DOCSLIB.ORG

Sovereignty, Diplomacy and Democracy: the Changing Character of “International Representation” — from State to Self*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sovereignty, Diplomacy and Democracy: the Changing Character of “International Representation” — from State to Self* SOVEREIGNTY, DIPLOMACY AND DEMOCRACY: THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF “INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION” — FROM STATE TO SELF* Alan K. Henrikson A “nation,” as distinct from a state, “Representing the sending State in the re- is a composite entity. It has unity, but al- ceiving State.”2 In the past, it was the sov- so multiplicity. Can diplomacy, tradition- ereign who was represented by diplomat- ally understood as the process by which ic mission. Although Louis XIV of France, sovereign states deal with each other, ac- the Sun King, probably never actually said, commodate the participation of masses— “L’État, c’estmoi,” French ambassadors in a nation’s people themselves? An essential his time were very much his personal emis- element and characteristic of diploma- saries. Today, kingdoms are rare, and “roy- cy is its representativeness, which philo- al” embassies, too, are few: the Royal Nor- sophically is a very complicated problem. wegian Embassy, the Royal Embassy of It is not easy to explain how a person, or Saudi Arabia, and the Royal Embassy of thing, can “stand for” someone, or some- Cambodia being among them. Sovereign thing, else—or to know what, exactly, the representation today encompasses all kinds entity being re-presented (made “pres- of states. In a republic, such as the United ent again”) is. In diplomacy, representa- States of America, diplomacy is assumed tion, though a concept rarely analyzed, is to be “democratic,” in substance as well as fundamental. As Paul Sharp, an especially in style. The American innovation, “pub- thoughtful academic student of the subject lic diplomacy,” a concept that The Fletch- has stated, diplomacy “is built upon the no- er School of Law and Diplomacy helped to tion of representation.”1 originate, might even be understood to de- The very first “function” of a diplo- rive from the theory of popular sovereignty.3 matic mission, as listed in the Vienna Con- In public diplomacy, even ordinary citizens vention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), is believe they can legitimately participate. declared to be, as it historically had been: In the diplomacy of any nation, irre- spective of its form of government, it is, in * This article, an updated and edited version of a the final analysis, the individual who par- text published originally in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (Special Edition 2013), is based ticipates, whether in an official capacity or on the lecture Alan Henrikson gave in honor of completely unofficially. Especially when Dean Stephen W. Bosworth on June 1, 2013, at the Fletcher School’s Talloires Symposium participation is not formally authorized, it on “The New Diplomacy: the 21st Century may not be clear whose interest or policy Imperatives in an Age Old Craft.” is being represented. Partly with this gen- 1 Sharp P. Who needs diplomats? The problem of diplomatic representation. / Modern Dip- lomacy / ed. Jovan Kurbalija. 1998. URL: 2 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/ 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500. who-needs-diplomats-problem-diplomatic- New York: United Nations, 2005. Article 3, 1(a). representation. См. также: Sharp P. Diplomatic 3 The Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Diplomacy. URL: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ Cambridge University Press, 2009. Murrow. 4 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА • 2 (15) / 2014 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВ eral problem in mind, the United States to Niccolò Machiavelli, to Cardinal Riche- Congress in 1799 passed the Logan Act, lieu and François de Callières, to Harold which made it illegal for any citizen, with- Nicolson, to Henry Kissinger, to Jorge He- out authorization, to engage in a negotia- ine, and, finally, to Manuel Castells, a soci- tion whose purpose was to influence the ac- ologist rather than diplomatist. The writings tion of a foreign government relating to a of all illuminate the problem of how a soci- controversy with the United States.4 Private ety, not just its leaders but its other mem- “diplomacy” thus was not allowed. bers as well, can interact “internationally.” The increasing variety of available There have been profound changes in means of communication today increas- the way participants in diplomacy, today not es the scope and complexity of the “inter- only representatives of governments, “pres- national” process. Communication across ent” themselves abroad. There has been a national lines can be physical and immedi- shift, gradual but increasingly noticeable, ate—“face to face”—or distant and techno- from the sovereign State as the sole repre- logically mediated —“virtual.” Anyone can sentative of the “nation” to the individual, participate. Control of the process is diffi- personal Self—the irreducible unit of which cult. The WikiLeaks story and the odyssey societies are made. Although this develop- of Edward Snowden, the National Security ment may seem radically new, it was latent Agency contractor who released informa- in the thinking of the seventeenth century tion worrisome to other governments as well with the formation of the theory of the social as of concern to the United States, are pres- contract, and later with the development of ent-day cases in point. It nearly always is an the philosophy of liberalism. Less and less individual person—authorized or not—who was the State thought of as a single, integrat- conveys a message internationally, and who ed, corporate entity—a “body.” Rather, it is may be the original source of the political composed of bodies—millions of increasing- information and policy ideas it contains. ly independent decision centers. In what follows, I shall review how, over Sovereignty, once considered to be all- the centuries, the character of internation- encompassing conceptually and also geo- al representation has changed, with a focus graphically confining, is breaking up. It is on the interplay between the States and the becoming fractionated and de-territorial- Self as actor. Following brief commentaries ized. Just as society is becoming atomized on the concepts of Sovereignty, Diploma- internally, the populations of most nations cy, Democracy, and the nature of diplomat- today, no longer limited in their physical ic representation, I shall explore the evolu- movements or their access to information, tion of international diplomacy by making are becoming globalized. In this new con- reference to a selection of thinkers—start- text, individuals are able to represent them- ing with Thomas Hobbes, and proceeding selves, and, more and more, they are doing so. With the aid of the Internet and the use 4 Congress was prompted by the action of a of social media, they enter into the blogo- Pennsylvania Quaker, Dr. George Logan, who met in Paris with Talleyrand and other Directory sphere, and “re-present” themselves to oth- officials during the Quasi-War with France. The ers, known and unknown, in other parts of Logan Act has never actually been enforced, although it has been used informally to dissuade the world. Physically too, they go abroad, in private peacemakers. their own capacities or as agents for others. COMPARATIVE POLITICS • 2 (15) / 2014 5 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВ Such global “individuals,” it should be mission; a Representative is the represen- noted, also include those involved profes- tative of the head of state. Much of Ambas- sionally in formal diplomacy. As represen- sador Bosworth’s diplomatic experience tatives of governments, especially those of involved dealing with authoritarian lead- large and powerful countries, these individ- ers, including Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia uals may speak weightily, with authority and and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. often with considerable effect. I have par- In this respect, his role was tradition- ticularly in mind following his recent retire- al, reminiscent of the days of monarchi- ment after twelve years of distinguished ser- cal rulers. vice as Dean of The Fletcher School of Law Democratic diplomacy was anoth- and Diplomacy, the American diplomat, er matter. In words that reminded me of Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth. Be- George Kennan, the venerated American ing aware as a historian of his long experi- diplomat who also dealt with authoritarian ence in the diplomatic field and interested, regimes and who, being strict in his views, as a colleague, in his views on the subject, favored “a real career corps,”5 Dean Bos- I have recollected a number of his com- worth observed in remarks during his final ments, characteristically lapidary ones, that Fletcher Class Day Ceremony: “Diploma- I thought noteworthy at the time and that cy does not come naturally to democracies, have a bearing, both direct and indirect, on at least to this democracy.” As a profes- my present theme—the State-to-Self shift sional he, like Kennan, valued rationality, in the sphere of diplomatic representation. consistency and continuity, and, perhaps Dean Bosworth, in his welcoming ad- especially in dealing with autocratic and se- dress at the 39th Meeting of the Interna- cretive regimes, confidentiality. “I don’t re- tional Forum on Diplomatic Training—the ally know what ‘public diplomacy’ is,” I re- annual gathering of the world’s diplomat- call his once saying. Indeed, that term does ic academies—that was held at the Fletch- seem oxymoronic to many, not only to pro- er School in September 2011 offered this fessional diplomats, who consider that what definition of the group’s subject: “Diplo- they regularly do as diplomats has a pub- macy is the use of reasoned discourse com- lic aspect to it. At the same time, possibly bined with incentives and disincentives.” thinking about the role he played as Am- No doubt this definition reflected Ambas- bassador of the United States during the sador Bosworth’s experience as a represen- “People Power Revolution” in the Philip- tative of a major power, indeed the world’s pines and the central role of public opinion leading superpower.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Past As Prologue,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol
    Vaughan C. Turekian and Norman P. Neureiter, “Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2012). http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/science-and-diplomacy. This copy is for non-commercial use only. More articles, perspectives, editorials, and letters can be found at www.sciencediplomacy.org. Science & Diplomacy is published by the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society. Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue Vaughan C. Turekian and Norman P. Neureiter HIS past December marked twenty years since the dissolution of the Soviet TUnion quietly and peacefully ended the Cold War. While that era saw the Cuban Missile Crisis, proxy wars, and policies of mutual assured destruction, it was also a period when people on both sides of the conflict looked for ways to bridge differences and increase the chances for peace and resolution. In a 1985 address to the nation days before meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for the first time, President Ronald Reagan stated “We can find, as yet undiscovered, avenues where American and Soviet citizens can cooperate fruitfully for the benefit of mankind . In science and technology, we could launch new joint space ventures and establish joint medical research projects.” Two years later, John Negroponte, the President’s Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), further articulated the Administration’s view during congressional testimony: “It would be short-sighted of us not to recognize that it is in our national interest to seek to expand scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union.” In many ways, the Cold War was a time of highly effective use of science diplomacy to build bridges and connections despite the existence of great political tensions.
    [Show full text]
  • American Diplomacy Project: a US Diplomatic Service for the 21St
    AMERICAN DIPLOMACY PROJECT A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century Ambassador Nicholas Burns Ambassador Marc Grossman Ambassador Marcie Ries REPORT NOVEMBER 2020 American Diplomacy Project: A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.belfercenter.org Statements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Design and layout by Auge+Gray+Drake Collective Works Copyright 2020, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America FULL PROJECT NAME American Diplomacy Project A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century Ambassador Nicholas Burns Ambassador Marc Grossman Ambassador Marcie Ries REPORT NOVEMBER 2020 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School i ii American Diplomacy Project: A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................3 10 Actions to Reimagine American Diplomacy and Reinvent the Foreign Service ........................................................5 Action 1 Redefine the Mission and Mandate of the U.S. Foreign Service ...................................................10 Action 2 Revise the Foreign Service Act ................................. 16 Action 3 Change the Culture ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Career Development in the German Foreign Service I. Framework the German Federal Government Has Exclusive Le
    SIGMA Support for Improvement in Governance and Management A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU Classifications and Career Development in the German Foreign Service I. Framework The German Federal Government has exclusive legislative authority in foreign affairs (Art. 73 no. 1 of the German Basic Law). The Foreign Service consists of the Foreign Office (headquarters) and the foreign missions, which together constitute one unitary, federal supreme authority (oberste Bundesbehörde). The tasks and organisation, as well as the legal status of members of the Foreign Service, are set down in the Foreign Service Act (FSA) of 30 August 1990 [Federal Law Gazette I 2002, p.1842], as amended by the First Act Amending the Foreign Service Act of 20 June 2002 [Federal Law Gazette I 2002, p. 2001 (attached)]. The Foreign Office headquarters steers the work of the foreign missions, assesses their reports and analyses, and on this basis draws up foreign policy blueprints for government policy. Headquarters also co-ordinates the foreign policy activities of other ministries and the federal states (Bundesländer) to ensure a uniform approach to German foreign policy and security policy. The Foreign Office consists of 11 departments and four regional political directorates, which in turn comprise divisions focusing on specific policy areas or geographical regions. Their analyses serve to prepare decisions at management level. The directorates-general and political directorates are: - Central Services: personnel
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Strategic Stability in the Euro-Atlantic Region 2021 and Beyond
    June 2021 STATEMENT BY THE EURO-ATLANTIC SECURITY LEADERSHIP GROUP (EASLG) Prepared for Presidents, Prime Ministers, Parliamentarians, and Publics Advancing Strategic Stability in the Euro-Atlantic Region 2021 and Beyond n one of the best accounts of the lead-up to World War I, the historian Christopher Clark details how a group of European leaders—“The Sleepwalkers”—led their nations into a conflict that none of them wanted. Gripped by nationalism and ensnared by competing interests, mutual mistrust, and Ialliances, they made a series of tragic miscalculations that resulted in 40 million casualties. One of the more sobering aspects of this period was the speed with which events transpired in the summer of 1914, following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, in Sarajevo on June 28. The subsequent ultimatums, mobilizations, declarations of war, and finally, war itself unfolded in roughly one month. Leaders of that era found themselves with precious little time for considering their decisions—and the world paid a horrific price. In the Euro-Atlantic region today, leaders face risks of deployments that should cause leaders to reflect on the miscalculation, compounded by the potential for the use of adequacy of the decision time available to them to prevent nuclear weapons, where millions could be killed in minutes. or deescalate a crisis. Emerging technologies such as evasive Do we have the tools to prevent an incident from turning hypersonic missiles or robotic nuclear torpedoes could into unimaginable catastrophe? significantly compress decision-time. When combined with artificial intelligence including machine learning, humans While leaders, governments and publics are strained by may be removed from being “in” or “on” the decision- the developing and constantly changing challenge of the making loop, especially when responding to a perceived or COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing risk of—and a real attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomacy and the American Civil War: the Impact on Anglo- American Relations
    James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses, 2020-current The Graduate School 5-8-2020 Diplomacy and the American Civil War: The impact on Anglo- American relations Johnathan Seitz Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/masters202029 Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, Public History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Seitz, Johnathan, "Diplomacy and the American Civil War: The impact on Anglo-American relations" (2020). Masters Theses, 2020-current. 56. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/masters202029/56 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses, 2020-current by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Diplomacy and the American Civil War: The Impact on Anglo-American Relations Johnathan Bryant Seitz A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History May 2020 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Dr. Steven Guerrier Committee Members/ Readers: Dr. David Dillard Dr. John Butt Table of Contents List of Figures..................................................................................................................iii Abstract............................................................................................................................iv Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • The Theoretical Significance of Foreign Policy in International Relations- an Analyses
    Journal of Critical Reviews ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 2, 2020 Review Article THE THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FOREIGN POLICY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS- AN ANALYSES Jesmine Ahmed* *PhD Scholar, Department of Political Science, Assam University, Email Id-jesmine, [email protected]. Received: 09.11.2019 Revised: 05.12.2019 Accepted: 04.01.2020 Abstract: Foreign policy of a country is formulated to safeguard and promote its national interests in the conduct of relations with other countries, bilaterally and multilaterally. It is a direct reflection of a country’s traditional values and overall national policies, her aspirations and self-perception. Thus, Foreign Policies are the strategies, methods, guidelines, agreements that usually national governments use to perform their actions in the international arena. In contemporary times, every state establishes diplomatic, economic, trade, educational, cultural and political relations with other nations and that compels to maintain its relation with each other as well as with international organizations and non-governmental actors in the international relations. Thus, International Relations attempts to explain the behaviours that occur across the boundaries of states and institutions such as private, state, governmental, non-governmental and inter- governmental oversee those interactions. However, this paper try to articulate the theoretical importance of foreign policy in international relations and how it helps in maintaining relations among the countries at the international level. Key Words: Foreign Policy, International Relations, State, Bilateral, Multilateral © 2019 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.02.144 INTRODUCTION: Moreover, Foreign policy involves both decisions and actions i.e., In international arena, every nation has always been policies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Generation in American Foreign Policy How American Influence Has Declined, and What Can Be Done About It
    September 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE JAMES DOBBINS, GABRIELLE TARINI, ALI WYNE The Lost Generation in American Foreign Policy How American Influence Has Declined, and What Can Be Done About It n the aftermath of World War II, the United States accepted the mantle of global leadership and worked to build a new global order based on the principles of nonaggression and open, nondiscriminatory trade. An early pillar of this new Iorder was the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction, which British histo- rian Norman Davies has called “an act of the most enlightened self-interest in his- tory.”1 America’s leaders didn’t regard this as charity. They recognized that a more peaceful and more prosperous world would be in America’s self-interest. American willingness to shoulder the burdens of world leadership survived a costly stalemate in the Korean War and a still more costly defeat in Vietnam. It even survived the end of the Cold War, the original impetus for America’s global activ- ism. But as a new century progressed, this support weakened, America’s influence slowly diminished, and eventually even the desire to exert global leadership waned. Over the past two decades, the United States experienced a dramatic drop-off in international achievement. A generation of Americans have come of age in an era in which foreign policy setbacks have been more frequent than advances. C O R P O R A T I O N Awareness of America’s declining influence became immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic and by Obama commonplace among observers during the Barack Obama with Ebola, has also been widely noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress
    Order Code RL30193 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress June 1, 1999 (name redacted) Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress ABSTRACT The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report reviews and illustrates 12 basic ways that the United States can make foreign policy. The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making foreign policy is a complex process, and that the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy. For a detailed discussion of how war-making powers are shared, see War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. CRS Issue Brief 81050. This report will be updated only as events warrant. Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress Summary The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. M. Wight, Power Politics (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), p. 113. 2. R. Cohen, "Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map," Diplomatic Studies Programme Newsletter, Leicester University, 4 May 1998. 3. ]. DerDerian, "Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy," Review of International Studies, 13 (1987) 91. 4. S. Sofer, "Old and New Diplomacy: A Debate Revisited/' Review ofInternational Studies, 14 (1988) 196. 5. Ibid. 6. A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1983), pp. 384-5. 7. B.H. Steiner, "Another Missing Middle: Diplomacy and International Theory," paper delivered to the 41st Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Los Angeles, 15-18 March 2000, p. 1. 8. Sofer, "Old and New Diplomacy," p. 196. 9. Cf. S. Goddard, "Talk Is Not Cheap: The Rhetoric of Strategic Interaction," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 2-5 September 2004. 10. L.B. Poullada, "Diplomacy: The Missing Link in the Study of International Politics," in D.S. McLellan, W.C. Olson and F.A. Sondermann (eds), The Theory and Practice of International Relations, 4th edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 197 4); cf. Steiner, "Another Missing Middle." 11. Eban, The New Diplomacy, p. 366. 12. ].W. Burton, Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 206. 13. E. Satow, Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn, ed. Lord Gore-Booth (London and New York: Longman, 1979), p. 3. 14. Quoted in Eban, The New Diplomacy, p. 331. 15. C.W. Hayward, What Is Diplomacy? (London: Grant Richards, 1916), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty Foreign Policy; Washington; Jan/Feb 2001; Stephen D Krasner;
    Sovereignty Foreign Policy; Washington; Jan/Feb 2001; Stephen D Krasner; Issue: 122 Start Page: 20-29 ISSN: 00157228 Subject Terms: Globalization Sovereignty Classification Codes: 9180: International 1210: Politics & political behavior Abstract: Sovereignty was never quite as vibrant as many contemporary observers suggest. The conventional norms of sovereignty have always been challenged. A few states, most notably the US, have had autonomy, control, and recognition for most of their existence, but most others have not. Even for weaker states sovereignty remains attractive. Although sovereignty might provide little more than international recognition, that recognition guarantees access to international organizations and sometimes to international finance. In various parts of the world, national borders still represent the fault lines of conflict. The most important impact of economic globalization and transnational norms will be to alter the scope of state authority rather than to generate some fundamentally new way to organize political life. Full Text: Copyright Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Jan/Feb 2001 [Headnote] THINK AGAIN [Headnote] The idea of states as autonomous, independent entities is collapsing under the combined onslaught of monetary unions, CNN, the Internet, and nongovernmental organizations. But those who proclaim the death of sovereignty misread history. The nation -state has a keen instinct for survival and has so far adapted to new challenges -even the challenge of globalization. The Sovereign State Is Just About Dead Very wong. Sovereignty was never quite as vibrant as many contemporary observers suggest. The conventional norms of sovereignty have always been challenged. A few states, most notably the United States, have had autonomy, control, and recognition for most of their existence, but most others have not.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World
    DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World André Lecours Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ ISSN 1569-2981 DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY Editors: Virginie Duthoit & Ellen Huijgh, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ Managing Editor: Jan Melissen, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ and Antwerp University Desk top publishing: Desiree Davidse Editorial Board Geoff Berridge, University of Leicester Rik Coolsaet, University of Ghent Erik Goldstein, Boston University Alan Henrikson, Tufts University Donna Lee, Birmingham University Spencer Mawby, University of Nottingham Paul Sharp, University of Minnesota Duluth Copyright Notice © André Lecours, December 2008 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy, or transmission of this publication, or part thereof in excess of one paragraph (other than as a PDF file at the discretion of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’) may be made without the written permission of the author. ABSTRACT Regional governments can be international actors. This phenomenon of regional governments developing international relations, often called ‘paradiplomacy,’ has been most visible in Western industrialized liberal- democracies. In thinking about paradiplomacy in developing and post- communist countries, considering the experience of regions such as Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Flanders and Wallonia could be instructive for understanding the logic of this activity, highlighting key choices that need to be made, and pointing out potential challenges stemming from the development by sub-state units of international relations. This paper begins by distinguishing between three layers of paradiplomacy and makes the argument that paradiplomacy can be a multifunctional vehicle for the promotion of interests and identity. It then discusses the various choices that have to be made when developing a paradiplomacy, including designing new structures and selecting partners.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Diplomatic List
    UNCLASSIFIED THE LONDON DIPLOMATIC LIST Alphabetical list of the representatives of Foreign States & Commonwealth Countries in London with the names & designations of the persons returned as composing their Diplomatic Staff. Representatives of Foreign States & Commonwealth Countries & their Diplomatic Staff enjoy privileges & immunities under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964. Except where shown, private addresses are not available. m Married * Married but not accompanied by wife or husband AFGHANISTAN Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 31 Princes Gate SW7 1QQ 020 7589 8891 Fax 020 7584 4801 [email protected] www.afghanistanembassy.org.uk Monday-Friday 09.00-16.00 Consular Section 020 7589 8892 Fax 020 7581 3452 [email protected] Monday-Friday 09.00-13.30 HIS EXCELLENCY DR MOHAMMAD DAUD YAAR m Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary (since 07 August 2012) Mrs Sadia Yaar Mr Ahmad Zia Siamak m Counsellor Mr M Hanif Ahmadzai m Counsellor Mr Najibullah Mohajer m 1st Secretary Mr M. Daud Wedah m 1st Secretary Mrs Nazifa Haqpal m 2nd Secretary Miss Freshta Omer 2nd Secretary Mr Hanif Aman 3rd Secretary Mrs Wahida Raoufi m 3rd Secretary Mr Yasir Qanooni 3rd Secretary Mr Ahmad Jawaid m Commercial Attaché Mr Nezamuddin Marzee m Acting Military Attaché ALBANIA Embassy of the Republic of Albania 33 St George’s Drive SW1V 4DG 020 7828 8897 Fax 020 7828 8869 [email protected] www.albanianembassy.co.uk HIS EXELLENCY MR MAL BERISHA m Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary (since 18 March 2013) Mrs Donika Berisha UNCLASSIFIED S:\Protocol\DMIOU\UNIVERSAL\Administration\Lists of Diplomatic Representation\LDL\RESTORED LDL Master List - Please update this one!.doc UNCLASSIFIED Dr Teuta Starova m Minister-Counsellor Ms Entela Gjika Counsellor Mrs Gentjana Nino m 1st Secretary Dr Xhoana Papakostandini m 3rd Secretary Col.
    [Show full text]