Cover of book: Finding a Cue through "Q"
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles Partial access

Finding a Cue through "Q"

Applying Q-Methodology to Compare German and U.S. Diplomats' Attitudes towards U.N. Security Council Reform
Authors:
Publisher:
 2019

Summary

United Nations Security Council reform has been hotly debated since the end of the Cold War, which unleashed a global geopolitical realignment. But since 2007, the push to update the Security Council to reflect the power-sharing realities of our modern age – giving for example Germany a seat on the coveted panel – has largely stalled. Finding a Cue through “Q” chronicles the history, key initiatives and major players in this important discussion, while focusing on U.S. and German involvement on the council, and reboots the debate through political discourse analysis and intensive Q-methodology. Diplomats from Germany and the United States were asked to rank their agreement with statements made by stakeholders from government, business, academia and media in both countries. Instead of presenting a priori categories and foregone conclusions, this method describes the parameters of the debate through typologies derived from fresh diplomatic assessments. Social perspective narratives were created from the results, leading to the surfacing of two dominant discourses: Convinced Institutionalism and Cautious Institutionalism. Andreas Schwenk’s innovative approach provides new insight into the thinking of German and U.S. diplomats, and offers a valuable contribution to overcoming the stalemate. “Considering the growing number of attacks on multilateralism, Mr. Schwenk’s meticulous study clearly illustrates the need for reform of what is designed to be the world’s pivotal multilateral organization. A lack of reform of the U.N. Security Council might lead to future challenges to its primacy. It was my great pleasure to contribute to this fascinating book.”Doris Hertrampf, German Ambassador (Ret.)“I enjoyed participating in Mr. Schwenk‘s rigorous and systematic study of the vexed issue of U.N. Security Council reform. His analysis demonstrates broad commitment to keeping the Security Council effective, while the diversity of views confirms that changes to the number, regional distribution, or powers of its members will continue to be difficult.”William B. Wood, U.S. Ambassador (Ret.)

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8288-4306-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-8288-7239-4
Publisher
Tectum, Baden-Baden
Series
Wissenschaftl.Beitr.a.d.Tectum Verlag: Politikwissenschaft
Volume
81
Language
English
Pages
84
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Partial access I - X Download chapter (PDF)
  2. 1. Introduction No access 1 - 4
      1. 2.1.1. The Federal Republic of Germany No access
      2. 2.1.2. The United States of America No access
      1. 2.2.1. The “Razali Reform Paper” No access
      2. 2.2.2. The High-Level Panel Report No access
      3. 2.2.3. The Group of Four No access
      4. 2.2.4. The Group “Uniting for Consensus” No access
      5. 2.2.5. The African Union No access
      6. 2.2.6. The “Small Five” No access
    3. 2.3. An Academic Approach: The “Schwartzberg Reform Proposal” No access
    4. 2.4. Assessment of Main Initiatives No access
  4. 3. Methodology No access 33 - 38
    1. 4.1. Analysis of Interviews No access
      1. 4.2.1. Convinced Institutionalism (Factor A) No access
      2. 4.2.2. Cautious Institutionalism (Factor B) No access
      3. 4.2.3. Diplomats’ Alignment to the two Discourses (Factor Loadings) No access
    3. 4.3. Assessment of Typologies No access
  6. 5. Limitations No access 55 - 56
  7. 6. Conclusion No access 57 - 60
  8. References No access 61 - 68
  9. Appendix No access 69 - 82
  10. About the author No access 83 - 84

Bibliography (115)

  1. References Open Google Scholar
  2. African Union. (2005). The Common African Position On The Proposed Reform Of The United Nations – “The Ezulwini Consensus”. (March 8th, 2005). http://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/au/cap_screform_2005.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  3. African Union. (2005). Sirte Declaration On The Reform Of The United Nations. (July 5th, 2005). Assembly/AU/Decl. 2 (V). http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/decisions/9552-assembly_en_4_5_july_2005_auc_fifth_ordinary_session_decisions_declarations_and_resolution.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  4. Alexopoulos, A. & Bourantonis, D. (2007). The Reform of the UN Security Council: A Veto-Player Analysis. Department of Political Science, University of Crete. Open Google Scholar
  5. Alker, H. R., Jr. & Sylvan, D. (1986). Political Discourse Analysis. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington. Open Google Scholar
  6. Ariyoruk, A. (2005). Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate. Global Policy Forum. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41204.html. Open Google Scholar
  7. Asthana, A. & Grierson, J. (2016, May 10th). Afghanistan and Nigeria 'possibly most corrupt countries', Cameron lets slip. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/10/david-cameron-afghanistan-nigeria-possibly-most-corrupt-countries. Open Google Scholar
  8. Auswärtiges Amt. (2014). Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Vereinten Nationen und einzelnen, globalagierenden, internationalen Organisationen und Institutionen im Rahmen des VN-Systems in den Jahren 2012 und 2013. (September 3rd, 2014). Open Google Scholar
  9. Auswärtiges Amt. (2016). Deutsche Kandidatur für den Sicherheitsrat 2019/2020. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/nn_582140/sid_1D24DC9675AA84A941A88CC236A8F6FF/DE/Aussenpolitik/Friedenspolitik/VereinteNationen/07_Sicherheitsrat/Sicherheitsrat.html?nnm=582138. Open Google Scholar
  10. Auswärtiges Amt. (2016). Reform des Sicherheitsrats der Vereinten Nationen. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/Aussenpolitik/Friedenspolitik/VereinteNationen/5_Reformen/ReformSR_node.html. Open Google Scholar
  11. Baas, L. R. (1997). The interpersonal sources of the development of political images: An intensive, longitudinal study. Operant Subjectivity, Vol. 20, pp. 117–142.eng Open Google Scholar
  12. Bertrand, M. (1985). Some Reflections of Reform of the United Nations. United Nations Joint Inspection Unit. Geneva: United Nations. Open Google Scholar
  13. Bosco, D. (2015). The United States Doesn't Want To Reform The UN Security Council. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/29/the-united-states-doesnt-want-to-reform-the-u-n-security-council/. Open Google Scholar
  14. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  15. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society – A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press: New York, NY. Open Google Scholar
  16. Bull, H. (1984). The Expansion of International Society. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  17. Bundesregierung. (2015). Joint Press Statement at the Meeting of Leaders of the G-4 countries- Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – on United Nations Security Council Reform. https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Pressemitteilungen/BPA/2015/2015-09-29-g4-sicherheitsrat_en.html. Open Google Scholar
  18. Butler, R. (2012). Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs. Vol. 1 (1), 23–39. Open Google Scholar
  19. Buzan, B. (2014). An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cambridge, Polity. Open Google Scholar
  20. Byung, S. L. & Wonhi, S. (2001). Investor response to online stock trading: A study using Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, Vol. 24, pp. 109–131. Open Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, J. M. & Trichtinger, R. (2001). Perspectives on entertainment television's portrayal of a racial incident: An intensive analysis. Communication Review, Vol. 4, pp. 253–278.eng Open Google Scholar
  22. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter V, Article 24, Paragraph 1. Open Google Scholar
  23. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter V, Article 24, Paragraph 2. Open Google Scholar
  24. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter V, Article 25. Open Google Scholar
  25. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter VI. Open Google Scholar
  26. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter VII. Open Google Scholar
  27. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter VIII. Open Google Scholar
  28. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter VIII, Article 53. Open Google Scholar
  29. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter XII. Open Google Scholar
  30. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter XII, Article 77. Open Google Scholar
  31. Charter of the United Nations. (1946). Chapter XVII, Article 107. Open Google Scholar
  32. Chen, A. (1996). Student interest in activities in a second physical education curriculum: An analysis in student subjectivity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 67, pp. 424–432. Open Google Scholar
  33. Council on Foreign Relations. (2015). The Role of the General Assembly. http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/role-un-general-assembly/p13490. Open Google Scholar
  34. Das Bundesarchiv. Die Hallstein-Doktrin. (1955). https://www.bundesarchiv.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/bilder_dokumente/01366/index-2.html.de. Open Google Scholar
  35. Deutsche Gesellschaft für die Vereinten Nationen. (2016). 40 Years of German Membership in the United Nations. http://www.dgvn.de/germany-in-the-united-nations/40-years-of-german-membership-in-the-united-nations/.eng Open Google Scholar
  36. Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Phylosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 205–235. Open Google Scholar
  37. Doyle, M. (1986). Liberalism and World Politics. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 80 (4), pp. 1151–1169. Open Google Scholar
  38. Dryzek, J. S. & Berejikian, J. (1993). Reconstructive Democratic Theory. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87 (1), pp. 48–60. Open Google Scholar
  39. Dryzek, J. S. & Braithwaite, V. (2000). On the prospects for democratic deliberation: Values analysis applied to Australian politics. Political Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 241–266. Open Google Scholar
  40. Febbraro, A. R. (1995). On the epistemology, metatheory, and ideology of Q methodology: A critical analysis. In Ian Lubek, Rene Van Hezewijk, Gail Pheterson & Charles. W. Tolman, Trends and issues in theoretical psychology (pp.144–150). New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  41. Fischer, J. (2004). Speech before the German Bundestag http://dip.bundestag.de/btp/15/15122.pdf. (September 8th, 2004).eng Open Google Scholar
  42. Gallivan, J. (1994). Subjectivity and the psychology of gender: Q as a feminist methodology. In Joanne Gallivan, Sharon D. Crozier & Vivian M. Lalande, Women, girls, and achievement (pp. 29–36). Toronto: Captus University Publications. Open Google Scholar
  43. Genscher, H. D. (1990). Speech by Foreign Minister Genscher at the 45th United Nations General Assembly in New York. Bulletin 115/1990: 1201–1206. (September 26th, 1990).eng Open Google Scholar
  44. Gowan, R. (2013). Germany and the Security Council: Neither too strong nor too weak. VereinteNationen: German Review on the United Nations, Vol. 61 (1), pp. 3–8.eng Open Google Scholar
  45. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change In World Politics. Cambridge University Press: UK.eng Open Google Scholar
  46. Gilpin, R. (1987). Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Open Google Scholar
  47. Hellmann, G. & Roos, U. (2007). Das deutsche Streben nach einem ständigen Sitz im UN-Sicherheitsrat – Analyse eines Irrwegs und Skizzen eines Auswegs. Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden. Universität Duisburg-Essen. INEF-Report 92/2007. Open Google Scholar
  48. Hosli, M. O.; Moody, R.; O'Donovan, B.; Kaniovski, S. & Little, A. C. H. (2011). Squaring the Circle? Collective and distributive effects of United Nations Security Council reform. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 6, pp. 163–187. Open Google Scholar
  49. Intergovernmental Negotiations. Framework Document – As populated by states. (May 4th, 2015). http://centerforunreform.org/sites/default/files/050515_security-council-reform-framework-document.pdf#overlay-context=. Open Google Scholar
  50. International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database. (July, 2016). Open Google Scholar
  51. Ikenberry, J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Open Google Scholar
  52. Kant, I. (1795). Zum ewigen Frieden – Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Open Google Scholar
  53. Keohane, R. (1984). After Hegemony: Power and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. Open Google Scholar
  54. Keohane, R. (1993). Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge after the Cold War. In "Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. Columbia University Press: New York. NY. Open Google Scholar
  55. Kogan, S. M.; Walters, L. H. & Daniels, T. (2002). Contextual assessment of couples therapy: the clinical discourse Q-set. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, Vol. 28 (4), pp. 409–422. Open Google Scholar
  56. Lecouteur, A. & Delfabbro, P. H. (2001). Repertoires of teaching and learning: A comparison of university teachers and students using Q methodology. Higher Education, Vol. 42, pp. 205–235. Open Google Scholar
  57. Lyman, P. N. (2000). Saving the UN Security Council – A Challenge for the United States. Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations. Vol. 4, 127–146. Open Google Scholar
  58. McDonald, K.C. & Patrick, S. M. (2010). Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests. Council on Foreign Relations. Special Report No. 59. Open Google Scholar
  59. Mearsheimer, J. (1983). Conventional Deterrence. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.eng Open Google Scholar
  60. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY.eng Open Google Scholar
  61. Meisler, S. (1995). United Nations: The First Fifty Years. Atlantic Monthly Press. New York, NY. Open Google Scholar
  62. Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations. Knopf: New York, NY. Open Google Scholar
  63. Mosyagina, N. I.; Kashin, A. B. & Peck, R. L. (1997). Emerging Russian consumerism. A Q-Methodology study of consumer attitudes after Perestroika. Congress Manuscipt. Presented at the "Annual Conference on the Scientific Study of Subjectivity". Syracuse, New York. Open Google Scholar
  64. Müller, F. H. & Kals, E. (2004). Die Q-Methode. Ein innovatives Verfahren zur Erhebung subjektiver Einstellungen und Meinungen. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung, Vol. 5 (2), Art. 34. Open Google Scholar
  65. Plett, B. (2012). Small countries call for more transparency at the United Nations. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18123768. Open Google Scholar
  66. Pleuger, G. (2003). Die Reform des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen. In Sabine von Schorlemer. Praxishandbuch UNO – Die Vereinten Nationen im Lichte globaler Herausforderungen, Heidelberg. Open Google Scholar
  67. Richard, R. (2000). A methodological approach to national identity in Europe. Politique Européenne, Vol. 1, pp. 84–107. Open Google Scholar
  68. Schwartzberg, J. E. (2005). Getting it wrong on Security Council Reform. Institute for Global Policy, World Federalist Movement. Open Google Scholar
  69. Schwartzberg, J. E. (2004). Revitalizing the United Nations – Reform through weighted voting. Institute for Global Policy, World Federalist Movement. Open Google Scholar
  70. Schwartzberg, J. E. (2007). Small States and UN Reform. Institute for Global Policy, World Federalist Movement. Open Google Scholar
  71. Schwartzberg, J. E. (2013). Transforming the United Nations System: Designs for a Workable World. United Nations University Press. Open Google Scholar
  72. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft. (2009). Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Reform of the Security Council, Debate on Working Methods, Informal Plenary. Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations, New York, NY. Open Google Scholar
  73. Seidel, G. (1985). Political Discourse Analysis. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis ed. Teun A. van Dijk. London: Academic. Open Google Scholar
  74. Shepsle, K. A. (2005). “Rational Choice Institutionalism”. Harvard University. Open Google Scholar
  75. Shilin, M.; Khaimina, O.; Kluikov, Y. & Lukyanov, S. (2000). Coping strategies: The white sea case (Northern Russia). http://www.uit.no/MostCCPP/Huhmari/joe_pap/JOE_Michael-S.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  76. Singer, J. B. (1997). Chances and consistencies: Newspaper journalists contemplate an online uture. Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 2–18. Open Google Scholar
  77. Singer, J. B.; Craig, D.; Allen, C. W.; Whitehouese, V., Dimitrova, A. & Sanders, K. P. (1996). Attitudes of professors and students about new media technology. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, Vol. 51 (2), pp. 36–45. Open Google Scholar
  78. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan. Open Google Scholar
  79. Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlation persons instead of tests. Character and Personality, 4, 17–24. Open Google Scholar
  80. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
  81. The Economist. (2016). Brazil's Fall. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684779-disaster-looms-latin-americas-biggest-economy-brazils-fall. Open Google Scholar
  82. Thomas, D. B. & Baas, L. R. (1996). The postelection campaign: Competing constructions of the Clinton victory in 1992. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 58, pp. 309–331. Open Google Scholar
  83. The White House. National Security Strategy. (May, 2010). Open Google Scholar
  84. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.eng Open Google Scholar
  85. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  86. Ullmann, J. E. (1990). Who Won Cold War? Japanese and Germans. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/03/opinion/l-who-won-cold-war-japanese-and-germans-664690.html. Open Google Scholar
  87. UN Summit Agenda. (2000, September 7th). BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/904903.stm. Open Google Scholar
  88. United Nations. General Assembly Decision 62/557. Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. (September 15th, 2008). Open Google Scholar
  89. United Nations. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/59/L.64. Security Council Reform. (July 6th, 2005). Open Google Scholar
  90. United Nations. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/59/L.67. Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. (July 18h, 2005). Open Google Scholar
  91. United Nations. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/59/L.68. Reform of the Security Council. (July 21st, 2005). Open Google Scholar
  92. United Nations. General Assembly Draft Resolution A/60/L.49. Improving the working methods of the Security Council. (March 17th, 2006). Open Google Scholar
  93. United Nations. General Assembly Presidential Note A/59/565. Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit. (December 2nd, 2004). Open Google Scholar
  94. United Nations. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/62. Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. (December 11th, 1992). Open Google Scholar
  95. United Nations. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/26. Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. (December 3rd, 1993). Open Google Scholar
  96. United Nations. High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. (December 2nd, 2004). http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf.eng Open Google Scholar
  97. United Nations. Secretariat Assessment ST/ADM/SER.B/932. Assessment of Member States’ advances to the Working Capital Fund for the biennium 2016–2017 and contributions to the United Nations regular budget for 2016. (December 28th, 2015). Open Google Scholar
  98. United Nations. Security Council Presidential Note S/2006/507. Note by the President of the Security Council. (July 19th, 2006). Open Google Scholar
  99. United Nations. Security Council Resolution S/RES/687. (April 8th, 1991). Open Google Scholar
  100. United Nations. Security Council Resolution S/RES/688. (April 5th, 1991). Open Google Scholar
  101. United Nations. United Nations Millennium Declaration A/55/L.2. (December 14th, 2000).eng Open Google Scholar
  102. United States Congress. 2005 United Nations Reform Act H.R.2745. (June 17th, 2005).eng Open Google Scholar
  103. United States Department of State. (1999). Reform of the UN System. Open Google Scholar
  104. United States Department of State. (2003). Reform of the UN System. Open Google Scholar
  105. United States Department of State. (2004). Reform of the UN System. Open Google Scholar
  106. United States Institute of Peace. (2006). American Interests and UN Reform – Report of the Task Force on the United Nations. Open Google Scholar
  107. Uniting for Consensus Group. (2009). Security Council Reform. Global Policy Forum. https://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UFC_2009_Proposal.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  108. Walt, S. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. Open Google Scholar
  109. Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the State, and War. Columbia University Press: New York, NY. Open Google Scholar
  110. Webler, T.; Danielson, S. & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Social and Environmental Research Institute. Greenfield, MA. Open Google Scholar
  111. Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States. Leicester University Press, UK. Open Google Scholar
  112. Wight, M. (1996). International Theory: The three Traditions. Leicester University Press, UK. Open Google Scholar
  113. Wight, M. (2002). Power Politics. Bloomsbury Academic. Open Google Scholar
  114. Winter, E. (1996). Voting and Vetoing. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 90 (4), pp. 813–823.eng Open Google Scholar
  115. Wirkola, E. R. H. (2010). Reform of the UN Security Council and Veto Player Theory. University of Oslo. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "International Relations"
Cover of book: Weltbilder und Weltordnung
Educational Book No access
Gert Krell, Peter Schlotter, Alexandra Homolar, Frank A. Stengel
Weltbilder und Weltordnung
Cover of book: (Neu-)Ordnung
Edited Book No access
Uwe Wagschal, Marius Fröhle
(Neu-)Ordnung
Cover of book: The Multipolar Turn
Book Titles No access
Carla Fetcas, Martin Kreutner
The Multipolar Turn
Cover of book: European Union, How Comes?
Book Titles No access
Hartmut Marhold
European Union, How Comes?
Cover of book: Türkiye und Österreich im 21. Jahrhundert
Edited Book No access
Mehmet Soytürk
Türkiye und Österreich im 21. Jahrhundert

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex