In the face of globalization, democratic representation based on fixed demarcated territories is increasingly challenged. Elected and appointed representatives have formal mandates, yet may understand their representative roles in different ways. Following new developments in the study of political representation, this paper investigates representative claims-making in the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and European Parliament (EP). These two ‘strong publics’ both deal with a large variety of issues, are tied to influential global and regional organizations and enjoy significant public visibility. This paper investigates whether institutional differences between the UNGA and EP - including direct election, partisan membership and territorial mandate - affect the practice of representation. If so, it provides key information about the possibility to shape democratic representation beyond the state through institutional design. The paper presents original data gathered through quantitative content analysis of plenary debates in the UN General Assembly and the European Parliament.
