Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The sources of influence in multilateral diplomacy: Replaceability and intergovernmental networks in international organizations

  • SI: The Power of the Weak
  • Published:
The Review of International Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While international historians and policy practitioners regularly highlight the utility of multilateral diplomacy as a quintessential “strategy of the weak,” International Relations (IR) scholars have generally downplayed the impact of diplomatic choices. The tools within IR theory to assess the impact of diplomacy remain underdeveloped, contributing to an inability to account for a highly proximate source of international influence. This article argues for a theoretical reengagement with the subject of multilateral diplomacy and, using insights from Social Network Analysis, develops a Diplomatic Impact Framework. Building on the novel concept of replaceability, the article contributes theoretically to the literature on diplomacy, as well as on small and middle powers. This framework captures the fundamentally relational character of diplomacy, isolating analytically this form of structural power from the influence conferred by superior material or institutional resources. Drawing extensively on a multinational collection of diplomatic documents and first-hand accounts, this multidisciplinary article probes the plausibility of the framework through a detailed comparative case study of Canada’s diplomatic influence at the United Nations General Assembly throughout two international security crises: the Korean War and the Suez Crisis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

I do not analyse or generate any datasets, because my work takes a theoretical approach and relies exclusively on published historical materials.

Notes

  1. Kahler 2017; Keating 2013; Chapnick 2005.

  2. Consistent with the findings of Iver B. Neumann (2012: 33), this article regards information-gathering as the principal activity of modern diplomats.

  3. Effective representation, for instance, relies heavily on being able to access the right contact to further a particular governmental aim. Negotiation analysts highlight the importance of moving past negotiating positions to probe the underlying interests that form the basis for negotiating preferences. See, for instance: Raiffa 1982.

  4. For a discussion of informal hierarchy, see: Pouliot 2011, 2016.

  5. Pouliot 2016.

  6. Carpenter 2011.

  7. Waltz 1979.

  8. Henke 2019.

  9. Duque 2018. Breen and Eilstrup-Sangiovanni 2023. Farrell and Newman 2019; Hafner-Burton and Montgomery 2006; Kinne 2014, 2018; Milewicz et al. 2016.

  10. Snidal et al. 2024.

  11. Mesquita 2024.

  12. Hampson with Hart 1995: 19.

  13. Kamau et al. 2018: 262.

  14. Pouliot 2016: 136–137.

  15. Long 2022: 41.

  16. See, for example: Kamau et al. 2018.

  17. Lijphart 1963.

  18. Manulak 2022; Falkner 2021.

  19. See, for instance, Greenhill and Lupu 2017.

  20. Roger and Rowan 2022.

  21. Maoz 2012.

  22. Kahler 2009: 12.

  23. This does not imply that degree centrality is not highly important. It most certainly is. It is also possible that a node can have both the highest degree and betweenness centrality within a given network. The emphasis on betweenness centrality, however, reflects the pivotal position that certain actors can occupy in multilateral settings. Such positions may also be more attainable for small states acting in relation to larger ones.

  24. Snidal et al. 2024.

  25. Mesquita 2024.

  26. This assumes that actors exchange information with equal probability and that such information flows along the shortest path (geodesic).

  27. Ferguson 2017: 46, 111.

  28. Goldberg et al. 2016.

  29. Kahler 2009: 11–12.

  30. Ferguson 2017; Manulak 2019, 2020.

  31. Manulak 2021; Slaughter 2017.

  32. Admittedly, this distinction is somewhat stylized. In practice, the line between the two blurs.

  33. For a discussion, see: Morin and Paquin 2018. For a discussion of institutional choices, within formal institutions, see Abbott and Snidal 1998.

  34. While some of the warmth of relations is circumstantial, it is also partly a deliberate decision to dedicate the time and effort to cultivating interpersonal ties.

  35. See, for instance: Carpenter 2011; Lake and Wong 2009; Slaughter 2017.

  36. Beardsley 2008.

  37. For a discussion of how employing a mediator can feature short versus longer term dynamics, see: Beardsley 2011.

  38. For Manuel Castells (2012: 8–9), actors who sit at the intersection of multiple networks are labelled “switchers.” For Avant and Westerwinter (2016), these are described as “multiplex” nodes.

  39. Neumann 2012; Manulak 2022.

  40. Kinne 2014: 249.

  41. MacMillan 2006.

  42. Goddard 2018: 768.

  43. Putnam 2000: 22–24.

  44. Freeman 1978/1979: 215–239; Hafner-Burton et al. 2009.

  45. Granovetter 1973.

  46. Burt 2004.

  47. Neumann 2012: 179.

  48. Ramo 2016.

  49. Manulak 2019.

  50. Sebenius 1983.

  51. Fletcher 2017: 17–18.

  52. Studies of institutional change, embracing a temporal dimension, suggest that states often do not respond rapidly to gradually accumulating incentives to alter institutions. See, for instance: Jupille et al. 2013; Manulak 2020, 2022.

  53. A similar approach is used in Long 2022.

  54. Long 2022. Snidal et al. 2024.

  55. Reid 1981: 24. For a detailed analysis of Indo-Canadian relations in this period, see Touhey 2015. For a general discussion of Canada's diplomacy in this period, see: Bothwell 2007.  

  56. DCER 1950, 1996a: 254.

  57. Acheson 1987: 334–335.

  58. FRUS 1951, 1983.

  59. Acheson 1954.

  60. Pearson 1993, 78.

  61. FRUS 1951, 1983, 20.

  62. Reid 1981, 3. Touhey 2015: 86.

  63. Menon 1965: 218.

  64. Chipman 1954: 9.

  65. Stairs 1974. Prince (1992/1993) challenges Stairs’ argument, pointing out the limits of Canada’s willingness and capacity to constrain U.S. policy.

  66. Pearson 1973: 293.

  67. Pearson 1973: 295.

  68. Nehru 1993: 468.

  69. Jebb 1972: 242. Yet, as Pearson (1973: 290–293) records in his diaries, Jebb and Frank opposed Attlee’s prime ministerial initiative. In his memoirs, Jebb (1972: 244) notes diplomatically, “We for our part were, however, rather less conscious of the difficulties in the way of better relations between the Americans and the Chinese…” The disconnect between Attlee and the current thinking in Washington is, furthermore, suggested in Acheson’s (1954: 478–481) recollections of Attlee’s December 1949 visit to Washington.

  70. DCER 1951, 1996b: 39.

  71. FRUS 1951, 1983: 54–55; FRUS 1951, 1983: 50–51; DCER 1951, 1996b: 1036.

  72. DCER 1951, 1996b: 1033.

  73. FRUS 1951, 1983: 57.

  74. For more on Canada’s Suez diplomacy, see: Donaghy 2016; Hillmer 2020.

  75. Reid 1986: 70–71.

  76. Kitchen 1996: 251.

  77. Robertson 1964: 188.

  78. Pearson 1973: 247.

  79. Pearson submitted and withdrew his name from the speaker’s list on several occasions before electing to wait until after the vote on the U.S.-led resolution had passed. Caroll 2009: 29.

  80. France and Israel were also, of course, involved, but largely followed the UK’s lead.

  81. DCER 1956–1957, 2001 : 251.

  82. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 218.

  83. FRUS 1956–1957, 1990: 1123–1125.

  84. Krasno 1990: 16, 18, 22.

  85. Reid 1986: 83.

  86. For an assessment, see: Carroll 2009: 28–29.

  87. Stursberg 1980: 146–147.

  88. Krasno 1990: 16 and 18.

  89. Reid 1986: 83.

  90. Reid 1989: 281.

  91. Donaghy 2016: 317.

  92. Holmes 1970: 2, 92.

  93. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 197–198.

  94. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 191.

  95. Lloyd 1978. Interestingly, Canada may have helped to introduce the concept into the British conversation at the bureaucratic level. See: Anderson 2015.

  96. Carroll 2009: 26.

  97. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 219–220.

  98. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 218.

  99. See, for example: FRUS 1956–1957, 1990: 865 and FRUS 1956–1957, 1990: 953–954.

  100. Stursberg 1980: 146–147. Carroll (2009: 31) observes that this move had to do with the timing benefits of having the U.S. already onside and not having to refer back to Washington for approval.

  101. See, for example: DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 199–200 and FRUS 1956–1957, 1990: 953–954.

  102. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 217–218.

  103. Touhey 2015, 79.

  104. DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 212–214.

  105. Krasno 1990: 23.

  106. Bowen 1984: 76.

  107. Krasno 1990: 16.

  108. For example, while expressing broad support for the UNEF proposal, the UK insisted that British and French forces should serve as a part of the UN force. Recognizing the difficulties that such a proposal would pose, Canada opposed participation of these forces. In orchestrating the UN General Assembly proposals surrounding the creation of UNEF, Canada was positioned to prevent British/French participation in the UN coalition it had helped to forge.

  109. Holmes 1970: 25.

  110. Waters 2003.

  111. Holmes 1970: 100.

  112. Gurry 1992/1993; Menzies 1967.

  113. Waters 2003.

  114. Kelly 2018.

  115. Waters 2003: 220.

  116. See, for example: Pouliot 2016: 238.

References

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why state act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acheson, D. (1954). Tribute to hume wrong: Qualities of goodness and integrity said to be outstanding. New York Times, pp 26

  • Acheson, D. (1987). Present at creation: My years in the state department. W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. (2015). The diplomat: Lester Pearson and the Suez crisis. Fredericton: Goose Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avant, D., & Westerwinter, O. (2016). The new power politics: Networks and transnational security governance. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, K. (2008). Agreement without Peace? International mediation and time inconsistency problems. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, K. (2011). The Mediation Dilemma. Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R. (2007). Alliance and illusion: Canada and the world, 1945–1984. UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, R. W. (1984). EH Norman: His life and scholarship. University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caroll, M. K. (2009). Pearson’s peacekeepers: Canada and the united nations emergency force, 1956-1967. UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. C. (2011). Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms. International Organization, 65(1):69–102.

  • Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope—social movements in the Internet Age. Wiley.

  • Chapnick, A. (2005). The middle power project: Canada and the founding of the united nations. UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, W. (1954). India’s foreign policy. Canadian Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (1996a). Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1950, Vol. 16. Government of Canada.

  • Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (1996b). Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1951, Vol. 17. Government of Canada.

  • Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (2001). Permanent Representative to United Nations to Secretary of State for External Affairs, 5 November 1956, Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1956–1957, Vol. 22. Government of Canada.

  • Donaghy, G. (2016). The politics of accommodation: Canada, the Middle East, and the Suez crisis, 1950–1956. International Journal, 71(2), 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duque, M. G. (2018). Recognizing international status: A relational approach. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 577–592.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Breen, L., Eilstrup-Sangiovanni,  M. (2023). Issue-adoption and campaign structure in transnational advocacy campaigns: A longitudinal network analysis. European Journal of International Relations, 1–31. Online first: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13540661231158553. Accessed 16 Feb 2024

  • Falkner, R. (2021). Environmentalism and global international society. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, N. (2017). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from freemasons to facebook. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, T. (2017). The naked diplomat: Understanding power and politics in the digital age. William Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1978/1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

  • Goddard, S. E. (2018). Embedded revisionism: Networks, institutions, and challenges to world order. International Organization, 72(3), 763–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A., Srivastava, S. B., GovindManian, V., Monroe, W., & Potts, C. (2016). Fitting in or standing out? The Tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. American Sociology Review, 81(6), 1190–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhill, B., & Lupu, Y. (2017). Fragmentation in the network of intergovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurry, M. (1992–1993). Leadership in bilateral relations: Menzies and Nehru, Australia and India, 1949–1964. Pacific Affairs, 65(4), 510–526.

  • Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, F. O. with Hart, M. (1995).Multilateral negotiations: Lessons from arms control, trade, and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Henke, M. E. (2019). Buying allies: Payment practices in multilateral coalition-building. International Security, 43(4), 128–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillmer, N. (2020). Investing peacekeeping: Anthony Eden, Lester Pearson and two police actions at Suez, 1956, draft paper.

  • Holmes, J. W. (1970). The better part of valour: Essays on Canadian diplomacy. McLelland & Stewart.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jebb, G. (1972). The memoirs of Lord Gladwyn. Weybright and Talley.

  • Jupille, J., Mattli, W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, M. (Ed.). (2009). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, M. (2017). Middle powers, network power, and soft power. In V. Cha & M. Dumond (Eds.), The Korean pivot: The study of South Korea as a global power (pp. 10–15). CSIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamau, M., Chasek, P., & O’Connor, D. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: The inside story of the sustainable development goals. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keating, T. (2013). Canada and world order: The multilateralist tradition in Canadian foreign policy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (2018). ANZUS and the early cold war: Strategy and diplomacy between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, 1945–1956. Open Book Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kinne, B. J. (2014). Dependent diplomacy: Signalling, strategy, and prestige in the diplomatic network. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinne, B. J. (2018). Defence cooperation agreements and the emergence of a global security network. International Organization, 72(4), 799–837.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, M. (1996). From the Korean war to Suez: Anglo-American-Canadian relations, 1950–1956. In B. J. C. McKercher & L. Aronsen (Eds.), The North Atlantic triangle in a changing world: Anglo-American-Canadian relations, 1902-1956. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasno, J., Interview with Arthur Lall. (1990). Dag Hammarskjold library, United Nations oral history project. p. 22. Krasno, Interview with Arthur Lall. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/478471?ln=en. Accessed 20 Feb 2020 

  • Lake, D. A., & Wong, W. H. (2009). The politics of networks: Interests, power, and human rights norms. In M. Kahler (Ed.), Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1963). The analysis of bloc voting in the general assembly: A critique and a proposal. American Political Science Review, 57(4), 902–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. (1978). Suez 1956: A personal account. Cape.

  • Long, T. (2022). A small state’s guide to influence in world politics. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, M. (2006). Nixon in China: The week that changed the world. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manulak, M. W. (2019). Why and how to succeed at network diplomacy. The Washington Quarterly, 42(1), 171–181.

  • Manulak, M. W. (2021). The networked diplomacy of informal international institutions: The case of the proliferation security initiative. Global Governance, 27(3), 410–432.

  • Manulak, M. W. (2020). A bird in the hand: Temporal focal points and change in international institutions. Review of International Organizations, 15(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manulak, M. W. (2022). Change in global environmental politics: Temporal focal points and the reform of international institutions. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. (2012). Preferential attachment, homophily, and the structure of international networks, 1816–2003. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 341–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, K. P. S. (1965). Many words: An autobiography. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzies, R. (1967). Afternoon light. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, R. (2024). The only living guerrillero in New York: Cuba and the brokerage power of a resilient revisionist state. Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09532-9

  • Milewicz, K., Hollway, J., Peacock, C., & Snidal, D. (2016). Beyond trade: The expanding scope of the nontrade agenda in trade agreements. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(4), 743–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, J.-F., & Paquin, J. (2018). Foreign policy analysis: A toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nehru, J. (1993). In: S. Gopal (Ed.), Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, volume 15, Part II. Oxford University Press.

  • Neumann, I. B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: Inside a European foreign ministry. Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, L. B. (1973). The memoirs of the right honourable Lester B. Pearson, Vol. 2: 1948-1957. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, G. A. H. (1993). Seize the day: Lester B. Pearson and Crisis Diplomacy. Carleton University Press, 1993.

  • Pouliot, V. (2011). Diplomats as permanent representatives: The practical logics of the multilateral pecking order. International Journal, 66(3), 543–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2016). International pecking orders: The politics and practice of multilateral diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, R. S. (1992–1993). The limits of constraint: Canadian-American relations and the Korean war, 1950–51. Journal of Canadian Studies, 27(4), 129–152.

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, Howard. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramo, J. C. (2016). The seventh sense: Power, fortune, and survival in the age of networks. Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. (1981). Envoy to Nehru. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. (1986). Hungary and Suez 1956: A view from New Delhi. Mosaic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E., & Mandarin, R. (1989). The memoirs of Escott Reid. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. (1964). Crisis: The inside story of the Suez Conspiracy. McClelland and Stewart.

  • Roger, C., & Rowan, S. (2022). The new terrain of global governance: Mapping membership in informal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(6), 1248–1269.

  • Sebenius, J. K. (1983). Negotiation arithmetic: Adding and subtracting issues and parties. International Organization, 37(2), 281–316.

  • Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, D., Hale, T., Jones, E., et al. (2024). The power of the “weak” and international organizations. Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09531-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stairs, D. (1974). The diplomacy of constraint. University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stursberg, P. (1980). Lester Pearson and the American Dilemma. Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touhey, R. (2015). Canada and India in the cold war world, 1946–76. UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of State. (1976). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Vol. VII, Korea. Government Printing Office.

  • United States Department of State. (1983). Foreign relations of the United States, 1951, Vol. VII, Korea and China (Part 1). Government Printing Office.

  • United States Department of State. (1990). Foreign relations of the United States, 1956–1957, Suez crisis. Government Printing Office.

  • Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. (2003). Diplomacy in easy chairs: Casey, Pearson, and Australian-Canadian relations, 1951–7. In M. MacMillan & F. McKenzie (Eds.), Partners long estranged: Canada and Australia in the twentieth century (pp. 207–228). UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jessica Becker, Elissa Golberg, Norman Hillmer, Miles Kahler, Margaret MacMillan, Claas Mertens, Rafael Mesquita, Daniel Nexon, Daniel Nielson, Kim Richard Nossal, Leigh Sarty, Kristopher Ramsay, Duncan Snidal, and three anonymous reviewers, for helpful feedback and comments. I am grateful to the editors of this Special Issue for their help in strengthening this article and for organizing the Issue. Previous versions of this paper were presented at conferences of the American Political Science Association, the Canadian Political Science Association, International Studies Association, and the Political Economy of International Organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Michael W. Manulak

Authors
  1. Michael W. Manulak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael W. Manulak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest or competing interest to report.

Additional information

Responsible editors: Claas Mertens & Duncan Snidal

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manulak, M.W. The sources of influence in multilateral diplomacy: Replaceability and intergovernmental networks in international organizations. Rev Int Organ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09536-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09536-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation