The Behavior of Middle Powers in Multilateral Institutions. The Record of Italy in the UN

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.

1. Aydin 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/iiab090

2. Baldi S. (ed.) (2014). Un ricordo di Pietro Quaroni. Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale. Rome: UNAP press. 102 p.

3. Behringer R.M. (2013). The dynamics of middlepowermanship. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 9–22.

4. 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.

5. Botero 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.

6. Boutros-Ghali B. (1992). An Agenda for Peace. Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping. New York: United Nations. 53 p.

7. 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.

8. 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/10.1080/10357718.2013.840264

9. Chapnick A. (1999). The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy. 1999. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 73–82. https:// doi.org/10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212

10. Cooper A. (ed.) (1997). Niche Diplomacy. Middle Powers after the Cold War. London: Macmillan Press. 221 p.

11. Cox R.W. (1989). Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order. International Journal. Vol. 44. No. 4. P. 823–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070208904400405.

12. Efstathopoulos C. (2018). Middle Powers and the Behavioural Model. Global Society. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2017.1351422

13. Emmers R. (2018). The Role of Middle Powers in Asian Multilateralism. Asia Policy. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 42–47. DOI: 10.1353/asp.2018.0060

14. Gilley B. (2016). Conclusion: Delusions of Grandeur in the Goldilocks Zone. International Journal. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 651–658. DOI: 10.1177/0020702016684859

15. Glazebrook G. (1947). The Middle Powers in the United Nations System. International Organization. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 307–315.

16. Holbraad C. (1984). Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press. 234 p.

17. Holbraad C. (1971). The Role of Middle Powers. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 77–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836771006001

18. Holmes J. (1984). Most Safely in the Middle. International Journal. Vol. 39. No. 2. P. 366–388.

19. Jervis R. (2006). Understanding Beliefs. Political Psychology. Vol. 27. No. 5. P. 641–663.

20. 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/S002081830003160X

21. Laatikainen K.V., Smith K.E. (eds) (2006). The European Union at the United Nations. Intersecting Multilateralisms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 232 p.

22. Maslova 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.

23. Mearsheimer J. (2011). Why Leaders Lie. The Truth about Lying in International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 141 p.

24. 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.

25. Monteleone C. (2019). Italy in Uncertain Times. Europeanizing Foreign Policy in the Declining Process of the American Hegemony. London: Lexington Books. 206 p.

26. 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/10.1080/03932729.2016.1108613

27. Salaсone 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.

28. Scissa 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.v10i2.1110

29. 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.

30. Silvestri S. (1997). Il sistema Italia. Gli interessi nazionali italiani nel nuovo scenario internazionale. Milano: F. Angeli. 264 p.

31. Teo S. (2023). Middle Powers in Asia Pacific Multilateralism. A Differential Framework. Bristol: Bristol University Press. 203 p.

32. Thies 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/cs40-3c

33. 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