Countries, LDLC Least Developed and Landlocked Countries, NAM Nonaligned Movement, OIC Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OAU Organization of African Unity, PIF Pacific Islands Forum, SADC Southern African Development Community, SIDS Small Island Developing States (Source: UNGA verbatim records. Design by author) 5 Studying Networks Geographically: World Political Regionalization in the United…