North/South - A Conflict that Did not Exist?

Project lead: Assoz.Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria Muschik, B.A. M.A.
Project staff: Laura Marina Fuchs, BA BA | Franz Paul Kroiß, BeD | Sophie Erschen, B.A. 
Project lifetime: November 2025 – October 2026
Website: t.b.p.
Funded by: Austrian Science Fund (FWF), 10.55776/ TAI 3370825 

From the 1960s onwards, the terms “North” and “South” have been used for discussing global relations. They continue to be highly influential today. Historians have linked the emergence of these terms to a “North-South conflict”, which reached its peak in the 1970s. This conflict pitted self-described “developing countries” that organized within the “Group of 77” at the United Nations (UN) against wealthy “Western” states. The collective goal of “Global South” countries was to overcome global inequalities. Some scholars argue that this conflict was, and still is, a defining issue of international relations. Others, however, have suggested that there was no such “North-South conflict”, merely the expectation of one. The conflict never really materialized, so the argument goes, because both supposed groups of states – “North” and “South” – were too divided. They did not, in fact, rally around common political and economic interests. This “1000 Ideas”-project sets out to explore the precise contours of the “North-South conflict” in past and present.

This project asks: In what time periods and in relation to what issues have countries of the “Global South” (the “Group of 77”) pursued a common cause within the UN? Using quantitative methods, the project will investigate past voting behavior and co-sponsorship of proposals at the UN General Assembly – the so-called “parliament of the world”, where all member states are represented. This will allow us to explore which states within the broad categories of “North” and “South” made common cause on certain issues – in particular with regard to economic concerns – and how this might have changed over time. Such basic, digital humanities research at the intersection of history and international relations will provide a crucial starting point for follow-up in-depth studies on specific shared interests and alliances. It will also allow us to explore disconnections among various groups of states. Providing evidence of the feasibility and value of quantitative historical research of this sort will moreover allow us to pave the way for similar studies that would allow humanities researchers to easily explore state behavior at the UN. Such studies – in combination with more conventional qualitative historical research methods – could yield new insights for any number of topics in contemporary international and global history.