intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.46272/IT.2024.22.1.76.7intertrends-462Research ArticleФИКСИРУЕМ ТЕНДЕНЦИЮCATCHING A TRENDПоведение средних держав в многосторонних институтах: опыт политики Италии в ООНThe Behavior of Middle Powers in Multilateral Institutions. The Record of Italy in the UNМасловаЕленаMaslovaElenaИвановГлебIvanovGlebМГИМО МИД России, Москва, Институт Европы РАН, МоскваРоссияMGIMO University, Moscow, 119454, Institute of Europe, Moscow, 125009Russian FederationМГИМО МИД России, МоскваРоссияMGIMO University, Moscow, 119454Russian Federation202410102024221СИЛА УБЕЖДЕНИЯ6379Copyright © Маслова Е., Иванов Г., 20242024Маслова Е., Иванов Г.Maslova E., Ivanov G.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/462

Статья посвящена анализу поведения средних держав в многосторонних институтах на примере политики Италии в ООН. С помощью поведенческого подхода авторы подчёркивают ключевое значение многосторонних институтов для подобного типа государств. Политика государств среднего уровня в многосторонних институтах имеет отличительные характеристики, одной из которых является когнитивное искажение, состоящее в склонности к переоценке собственного влияния в многосторонних институтах, а также в преобладании видимой активности над реальными результатами. В научной литературе этот феномен, выражающийся в преобладании видимой активности над реальными результатами, называют «самообманом». Существуют исследования, отражающие вывод, что политика Италии во времена Первой Республики (до середины 1990-х годов) являлась «политикой самообмана» для итальянского правительства; авторы настоящей статьи отталкиваются от этой идеи и ставят перед собой исследовательскую задачу по оценке современной политики Италии на площадке ООН (1991–2023), для которой мультилатерализм и опора на многосторонние институты продолжают оставаться одним из столпов внешней политики страны и её приоритетом. При этом авторы не подвергают сомнению статус Италии как средней державы. Используется компаративный графический анализ среднего совместного голосования «против» при голосовании «против» одной из европейских стран в ГА ООН (Италия, Германия, Испания, Франция). Анализ позиции Италии в Совете Безопасности и Генеральной Ассамблее ООН показывает, что активное участие Рима в работе этих органов не выделяет страну из ряда других ведущих европейских государств, а продвижение инициатив по приоритетным темам зачастую не приводит к практическим результатам. Таким образом, подвергается сомнению тезис о способности Итальянской Республики укрепить свой статус при помощи ООН, как об этом заявляет итальянское руководство. Политика Италии в ООН отражает не только национальную специфику, но и общие тенденции поведения государств среднего уровня в многосторонних институтах, связанные с искажённой оценкой своего влияния в международных организациях.

The article analyzes the behavior of middle powers in multilateral institutions, using the example of Italy’s participation in the United Nations as a case study. By employing the behavioral approach in middle powers studies, the authors emphasize the importance of multilateral institutions in their foreign policy. The article demonstrates that the behavior of middle powers can be characterized by positive attributes as well as inherent risks. It is argued that a common cognitive distortion among these states is the tendency to overestimate their influence in multilateral institutions. This discrepancy between policy goals and outcomes, coupled with a reliance on immutable principles, is dubbed “self-delusion”. The purpose of this article is to identify cognitive distortions derived from Italy’s reliance on multilateral institutions and to extrapolate the findings to the behavior of other middle powers. The central research question is: How does the prioritization of multilateral formats affect the behaviour of middle powers? Italy serves as a pertinent example for testing the hypothesis. The country elevates multilateralism to the level of a foreign policy doctrine, making it an ideal case for analyzing “self-delusion,” given the central role of multilateral institutions in Italian foreign policy. The analysis of Italy’s behavior at the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly reveals that its active engagement in the UN activities does not distinguish it significantly from other leading European states while the promotion of prioritized initiatives often did not yield practical results. The article questions the assertion that Italian policy at the UN effectively strengthens Italian heft in the international arena, as claimed by Italian officials. The findings of this paper contribute to a broader discussion about the behavior of middle powers on the international stage. Italy’s policy at the UN seems to be an illustrative case, reflecting not only the Italian approach, but also the general trends in the behavior of middle powers in multilateral institutions, including the overestimation of their influence in international organizations.

средние державымногосторонние институтыИталиявнешняя политика ИталииООНмультилатерализмmiddle powersmultilateral institutionsItalyItalian foreign policyUnited NationsmultilateralismReferencesВершинина В.В. «Державы среднего уровня» в международных отношениях: сравнительный анализ концептуальных подходов // Сравнительная политика. 2020. Т. 11. №3. С. 25–40. https://doi. org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10034Aydin U. (2021). Emerging middle powers and the liberal international order. International Affairs. Vol. 97. No. 5. P. 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab090Маслова Е.А. Современная политика Италии в урегулировании конфликта на Ближнем Востоке // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2011. №6. С. 241–247.Baldi S. (ed.) (2014). Un ricordo di Pietro Quaroni. Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale. Rome: UNAP press. 102 p.Салаконе А. Италия – «мост» между блоками во время вьетнамской войны // Современная Европа. 2017. №3 (75). C. 91–101.Behringer R.M. (2013). The dynamics of middlepowermanship. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 9–22.Шогунц А.В. Почему Италия против Глобального договора о миграции? // Научно-аналитический вестник Института Европы РАН. 2019. №2. C. 99–105.Birnberg G. (2009). The Voting Behaviour of the European Union Member States in the United Nations General Assembly. A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London. 270 p.Aydin U. Emerging middle powers and the liberal international order // International Affairs. 2021. Vol. 97. No. 5. P. 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab090Botero G. (1590). Della ragion di stato, libri dieci. Con tre Libri delle cause della Grandezza, e Magnificenza delle Città. Di Giovanni Botero Benese. Ferrara: аppresso Vittorio Baldini stampator Ducale. 114 p.Behringer R.M. The dynamics of middlepowermanship // Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. 2013. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 9–22.Boutros-Ghali B. (1992). An Agenda for Peace. Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping. New York: United Nations. 53 p.Birnberg G. The Voting Behaviour of the European Union Member States in the United Nations General Assembly. A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, 2009. 270 p.Burmester N., Jankowski M. (2014). The EU in the United Nations General Assembly. A Comparative Perspective. Paper prepared for the 4th European Union in International Affairs Conference, May 22nd – May 24th. Brussels, Belgium. 25 p.Botero G. Della ragion di stato, libri dieci. Con tre Libri delle cause della Grandezza, e Magnificenza delle Città. Di Giovanni Botero Benese. Ferrara: аppresso Vittorio Baldini stampator Ducale, 1590. 114 p.Carr A. (2014). Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 68. No. 1. P. 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264Boutros-Ghali B. An Agenda for Peace. Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping. New York: United Nations, 1992. 53 p.Chapnick A. (1999). The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy. 1999. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 73–82. https:// doi.org/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212Burmester N., Jankowski M. The EU in the United Nations General Assembly. A Comparative Perspective. Paper prepared for the 4th European Union in International Affairs Conference, May 22nd – May 24. Brussels, Belgium, 2014. 25 p.Cooper A. (ed.) (1997). Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War. London: Macmillan Press. 221 p.Carr A. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach // Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2014. Vol. 68. No. 1. P. 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264Cox R.W. (1989). Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order. International Journal. Vol. 44. No. 4. P. 823–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070208904400405.Chapnick A. The Middle Power // Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 1999. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 73–82. https:// doi.org/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212Efstathopoulos C. (2018). Middle Powers and the Behavioural Model. Global Society. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2017.1351422Cox R.W. Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order // International Journal. 1989. Vol. 44. No 4. P. 823–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070208904400405Emmers R. (2018). The Role of Middle Powers in Asian Multilateralism. Asia Policy. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 42–47. DOI: 10.1353/asp.2018.0060Efstathopoulos C. Middle Powers and the Behavioural Model // Global Society. 2018. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2017.1351422Gilley B. (2016). Conclusion: Delusions of Grandeur in the Goldilocks Zone. International Journal. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 651–658. DOI: 10.1177/0020702016684859Emmers R. The Role of Middle Powers in Asian Multilateralism // Asia Policy. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 42–47. DOI: 10.1353/asp.2018.0060Glazebrook G. (1947). The Middle Powers in the United Nations System. International Organization. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 307–315.Gilley B. Conclusion: Delusions of Grandeur in the Goldilocks Zone // International Journal. 2016. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 651–658. DOI: 10.1177/0020702016684859Holbraad C. (1984). Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press. 234 p.Glazebrook G. The Middle Powers in the United Nations System // International Organization. 1947. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 307–315.Holbraad C. (1971). The Role of Middle Powers. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 77–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836771006001Holbraad C. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press, 1984. 234 p.Holmes J. (1984). Most Safely in the Middle. International Journal. Vol. 39. No. 2. P. 366–388.Holbraad C. The Role of Middle Powers // Cooperation and Conflict. 1971. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836771006001Jervis R. (2006). Understanding Beliefs. Political Psychology. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 641–663.Holmes J. Most Safely in the Middle // International Journal. 1984. Vol. 39. No. 2. P. 366–388.Keohane R. (1969). ‘Lilliputian Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics’. International Organization. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 291–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830003160XJervis R. Understanding Beliefs // Political Psychology. 2006. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 641–663.Laatikainen K.V., Smith K.E. (eds) (2006). The European Union at the United Nations. Intersecting Multilateralisms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 232 p.Keohane R. ‘Lilliputian Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics’ // International Organization. 1969. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 291–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830003160XMaslova E. A. (2011). Sovremennaya politika Italii v uregulirovanii konflikta na Blizhnem Vostoke [Italian Contemporary Politics in the Middle East Peace Process]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 6. P. 241–247.Mearsheimer J. Why Leaders Lie. The Truth about Lying in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 141 p.Mearsheimer J. (2011). Why Leaders Lie. The Truth about Lying in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 141 p.Mo J. South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles // International Journal. 2016. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 587–607.Mo J. (2016). South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: A Case of Growing Compatibility between Regional and Global Roles. International Journal. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 587–607.Monteleone C. Italy in Uncertain Times. Europeanizing Foreign Policy in the Declining Process of the American Hegemony. London: Lexington Books, 2019. 206 p.Monteleone C. (2019). Italy in Uncertain Times. Europeanizing Foreign Policy in the Declining Process of the American Hegemony. London: Lexington Books. 206 p.Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War / ed. by A.F. Cooper. London: Macmillan Press, 1997. 221 p.Romero F. (2016). Rethinking Italy’s Shrinking Place in the International Arena. The International Spectator. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1108613Romero F. Rethinking Italy’s Shrinking Place in the International Arena // The International Spectator. 2016. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1108613Salaсone A. (2017). Italiya – “most” mezhdu blokami vo vremya vyetnamskoy voyny [Italy – a “Bridge” between the Military Alliances during the Vietnam War]. Sovremennaya Evropa. №3 (75). P. 91–101.Scissa C. Fleeing from the Global Compact for Migration: A missed opportunity for Italy // Border Crossing. 2020. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 155–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33182/bc.v10i2.1110Scissa C. (2020). Fleeing from the Global Compact for Migration: A missed opportunity for Italy. Border Crossing. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 155–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33182/bc.v10i2.1110Silvestri S. Il sistema Italia. Gli interessi nazionali italiani nel nuovo scenario internazionale. Milano: F. Angeli, 1997. 264 p.Shogunts A.V. (2019). Pochemu Italiya protiv Global`nogo dogovora o migratsii? [Why Italy Is Against Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration?]. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN. No. 2. P. 99–105.Teo S. Middle Powers in Asia Pacific Multilateralism. A Differential Framework. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2023. 203 p.Silvestri S. (1997). Il sistema Italia. Gli interessi nazionali italiani nel nuovo scenario internazionale. Milano: F. Angeli. 264 p.The European Union at the United Nations. Intersecting Multilateralisms / ed. by K. Verlin Laatikainen, K.E. Smith. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 232 p.Teo S. (2023). Middle Powers in Asia Pacific Multilateralism. A Differential Framework. Bristol: Bristol University Press. 203 p.Thies C., Angguntari C. Sari. A Role Theory Approach to Middle Powers: Making Sense of Indonesia’s Place in the International System // Contemporary Southeast Asia. 2018. Vol. 40. No. 3. P. 397–421. DOI: 10.1355/cs40-3cThies C., Sari A.C. (2018). A Role Theory Approach to Middle Powers: Making Sense of Indonesia’s Place in the International System. Contemporary Southeast Asia. Vol. 40. No. 3. P. 397–421. DOI: 10.1355/cs40-3cUn ricordo di Pietro Quaroni, Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale / ed. by S. Baldi. Rome: UNAP press, 2014. 102 p.Vershinina V.V. (2020) «Derzhavy srednego urovnya» v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh: sravnitel’nyy analiz kontseptual’nykh podkhodov [Middle Powers in International Relations: Comparative Analysis of Conceptual Approaches]. Sravnitel’naya politika. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 25–40

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.