When do regional organisations shame? Non-Western responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Why do some regional organisations shame violators of international norms while others stay silent? I address this question by examining how non-Western regional organisations responded to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Unlike Western regional organisations, non-Western regional organisations did not cohesively condemn Russia’s violation of the territorial integrity norm. Only six non-Western regional organisations shamed Russia, while most remained neutral. Using qualitative comparative analysis, I investigate the determinants of this variation by integrating state-level factors (democratic density and material dependence on Russia) with organisational factors (voting rules and presence of BRICS regional powers). The analysis reveals three key findings: First, democratic density was critical – all regional organisations that shamed Russia had medium-to-high democratic density, whereas those with low democratic density did not. Second, majority voting rules enabled democratic members to overcome opposition from minorities aligned with Russia or dependent on its agricultural exports. Third, even without majority voting, the absence of BRICS regional powers and low dependence on Russian agriculture facilitated shaming. These findings advance the international organisation shaming literature by demonstrating how democratic density, institutional design, power asymmetries, and material dependencies interact to shape regional organisation responses to norm violations. They also contribute to debates over Global South positioning amid growing international norm contestation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481261420603
Primary Topic
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When do regional organisations shame? Non-Western responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Giovanni Agostinis
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
article

When do regional organisations shame? Non-Western responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Giovanni Agostinis
article en

Abstract

Why do some regional organisations shame violators of international norms while others stay silent? I address this question by examining how non-Western regional organisations responded to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Unlike Western regional organisations, non-Western regional organisations did not cohesively condemn Russia’s violation of the territorial integrity norm. Only six non-Western regional organisations shamed Russia, while most remained neutral. Using qualitative comparative analysis, I investigate the determinants of this variation by integrating state-level factors (democratic density and material dependence on Russia) with organisational factors (voting rules and presence of BRICS regional powers). The analysis reveals three key findings: First, democratic density was critical – all regional organisations that shamed Russia had medium-to-high democratic density, whereas those with low democratic density did not. Second, majority voting rules enabled democratic members to overcome opposition from minorities aligned with Russia or dependent on its agricultural exports. Third, even without majority voting, the absence of BRICS regional powers and low dependence on Russian agriculture facilitated shaming. These findings advance the international organisation shaming literature by demonstrating how democratic density, institutional design, power asymmetries, and material dependencies interact to shape regional organisation responses to norm violations. They also contribute to debates over Global South positioning amid growing international norm contestation.

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
University of Bologna (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.