2024 UNGA Country
Alignment Index Report
Overall Global Alignment Rank (2024)
Dark green represents the highest rank
of countries saw their alignment fall in 2024
Nearly half of UN member states recorded a drop in their support of dominant positions compared to 2023, a sharp rise from the 30% that saw declines the year before.
A clear global shift towards greater fragmentation.
Complete Country Rankings
View the full ranking of all 191 countries in the 2024 UNGA Alignment Index
Key Findings
Four critical insights from the 2024 UNGA Country Alignment Index
UNGA Resolutions
Nearly 28% required a vote.
In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted 342 resolutions and decisions. While most were passed by consensus, 95 resolutions required a formal vote, the most since 2020.
Global Consensus
80% average resolution support.
Despite heightened polarization, the UNGA maintained broad agreement in 2024: no resolution failed, and 60 countries refrained from casting a single "No" vote, underscoring the resilience of multilateralism.
Arms Limitations
A large drop in votes in support.
Thematic alignment on arms limitations saw a significant decline in 2024. This concerning trend reflects growing disagreements among member states regarding disarmament initiatives and arms control measures.
Argentina
A 170-rank drop in internal alignment.
Under its new president, Javier Milei, Argentina executed the most dramatic policy reversal of any UN member, plummeting 170 ranks in internal consistency. After not casting a single "No" vote for over a decade, the country voted against 38 resolutions in 2024, signaling a radical foreign policy shift.
Executive Summary
The 2024 UNGA Country Alignment Index reveals a world splintering under renewed geopolitical pressure. Regions across the Global South strengthened their cohesion and supported resolutions more often, while many Western states found themselves in the minority, frequently abstaining or opposing.
African and Asian countries in particular displayed strong bloc discipline, reinforcing the collective weight of the Global South. Yet Gaza-related resolutions fractured long-standing consensus on humanitarian protection and international law, driving the sharpest thematic decline of the year.
Regionally, average cohesion remained stable, with Northern Africa strengthening and parts of Sub-Saharan and Eastern Asia converging, while Latin America and Oceania weakened. Politics mattered: Argentina underwent the year's most dramatic reversal, breaking from regional peers and global majorities, while Guatemala and Vanuatu climbed by aligning more consistently with broad humanitarian and "system" majorities.
The team at 3DL has worked hard to ensure that the diplomatic behavior of UN Member States is transparent, measurable, and accessible to all for independent analysis. We hope you find this report useful and informative.
Hugo Zlotowski
Founder & Director of 3DL
About the Country Alignment Index
The Country Alignment Index is built on the premise that diplomatic behavior can and should be objectively measured through observed voting patterns in multilateral institutions, specifically the United Nations.
Three Complementary Pillars
This framework conceptualizes alignment as a behavioral metric that captures the degree to which states agree or diverge from various reference points in their voting behavior. It is centered around three complementary pillars, focused on macro, meso and micro levels.
A behavioral index measuring how UN Member States align across three key dimensions: internal consistency, regional alignment, and global consensus. Filter by economic groups and track ranking changes over time.
Internal Alignment
Is a country consistent in its voting habits across time and topics?
This dimension measures the consistency and stability of a state's policy choices.
Insight: High internal alignment suggests policy continuity; low internal alignment indicates shifts in foreign policy orientation or strategic repositioning.
Regional Alignment
How does a country vote in relation to its regional peers?
This dimension measures the degree to which a country aligns with the collective voting behavior of its regional bloc.
Insight: High regional alignment indicates bloc cohesion; low regional alignment suggests divergence from regional consensus.
Global Alignment
How does a country vote in relation to the world?
Global alignment captures the extent to which a state supports or opposes dominant positions in the international system.
Insight: High global alignment suggests alignment with dominant international consensus; low global alignment indicates independent or oppositional positions.
The Index as a Composite Signal
The Alignment Index is not a static measure of foreign policy identity, but rather the product of three interacting factors:
Domestic Political Changes
Elections, reforms, coups, or shifts in party discipline can directly affect how consistently a state casts its votes at the UN.
Foreign Policy Choices
Some governments deliberately pursue strategies of prudence, transactionalism, or principled distance shaped by geopolitical calculations.
Issue-mix at the UNGA
Each year, the prominence of certain topics (e.g., Gaza ceasefire, Ukraine, disarmament) can amplify alignment or divergence, especially when a state is directly targeted.
Alignment Definition
Alignment reflects the extent to which a state supports, opposes, or distances itself from prevailing positions within the international community, a regional bloc, or its own historical behavior.
About the UNGA
The United Nations were established in 1945 in the aftermath of WWII, with the intention to promote peaceful international relations. The 51 founding nations formed a covenant known as the UN Charter
Four Guiding Purposes of the UN Charter
To maintain international peace and security
To develop friendly relations among nations
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to those ends
Why the UNGA Matters
Universality
The world's only political forum that includes all sovereign states, each with equal voting power (if they pay their dues)
The General Assembly
At the centre of the UN's architecture is the General Assembly (GA), a unique deliberative body where all Member states are represented equally, each with one vote.
The GA plays a crucial role as a forum of world politics, but also in the UN's own functioning as well; it is responsible for electing the Secretary-General (upon recommendation from the Security Council), elects the non-permanent members of the Security Council, and also approves the UN's budget.
The assembly embodies the evolution of the diplomatic zeitgeist over the years, and serves as a barometer of global consensus on key issues.
A resolution is a formal text, a collective political expression of the international community. It can express support or condemnation, define common ambitions (SDGs etc.), establish mandates for subsidiary UN bodies. In the UNGA, resolutions usually take the form of recommendations without an enforcement mechanism.
Adoption Process
Yearly trends - Voting patterns and ranges
In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted 342 resolutions and decisions. Most were adopted by consensus, while 95 were put to a vote.
Political Alignment 2019-2024
Overall Voting Record
95 UNGA Resolutions in 2024
Countries Never Voted "No"
In 2024, 60 countries refrained from ever voting no.
Perfect Record
Cabo Verde
Only voted YES in 2024
Yearly trends - Top moves
Deep dives into the countries that experienced the most significant shifts in their UN voting alignment during 2024.
Largest Drop
Argentina
-170 Internal Alignment
Largest Rise
Vanuatu
+73 Global Alignment
Second Biggest Rise
Guatemala
+62 Global Alignment
Largest alignment drop in 2024:
Analysis
Libertarian economist Javier Milei was elected to the presidency of Argentina in late 2023, and moved rapidly to enact radical policy changes in domestic and international affairs.
In his first address to the UN General Assembly in September 2024, President Javier Milei accused the United Nations of overstepping its role as a forum for dialogue and promoting a normative agenda on sovereign states — particularly through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Framing his stance around individual liberty and national sovereignty, Milei signaled a shift in Argentina's international posture.
Argentina has voted against highly consensual resolutions, such as those calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and has mostly aligned with Israel on this topic – even when most of Latin America and the global community converged in favor. Argentina exemplified this radical ideological shift by being the only member-state voting against the draft resolution on eliminating digital violence against women and girls (but voting in favor of final resolution) - stating the defense of free speech as justification for this controversial stance.
Argentina stands out as the country recording the largest drop in internal alignment in 2024. In other words, of all UN member states, Argentina operated the most dramatic policy reversal compared to the previous year, and shifted its voting stance on a significant number of resolutions across various topics. This is the largest single-year drop in the history of UNGA voting for a country.
Overall, Argentina's decline across all pillars, Global, Regional and Internal, suggests a major recalibration of its foreign policy. Diplomatic posture is adjusted to align with a new set of priorities, and international/regional partners. It is likely Argentina will continue aligning more closely with the US.
"From this day on, know that the Argentine Republic will abandon the position of historical neutrality that characterized us and will be at the forefront of the struggle in defense of freedom."— Javier Milei, Argentinian President
Voting Pattern
In 2024, Argentina voted No a total of 38 times. This is significant, as an Argentinian delegation had not cast a single no vote since 2013.
Ranking Evolution
Voting Topics
The following topics show the most significant changes in Argentina's voting behavior between 2023 and 2024, measured by the percentage of "Yes" votes cast on resolutions within each topic area.
How to read: Numbers show the percentage of "Yes" votes on each topic. Changes represent how this percentage evolved from 2023 to 2024. For example, 0% → 100% (+100) means the country went from never voting "Yes" to always voting "Yes" on that topic.
Top Movers Summary
Guatemala and Argentina case studies are emblematic of political dynamics in southern-America, where political alternance is often sharp, and policy changes are enacted swiftly as governments alternate between right and left-wing ideologies. In these two cases, we see radical evolution in both directions, meaning an increase or decrease in alignment, in the first year of a Presidential term. By contrast, Vanuatu's swing illustrates a different logic: rather than a change of government, its alignment shift stemmed from modifying its pattern of selective abstentions on Middle East questions, with its broader profile remaining that of a consistently pro-multilateral Pacific island state.
The Top 10 countries are largely from the Global South and tend to be less geopolitically exposed. These states may perceive themselves as more protected by international law and multilateral frameworks, and thus have fewer incentives to challenge the global consensus. By contrast, stronger powers often feel constrained by these same rules, and are therefore more inclined to oppose them.
It is noteworthy that among the Bottom 10 countries, four are nuclear powers. Their consistently low scores reflect frequent opposition to the global majority, particularly on sensitive Security and Human Rights issues such as Gaza or Ukraine. Most of the 10 are western states.
Paradoxically, this means that the so-called "non-aligned movement" states are the most aligned with UNGA outcomes, whereas great powers distance themselves from consensus.
Overall, the landscape can be understood as consisting of three broad coalitions:
The US/Israel bloc, often isolated in opposition;
Russia and its close allies, resisting resolutions from the other pole;
The majority of states, which align broadly with international consensus and support multilateralism. (a third of states did not even vote no in 2024)
These coalitions are not fixed, and may switch depending on the issue at hand, and the strategic interest of member states. However, they reflect general trends in the voting patterns of the UNGA.
Yearly trends - Pillar trends
Analysis of internal alignment changes across our three pillars, examining both country-level shifts and external geopolitical drivers influencing global voting patterns.
P1 Trends - Internal Alignment
The world average internal alignment increased slightly in 2024, up from 76.5 in 2023 to 78.3 in 2024. That is, countries have been regaining consistency in their voting behavior, after a collapse of the world average in 2020 and 2021. To understand dynamics in global alignment shifts, we examine country-level drivers of change, as well as external drivers (e.g., geopolitical events).
+1.8 points increase in world average internal alignment (76.5 → 78.3)
Country Level Shifts
Broadly, there are 3 main reasons for sharp changes in internal alignment between 2023 and 2024:
Change of Leadership
Elections and changes in leadership, especially sharp political shifts (for example, from left to right), are likely to trigger important shifts in internal consistency. Given the prominent space occupied by Israel-related resolutions, a change in view on this topic tends to move the needle strongly. This is the case for Argentina, which shifted to right-leaning leadership between 2023 and 2024 and decided to start voting in a more pro-Israel manner, departing from their left-leaning predecessors; its internal-alignment score dropped from 93.4 to 23.1. By contrast, Ghana and Nicaragua saw modest gains (~9–10 points) as stable leadership kept their positions aligned with regional partners.
Spotty Voting
Some countries have struggled to maintain consistent representation at the UN or articulate clear positions on key issues, reflecting a lack of cohesive diplomatic strategy. For example, Fiji reduced its non-votes by 66 between 2023 and 2024, enabling the country to display a steadier position on a number of topics and increase their score by 2%.
Switch of Alliance
Alliances play a role in how countries may vote at the UN. In other sections of this report we explore how some countries may exert pressure or reward alignment on issues that are important to them. For example, China has practiced "chequebook diplomacy" with multiple small island nations, the votes of which can be influenced due to their small size and China's bargaining power. Tonga's tilt toward Beijing coincided with its internal alignment dropping from 51.8 to 23.0. Paraguay's shift in diplomatic recognition contributed to a ~31-point decline. On the other side of the ledger, the Central African Republic gained about 9 points as it embraced a closer relationship with Russia.
External Drivers
Shifts in internal alignment across voting themes reveal how countries adjust their positions in response to unfolding geopolitical events. For instance, between 2023 and 2024, the situation in the Gaza Strip underwent dramatic changes.
Negative Shifts
Despite the overall increase in global alignment, several themes experienced notable declines between 2023 and 2024. Rather than isolated disagreements, these drops point to broader geopolitical rifts. Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Israel launched raids and a ground invasion of Gaza, punctuated by brief ceasefires through the end of the year. In 2024, the intensity and duration of the conflict significantly escalated, deepening the humanitarian crisis. These developments influenced UN voting patterns, with resolutions traditionally commanding broad consensus such as aid and humanitarian relief facing increased opposition and abstention. This is reflected in the theme with the steepest alignment drop: "Arms Limitations" (down about 17%).
Positive Shifts
Some notable points of greater agreement were "Disarmament and military questions," "Political and legal questions," and "Maintenance of peace and security," where cross-regional majorities grew. "Discrimination" posted the biggest gain (+6.2 points), suggesting growing consensus around anti-racism and gender-equality measures. Generally these topics are broadly agreed upon and sometimes passed without a vote, as many are non-binding and therefore offer little incentive to oppose.
P2 Trends - Regional Alignment
Overall, regional alignment inched upward in 2024, moving from an average score of 90.6 in 2023 to 90.8 in 2024. While the regional-level changes are modest, the averages conceal sharper movements at the country level, where individual states diverged or converged strongly with their blocs.
+0.2 points increase in regional alignment (90.6 → 90.8)
Regional Scores
Some regions are structurally diverse and prone to lower cohesion. Eastern Asia groups China, Japan, and the Koreas; Western Asia stretches from the Gulf to the Caucasus and the Near East; and Oceania blends Australia and New Zealand with a large set of island states. In such cases, year-to-year movement offers a clearer signal than static scores.
Significant Shifts (±1.5+)
Latin America & Caribbean
-2.693.8 → 91.2
Driven above all by Argentina's dramatic break from regional consensus. The country aligned more consistently with the United States and Israel, even opposing a resolution on ending violence against women, and in doing so pulled the regional average downward.
Oceania
-1.884.2 → 82.4
Declined, confirming its volatility. Australia and New Zealand continue to align closely with the United States, leaving them at odds with many Pacific island states. Fiji, meanwhile, broke with several of its peers on Gaza-related votes, reinforcing the downward trend.
Eastern Asia
+1.878.7 → 80.5
Rose, reducing fragmentation despite structural differences among its largest members.
Sub-Saharan Africa
+1.792.1 → 93.8
Reflecting bloc cohesion on humanitarian issues and steadier participation by several members. The Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Libya all posted significant improvements, helping to lift the region's overall score.
Moderate Movements (±1.0 to ±1.4)
Western Asia
+1.479.6 → 81.0
GCC members clustered together on humanitarian and Palestine-related votes. Yet persistent outliers shape the picture: Israel continues to diverge from regional peers by aligning with Washington, while countries closer to conflict zones have shown less cohesion.
Northern Africa
+1.094.6 → 95.6
States aligned strongly on Gaza-related humanitarian resolutions in December 2023 and May 2024. Egypt and Algeria reinforced this cohesion, while Libya's steadier attendance produced one of the most notable national gains.
Eastern Europe
-0.585.4 → 84.9
Russia and Belarus remain detached from EU-leaning peers such as Romania, Czechia, and Poland, while Hungary has edged closer to Moscow's positions, widening the bloc's internal divides.
Broadly Stable Regions (Less than ±1.0)
Western Europe
92.4 → 92.9 (+0.5)
Northern Europe
94.8 → 94.3 (-0.5)
Southern Asia
90.9 → 91.2 (+0.3)
Southern Europe
93.3 → 93.2 (-0.1)
South-eastern Asia
94.7 → 95.7 (+1.0)
Central Asia
96.8 → 98.3 (+1.5)
P3 Trends - Global Alignment
Pillar 3 tracks how often a country votes with the world's majority, and whether its overall mix of Yes, No, and Abstain looks like the world's mix. In 2024 two clusters of votes drove most of the movement.
First, Gaza-related resolutions on ceasefire, protection of civilians, aid access, and support to UNRWA. Second, systematic votes that historically draw a large share of consensus on security, dispute settlement, and peace and security, where cross-regional majorities grew larger than in 2023.
Countries that joined the bigger majorities on those system files and also voted Yes with the world on the Gaza humanitarian texts moved up. Countries that stood apart on Gaza, or that sat out the large security majorities, went down.
Voting Dynamics: Gaza vs System Files
Gaza-Related Divisions
The sharpest fall in global alignment sits around Gaza. Scores dropped on humanitarian-aid and relief resolutions and on questions related to Palestinian refugees. These are the texts that asked for ceasefire, civilian protection, unhindered aid, or support to UNRWA. Most countries voted Yes. Those that voted No or abstained moved away from the global center.
There were also value-heavy areas that fractured beyond Gaza. "Democracy" and "Equality" slid significantly, which fits the broader culture and sovereignty fights seen in recent sessions.
System Files Convergence
At the same time, a different group of themes pulled the world together, in line with historical patterns. Alignment rose on "International security," "Dispute settlement," "Maintenance of peace and security," "Diplomacy," and several legal and technical items such as "Treaties," "Outer space," and "Trade-related finance."
In 2024 more states converged on Yes for these system and rules-of-the-road texts. Countries that joined those larger majorities gained points even if they were cautious elsewhere.
Against that backdrop, a handful of country moves do most of the work:
Major Gains in Global Alignment
South Sudan rose by more than 30 points, reflecting near-total participation and voting Yes on humanitarian and system files. Marshall Islands climbed 14.3 points, joining the broad majorities on both. Mali, Syria, Canada, Guatemala, and Saudi Arabia each gained between 7 and 10 points by backing Gaza humanitarian texts and systemic resolutions.
The United States rose from 9.8 to 16.2. It still sits far from the global middle because it often voted No on Gaza humanitarian texts where most of the world voted Yes. The gain came from joining more of the larger majorities on security and procedural items and on a few contentious resolutions it shifted from No to Abstain.
China's score ticked up slightly, as Beijing generally joined the humanitarian majorities on Gaza; the modest increase masks caution elsewhere, including on responsible-behavior proposals in outer space and some arms-control texts. Russia, by contrast with 2023, joined more of the larger majorities on peace-and-security and procedure, improving by roughly seven points, though it remains isolated on Ukraine accountability.
Major Declines in Global Alignment
Argentina fell precipitously, from 92.0 to 40.0. Its new government opposed or abstained on Gaza humanitarian texts and sided with a small minority on several controversial votes. Paraguay and Fiji each fell by around 10–16 points for similar reasons. Countries like Liberia, Panama and Ecuador slipped after missing more votes or abstaining on popular resolutions. Even smaller declines, such as India's two-point drop, often trace back to abstentions on core Gaza votes that carried very broad Yes majorities.
Several Central and Eastern European members lost between 5 and 10 points. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, and the Baltic states often abstained on Gaza humanitarian resolutions that passed by large margins, while staying very firm on Ukraine accountability where parts of the wider membership softened or moved to abstain. Hungary's seven-point fall reflects the same pattern, with more abstentions on Gaza and occasional votes that placed it closer to Russia than most EU states.
The Gulf split shows how Gaza and system files can push scores in opposite directions. Saudi Arabia rose sharply into the low 80s by voting Yes on the main Gaza humanitarian texts and by joining more of the larger security majorities than in 2023. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain moved down after more abstentions on Gaza and more distance on several legal or security resolutions.
In the Pacific, Fiji and Tonga fell by about 5–12 points, while the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu rose. The difference tracks the same two pressure points. Those that voted Yes with the global majority on Gaza and joined the larger 2024 majorities on consensual themes improved. Those that opposed or abstained on Gaza, or sat out more of the security and institutional votes, fell.
Conclusion: Dual Pressure Points
In conclusion, 2024 rewarded countries that aligned with broad humanitarian majorities on Gaza and that also joined the bigger coalitions on security, legal, and procedural business. It penalized countries that stood apart on Gaza or resisted tighter standards on rules and security. The theme shifts explain the country moves, and the country moves in turn make clear where the global center of gravity hardened and where it split.
2024 Rewarded Countries That:
- ✓Aligned with broad humanitarian majorities on Gaza
- ✓Joined bigger coalitions on security, legal, and procedural business
- ✓Maintained consistent participation in UN voting
2024 Penalized Countries That:
- ✗Stood apart on Gaza humanitarian resolutions
- ✗Resisted tighter standards on rules and security
- ✗Sat out major security and institutional votes
Global alignment score by regions
Regional performance analysis revealing the persistent North-South divide in UN General Assembly voting patterns and bloc cohesion dynamics.
Regional Performance Overview
In 2024, four regions declined while ten improved. The lowest performers remain concentrated in the West — North America, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, and Western Europe — whereas the highest scores were recorded in South-eastern Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central Asia.
These results confirm the North-South divide: Global South regions vote "Yes" more frequently, while Western states are often in the minority, either abstaining or opposing. African and Asian regions consistently post very high averages > 90, underscoring the strength of bloc cohesion in the Global South as a whole.
African & Asian regions consistently score >90, while Western regions show lower alignment
Regional Movements & Driving Forces
Among the movers, North America registered the sharpest increase (+7.68), due to Canadian and American scores climbing, while Latin America and the Caribbean fell the most (-2.87), a decline largely driven by Argentina's sharp departure from its historic voting patterns and large use of NO votes.
Together, these dynamics offer a clear visualization of the enduring North–South divide in the UN General Assembly.
North America: +7.68 points
Latin America & Caribbean: -2.87 points
Case Study: Argentina's Impact on Latin America
The Latin America and Caribbean region's decline of -2.87 points was largely driven by Argentina's dramatic shift in voting behavior following political changes.
Historic Pattern
Argentina traditionally aligned with regional consensus and Global South positions
2024 Shift
Sharp departure with increased use of NO votes, breaking from historic voting patterns
Regional Impact
Single country's change significantly affected entire regional average
Enduring Patterns & Future Implications
The 2024 regional alignment data provides a clear visualization of the enduring North–South divide in the UN General Assembly, highlighting fundamental differences in multilateral approach and global governance perspectives.
Key Takeaways
- •Global South maintains exceptional bloc cohesion (>90 average)
- •Western regions consistently show lower global alignment
- •Individual country shifts can significantly impact regional averages
Implications
- •Regional bloc voting remains a dominant force in UN decision-making
- •Political transitions can reshape regional dynamics
- •North-South divide continues to define global governance patterns
Spotlights
Deep-dive analysis into key geopolitical issues that dominated the 2024 UN General Assembly agenda and their voting patterns.
Gaza Conflict & UN Response
In 2024, the focus of the international community remained on the war in Gaza. With the Security Council deadlocked by repeated vetoes, the UN General Assembly quickly rallied broad support for resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access.
The UNGA also reiterated prior calls for full UN membership to Palestine in A/RES/ES-10/23, which were vetoed by the United States in the Security Council. The UNGA nonetheless voted to extend new rights to the observer State of Palestine.
The State of Palestine now sits among member-states, seated alphabetically, rather than as an observer at the back (though legally still an observer). Furthermore, it now has the right to submit proposals and amendments, and benefits from other procedural privileges. It now holds full and effective participation in the UNGA proceedings, but still falls short of being able to cast a vote on the Assembly floor.
On the matter of Palestine, the UNGA clearly affirmed its symbolic role as the voice of the global majority and a barometer of international sentiment.
Patterns of agreement, islands of dissent
K-means clusters of UN General Assembly voting patterns in 2024
Papua New Guinea's Opposition Pattern
Papua New Guinea stands out as the lead opponent to Israel-related resolutions. This may be due to several factors of ideological, economic and strategic nature.
The first is ideological: Evangelical christian beliefs hold sway in Papuan society, and support for Israel is often framed in religious terms. Furthermore, Papua New Guinea is a recipient of Israeli development aid and assistance programs, which may inform their bilateral relations.
In strategic terms, Papua New Guinea has little stakes in the Middle East. However the United States, its "patron" in military and economic terms, has a vested interest in the region. Diplomatic support here may be an opportunity to strengthen ties with partners such as Israel and the US, at little personal cost.
Further research is encouraged to explain the mechanisms influencing the behavior of Papua New Guinea and other states on this topic.
This pattern of aligning against a widely supported position in the UNGA, despite having little direct stake in the issue, is clearly illustrated by UNGA Resolution ES-10/26.
Countries voting against Israel-related resolutions
A/RES/ES-10/26 - Demand for ceasefire in Gaza
Calls for ceasefire from all parties in Gaza war
Vote Breakdown
Global Consensus Despite Opposition
Despite disciplined opposition from a small group of states, the issue of Israel/Palestine continues to draw significant consensus in the international community.
An explanation for this is the largely symbolic nature of the issue, and the low level of strategic implications for external actors.
This resolution calls for a ceasefire from all parties in the Gaza war, and reiterates UNGA calls for upholding international law. The resolution falls short of issuing a condemnation of either party, likely in an attempt to gather a large consensus.
None of the member-states voting against the resolution are regional actors, nor are they strategically implicated, with the exception of Israel and the United States.
Israeli Isolationism
In 2024, Israel ranked as the least aligned state both globally and regionally, continuing the pattern observed in previous years. For decades, Israel has consistently occupied the bottom tier of global alignment measures.
Its isolation is especially pronounced in regional dynamics, where since the 1970s it has stood out as the least regionally aligned country worldwide.
Global Consensus
How does a country vote relative to the world?
Captures support or opposition to dominant international consensus
Regional Alignment
How does a country vote relative to regional peers?
Evaluates alignment with regional bloc voting patterns and priorities
Unique Opposition
Notably, Israel stood out as being the only country opposing two resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones: A/RES/79/16 and A/RES/79/241.
Conclusion
Geopolitical Implications & Key Insights from 2024 UN General Assembly Voting Patterns
UNGA, the body of Consensus
The UNGA remains a consensus-driven body: In 2024 the UNGA adopted 342 resolutions and decisions; most passed by consensus, and none failed. Of the 95 that went to a roll-call vote, average support still hovered near 80%.
Political alternance as a major driver
Shifts in alignment, positive or negative, are heavily linked to changes in government. Argentina's reversal (including 38 "No" votes after a decade without one) and Guatemala's rise (with 0 "No" votes) exemplify how alternance can flip UNGA positions within a single session.
Power Asymmetries and Dependency
2024 patterns reinforce that structural dependencies (export markets, security umbrellas, and aid) shape vote choice. For smaller or resource-dependent states, these ties often outweighed normative preferences, especially on Gaza-related and system files highlighted in this year's votes.
Patterns of opposition
Most members continued to signal distance via abstention rather than outright "No." In 2024, 62 countries never voted No at all. Frequent No-voting clustered among a few states.
62 countries never voted "No" in 2024, preferring abstention to signal distance
Argentina this year, and countries directly targeted by resolutions such as Russia and Israel, including occasional solitary "No" positions that underscored outlier status against overwhelming majorities.
At times, such states vote in complete isolation, as the sole country opposing a resolution, which highlights their divergence from the overwhelming global majority and may signal a role as a challenger to prevailing multilateral norms.
Polarization
The 2024 rankings preserved entrenched blocs: the United States and Israel among the least aligned, Russia and close partners similarly low, while much of the Global South and non-aligned states clustered above the global average.
Regionally, cohesion diverged: Northern Africa tightened on humanitarian texts, while Latin America & the Caribbean posted the steepest cohesion drop (≈–3%), driven in part by Argentina's break with peers.
China's Prudent Voting vs NATO isolation
In 2024 China again led the P5 (Permanent members of Security Council) on alignment, ranking near the UNGA midpoint (#118, score 77.19) while the other four permanent members clustered in the bottom twelve (all <60). Beijing's approach was cautious: it joined large humanitarian majorities when these aligned with its interests, but diverged on select strategic files such as disarmament and outer-space governance.
The effect was a low-cost, low-isolation posture, positioning China as a disciplined leader of the Global South while distancing itself from other nuclear states whose reputations are tied to disruption.
By contrast, NATO members concentrated near the bottom of the 2024 ranking, reflecting sustained polarization on Gaza-related and legal-security texts. The bloc's top performer was Türkiye (#126), followed by Slovenia (#142), with most others falling below #170. The pattern underscores NATO's durable distance from UNGA majorities on the year's most salient roll-call items, in sharp relief to China's mid-table positioning.
UNGA Member-states Alignment on P5 members (2024)
69.9%
130 countries had China as the P5 member most aligned with their voting patterns
P5 Alignment Rankings (2024)
NATO Performance
Most members: Below #170
Palestine Overrepresentation
The Palestine question exerts an outsized influence on UNGA voting dynamics, playing a determining role in how states rank within alignment indices. Because of the frequency and politicization of these resolutions, a country's overall position can hinge disproportionately on its stance toward Israel-Palestine.
One of the first crises assigned to the UN, the topic still fails to draw consensus. Its voting patterns reflect broader North-South divides of the General Assembly.
Isolationism
The index does an effective job at detecting and quantifying isolation diplomatic stances in the UNGA. Member-states scoring below 50 should be understood as either extremely isolated, or at least strongly defiant of multilateralism.
Scores <50 indicate extreme isolation or strong multilateral defiance
What to look out for in 2025?
Syria
Following the collapse of the Assad regime and the emergence of an interim government under Ahmed al-Sharaa, it will be important to watch whether Syria's voting behavior shifts in 2025. A move away from Russia's orbit and toward greater convergence with multilateral norms would not only represent an ideological repositioning, but also serve as a signal of openness—an attempt to rebuild diplomatic ties and attract foreign investment after years of isolation. If sustained, this could lead to a steep rise in Syria's alignment scores in 2025.
Bolivia
Bolivia's presidential elections, headed to a second round in 2025, mark the first contest in two decades without the ruling Movement for Socialism (MAS) on the ballot. Depending on the outcome, Bolivia could undergo a sharp ideological shift that could reverberate in its foreign policy positions and UN voting behavior. A right wing victory may induce a realignment on US positions, as was the case in Argentina in 2024, and a decrease in global alignment.
Palestine recognition votes
Future votes on Palestine recognition and related resolutions will continue to be critical indicators of shifting diplomatic alignments and regional bloc cohesion.
Limitations and recommendations
Delegation vs. De Facto authority
UN voting records capture the positions of officially recognized delegations. In some instances, however, these delegations do not represent the authorities effectively in control of the country. This can occur in contexts of coups, civil wars, or other forms of contested domestic authority (e.g. Afghanistan, Myanmar, Yemen, Libya). In such cases, UNGA alignment may not accurately reflect the policies or actions of the governing power on the ground, and should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Vote ≠ implementation
UNGA resolutions are non-binding. While they may communicate political signaling, they do not necessarily translate into policy implementation. A member-state may have high levels of alignment on a given issue, like the environment or disarmament, and yet enact policy choices that have adverse effects on the matter.
Addressing difference between non-voting and abstention
The distinction between abstaining from a vote and not voting at all carries different diplomatic signals and should be analyzed separately in future research.
Match with other data (trade flow, security agreements etc.)
For deeper analysis, the UN alignment index should be crossed with complementary data, such as trade flows, security agreements, or aid dependencies. This triangulation helps uncover potential drivers of alignment or divergence beyond the votes themselves.