The phenomenon of "paradiplomacy"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

MOSCOW STATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF RUSSIA

(MGIMO-UNIVERSITY),

B.A. in Government and International Affairs

School of Government and International Affairs

The phenomenon of “paradiplomacy”

Done by: Milena Gonchar,

SGIA Bachelor Student 2^nd year

Scientific advisor: Zonova Tatiana.

Moscow, 2017.

The phenomenon of “paradiplomacy” originates from the 1980s of the 20^th century. The term was employed for the first time by the researchers in the sphere of comparative analysis of the federal countries' participation in the international affairs and the role of subjects within the federation in the process of its external policy establishment. The father of such a concept was an American author Ivo Duchacek. international relation federal policy

The context of two interrelated global tendencies -globalization and regionalization, is the key aspect in the formation of the world modern processes. An increased involvement of subnational actors into the international relations' system became one of the brightest manifestations of the regionalization.

Active participation of the subnational actors, mentioned above, is a phenomenon which is considered as a “paradiplomacy” in the West.

The pioneers in the usage of such a term of “paradiplomacy” as an analytical concept of politics, were Panayiotis Soldatos, professor of the Montreal University and professor of the New York University Ivo Duchacek. The ancestor of “paradiplomacy” - “micro diplomacy” was earlier used in 1970s-1980s within the framework of academic debates on the changes within the relations between federal government and authorities of subjects on foreign trade issues. The author of which, Duchacek, later converted the term of “micro diplomacy” into “paradiplomacy”, which is well known in the current world. The cause to such changes was not the pronunciation, but the prefix “para”, which is much more clearly represented the main idea: the parallel activity, supplementing the activity of the central government in diplomacy [Duchacek 1990].

One of the very first mentioning of “paradiplomacy” could be found in the Duchacek' work of 1986 “The territorial Dimensions of Politics: Within, Among and Across Nations”. “Global paradiplomacy consists of political contacts between different states, which are set through the contacts of subnational authorities not only with commercial, industrial or cultural actors from abroad, but also different agents on the external connections of national governments.”. “Global paradiplomacy is a term, which can be used to describe those initiatives and activities of subnational units, implemented beyond the borders of their national state and carrying a separatist message within economic, social and cultural frameworks. In such a context authorities of provinces/regions usually use their commercial/cultural missions abroad as so-called “protoembassies” or “protoconsulate” potentially sovereign entities” [Duchacek 1986]

Later, in his one more work “Perforated Sovereignties”, Duchacek was improving the idea of the new actors' participation on the world arena, constructing a typology of the given actors by the criteria of diplomatic relations' level, pointing out (1) cross-border regional paradiplomacy, (2) transregional (macroregional) paradiplomacy, (3) global paradiplomacy [Duchacek 1990]. From the context it can be understood that diplomatic relations are considered as a traditional understanding of the diplomacy as a process, directed to the convergence of the interests between two conflicting governments. Evidently, for Duchacek it was no difference between goals of paradiplomacy and goals of traditional diplomacy itself.

Generally, such an approach was supported and academically caught up by Panayiotis Soldatos, who was developing the idea of “paradiplomacy” in his work “An Explanatory Framework for the study of federated States as Foreign-policy Actors”. Using Duchacek works as a reference point, Soldatos pointed out two types of paradiplomacy. The first type - global paradiplomacy, the main quality of which was the participation of subnational entities in questions related to the international affairs on the whole. The second type - regional paradiplomacy, which was divided into two subgroups: macroregional and microregional paradiplomacy [Soldatos 1990]. Created by Duchacek and Soldatos theoretical basis of the paradiplomatic concept was accepted by the majority of researchers, who began to use this concept studying the international activity of subnational entities.

Analyzing the concept of paradiplomacy, it is important to mention a contribution of Der Derian, who, probing modern paradigms of diplomacy, came to conclusion about significant transformation of the classical diplomacy. To designate a new diplomatic phenomenon, Derian etymologically mutated the term by adding prefix “para” to diplomacy, which would mean “parallel”, or “besides”. Unlike Duchacek, he didn't focus his attention only on subnational non-central government as key actors, but expanded a given least of participants of paradiplomatic activity by adding transnational corporations (TNCs), international trade union organizations, mass-media industry, etc. [Der Derian 1987]. This scientific deed, unconditionally can get an interested audience into epistemological trance, making the framework of this concept much more blurred and confusing. Now, according to Derian, every organization or even individual can be an actor of paradiplomacy. In other words, Der Derian claimed that every international activity, not led by the government, was a part of “paradiplomacy”.

Judging by the works of the last decade, where the name of Derian was practically not mentioned at all, this approach did not gain a lot of support from the party of modern scientists.

Unlike the principle of the “black square”, which was used by Der Derian to explain the phenomenon of paradiplomacy, Duchacek used the model of the “black box” of Easton, which provides us with the visual logic of the concept.

(The table 1 - below)

The Easton's model is modified by two aspects. Firstly, a foreign government is included into the table as a potential source of activity, which goes through the national borders to increase needs and the pressure to the central authority (1 arrow) or to decrease the support of the people for central authorities (2 arrow). Two these arrows show the aspect, inherent in the current world, the external intervention to the internal policy of the state. Secondly, there are added some territorial components (provinces, states, regions, lands, and etc.). Arrow 3 presents cross-borders regional paradiplomacy, which is about formal and informal co-operation between regions, cantons, provinces, lands, states, and etc. Arrow 4 indicates transregional paradiplomacy, which is in its turn, about subnational international activity with remoted actors, but which are the components of the neighboring countries, for example, direct relations of the Canadian province Albert with the states of Texas and New-York, Quebec with Louisiana. Arrow 5 illustrates global paradiplomacy, which takes place between subnational unit and foreign central authority. Arrow 6 presents traditional system of the relationship between central governments of the foreign states.

Table 1

Thus, based on the scientific discourse of the last 20 years, paradiplomacy can be determined as a participation of subnational units in the international relationships through the establishment of formal and informal, permanent and temporary co-operation with exterior actors to achieve a number of goals using different strategies of activities on the world arena. Depending on the level of the foreign actor, with which a subnational unit cooperates, the paradiplomatic activity can be divided into three directions: 1) cross-borders regional paradiplomacy, 2) transregional paradiplomacy, and 3) global paradiplomacy.

Literature

1. *Anguirre Inaki “Making sense of paradiplomacy? An intertextual enquiry about a concept in search of a definition”. In: “Paradiplomacy in action. The foreign relations of subnational actors”. L. 1999.

2. *Der Derian “On Diplomacy: a Genealogy of western Estrangement.” Oxford 1987.

3. *Duchacek Ivo “Perforated Sovereignties: towards a typology of new actors in International relations”. In “Federalism and international relations. The role of subnational units” Oxford 1990.

4. *Duchacek Ivo “The territorial dimension of politics: within, among and across nations”. L. 1986.

5. *Kinkaid John “Foreign relations of Constituent Units”, research paper, Forum of Federations, Winnipeg, may 11-12, 2001.

6. *Lecours Ander, Luis Moreno “Paradiplomacy and stateless nations: a reference to the Basque Country”. Unidad de Politicas Comparads (CSIC), Working paper 01-06, 2001.

7. *Soldatos Panayotis “An explanatory Framework for the study of federated States as Foreign-policy Actors”. L. 1993.

Размещено на Allbest.ru