Masaryk University

Faculty of Social Studies

Department of International Relations and European Studies

Diplomacy of Constituent Units:

Québec and Wallonia in Comparison

Bachelor Thesis

Petra Vychodilová

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Vít Hloušek, Ph.D.

UCO: 273675

Field of Study: International Relations and European Studies

Year of Enrollment: 2007

Brno, 2011

I hereby declare that this thesis is entirely my work and has not been taken from the work of others unless such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work.

Date: November 30th, 2011 Signature:

2

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to express profound gratitude to my thesis supervisor, doc. PhDr. Vít Hloušek, Ph.D., who accepted me as his Bachelor student without any hesitation. Thereafter, he offered me a lot of advice, guiding me in the right direction throughout the whole research work. His professionalism and invaluable experience enabled me to complete my work successfully.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Theoretical Section ...... 10

2.1. Introduction ...... 10

2.2. Paradiplomacy Revisited ...... 10

2.2.1. Development of Paradiplomacy ...... 10

2.2.2. Definition of Paradiplomacy ...... 11

2.2.3. Factors Conditioning Paradiplomacy ...... 12

2.2.4. Typology of Paradiplomacy ...... 13

2.4. Conclusion ...... 15

3. Methodological Section ...... 17

3.1. Research Method ...... 17

3.2. Case Selection ...... 17

3.3. Sources ...... 18

4. Analytical Section ...... 19

4.1. Historical Context ...... 19

4.1.1. Québec as an International Actor ...... 19

4.1.2. Wallonia as an International Actor ...... 20

4.2. Constitutional Setting...... 21

4.2.1. Treaty-making and Treaty-implementing Powers ...... 21

4.2.2. Establishment of Representation Abroad ...... 24

4.3. Intergovernmental Relations ...... 25

4.3.1. Nature of Intergovernmental Relations ...... 25

4

4.3.2. Formalization (institutionalization) of intergovernmental relations ...... 27

4.4. Paradiplomatic Activities in Action ...... 29

4.4.1. Ministries of International Relations ...... 29

4.4.2. Formal Treaties and Agreements ...... 30

4.4.2. Representation Abroad...... 31

4.4.3. Participation in Multilateral Organizations ...... 32

4.4.4. Budget ...... 34

5. Conclusion ...... 35

5.1. Constitutional Setting...... 35

5.2. Intergovernmental Relations ...... 35

5.3. Paradiplomatic Activities in Action ...... 36

5.4. Hypothesis ...... 36

5.5. Future Research...... 37

6. Bibliography ...... 38

6.1. Primary Sources ...... 38

6.2. Secondary Literature ...... 41

5

1. Introduction

National states are no longer the only actors on the international stage, let alone the only actors conducting foreign policy and creating diplomatic connections.

Constituent units1, including both the constituent governments2 (e.g. cantons, Länder, provinces, regions, and states) and local governments (e.g. municipalities) of federal countries and decentralized unitary systems, have become new subjects of international relations, pursuing their own specific foreign policies independent of their central state (Wolff, 2007, p. 141 – 142).

The trend of non-central governments developing their own foreign policy capacity, accompanied by emerging spectrum of diplomatic instruments and strategies, has been referred to as "paradiplomacy". Although paradiplomacy is not a new phenomenon, recent years have witnessed a rapid growth in both the number of constituent units engaging in international activities and the scope of those activities

(Lecours & Moreno, 2006, p. 2 – 3; Duchacek, 1984, p. 5). Constituent units have become new subjects of international relations. Their considerable efforts to develop international action have generally been most visible in Western industrialized liberal democracies. However, constituent governments in many developing countries have already got involved in some form of paradiplomacy as well (Lécours,

2008, p. 1; Griffiths, 2005).

The phenomenon of paradiplomacy has been in the center of interest from a variety of disciplinary perspectives (Hocking, 1999, p. 17). Most frequently, however, the process of constituent units conducting their own foreign policy has been a subject of study for comparative politics and international relations scholars

1 The term "constituent unit" is used in this thesis instead of another commonly used term "subnational unit" as subnational might imply that cantons, Länder, provinces, regions and the like are below or inferior to national states and, thus, also inferior in the field of international relations (Kincaid, 2001, p. 1). 2 The term "constituent governments" is used interchangeably with the term "non-central governments". 6

(Lecours, 2002a, p. 2). The first significant attempt of comparativists to understand and explain regional competences in foreign relations have been carried out in a multi-authored book edited by Ivo Duchacek, Daniel Latouche and Garth Stevenson in 1988. Via case studies and comparative analysis of Belgium, Canada, France,

Switzerland, and the United States, an international group of scholars looked at how and why constituent units increasingly seek access to foreign resources of wealth and technological information (Criekemans, 2010a, p. 2).

Two years later, Hans J. Michelmann and Panayotis Soldatos edited a volume on paradiplomacy, which for the first time offered a typology of actors in international relations and provided an explanatory framework for the study of constituent units as foreign-policy actors. That work significantly contributed to the first wave of theorizing about paradiplomacy (Hooghe, 1996, p. 202).

The third major multi-authored volume on paradiplomacy was brought together in 1999 by Francisco Aldecoa and Michael Keating who attempted to systemize the opportunity structures of constituent units and provide a more general overview of the most prominent paradiplomatic actions of constituent governments around the world (Aldecoa Keating, 1999, p. vii-x).

Academic literature on paradiplomacy did not restrict itself to the boundaries of

English language. In 2001, Stéphane Paquin edited a multi-authored volume in

French, trying to develop a more comparable approach and explanatory framework of paradiplomacy. Followed by another multi-authored work in French language edited by Massart-Piérard in 2005, scholars from various disciplines asked more explicitly than ever before what the increasing distribution and intensity of constituent governments´ involvement in international affairs meant for the comparative study of foreign policy and for international relations as a whole

(Criekemans, 2010a, p. 2 – 3).

Most recently, Hans J. Michelmann edited a comparative volume in 2009, engaging scholars from around the world in comparative conversations about

7

foreign relations in twelve federal countries, including Argentina, Australia, Austria,

Belgium, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States (Kincaid, 2009, p. 7).

The number of scholars interested in the phenomenon of paradiplomacy continues to grow, and so does the amount of literature written on that topic. Yet, as

André Lecours3 (2002a) notes, the so far available literature on paradiplomacy suffers one shortcoming: a single dimensional focus. According to Lecours, it is either exclusively theoretical, making sense of paradiplomacy and categorizing its different forms, or heavily case-oriented, discussing international relations of a particular constituent unit by identifying and evaluating its specific international activities. He thus suggests grounding the study of paradiplomacy in both theoretical and comparative perspective (p. 3). On the same line of argument Joachim Blatter4 et al.

(2008) point out that the studies of regional foreign activities "either have no theoretical framework or use quite different ones, making it very difficult systematically to derive general conclusions" (p. 469). They go on to argue that as a result "there remain major gaps, ambiguities and uncertainties in our knowledge of the foreign activities of sub-national governments" (p. 469). Finally, Ferran Requejo5

(2009) notices a lack of detailed knowledge of the foreign policies implemented by non-central governments and their consequent comparison. To overcome that shortcoming, he advises to "compare the objectives of governments and the results they finally achieve" (p. 13).

This study attempts to take that direction. It starts with a theoretical section, introducing the general concept of paradiplomacy, particularly its development, definition, conditioning factors/causes for its development, and typology. It then moves to a methodological section, specifying the research method, case selection,

3 André Lecours is a Professor of Political Sciences at the University of Ottawa. 4 Joachim Blatter is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Lucerne in Horw. 5 Ferran Coll Requejo is a Professor of Political and Social Sciences at the University of Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. 8

and sources. Finally, the study proceeds to a more analytical (comparative) section, seeking to investigate the opportunity structure, i.e. constitutional setting and intergovernmental relations, and the international activities of two politically active francophone units: Québec (Canada) and Wallonia (Belgium).

The main objective of this research is to provide a comparative analysis of

Québec’s and Wallonia’s foreign policies and find out whether the opportunity structure reflects the degree of Québec’s and Wallonia’s involvement on the international stage. The main research questions examined in the analytical part of the paper are as follows:

(1) Which constitutional setting, that of Québec or Wallonia, is more favorable

to paradiplomacy?

(2) Which federal government, that of Canada or of Belgium, provide their

constituent units with more opportunities to (1) input in the making of

national foreign policy and/or (2) develop their own paradiplomatic

activities?

(3) Which constituent unit, Quebec or Wallonia, is more active on the

international stage?

9

2. Theoretical Section

2.1. Introduction

In today´s academic literature, certain words have become almost buzz words in spite of their often unclear analytical definition, paradiplomacy being one of such examples (Aguirre, 1999, p. 185 – 186). This chapter examines the academic discourse that invented and further developed that term, focusing especially on writings of Ivo

Duchacek, Brian Hocking, Michael Keating, John Kincaid, André Lecours, Hans

Michelmann, and Panayotis Soldatos. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first one introduces the development, definition, and typology of paradiplomacy.

That is especially important because semantics plays such a great role in politics6.

The second section, then, attempts to conceptualize what conditions paradiplomacy and what the key explanatory variables for constitutional units´ involvement in international activities are.

2.2. Paradiplomacy Revisited

2.2.1. Development of Paradiplomacy

The development of constituent units as international actors has been a significant part of the emerging global order. The fact that globalization7 and regionalization8 have been closely intertwined has been confirmed by many studies

6 According to Dietrich Busse (1993), a Professor of German Language Arts at Heinrich Heine University, Germany, ‚language (especially the semantics of political terminology) becomes a means of political action‚ (p. 122). 7 Hans-Henrik Holm, a Professor of World Politics at the Danish School of Journalism, and Georg Sorensen, a Professor of International Politics and Economics at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, (1995) define globalization as the intensification of economic, political, social, and cultural relations across borders (p. 1 – 7). 8 Frederik Söderbaum (2009), Associate Research Fellow at United Nations University-Comparative Regional integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) in Belgium, defines regionalization as "the process of cooperation, integration, cohesion and identity creating a regional space (issue-specific or general)" (p. 3). Regionalization is usually preceded by regionalism which refers to "the policy and project, whereby state and non-state actors cooperate and coordinate strategy within a particular region or as a type of world order" (p. 3). 10

(Cerny, 2000 Kacowicz, 1998 Leslie, 2002 Neves, 2010 Pop, 2006). Indeed, in the

1980s both Ivo Duchacek and Panayotis Soldatos inserted the concept of paradiplomacy as a very good fit for this phenomenon. The following intellectual debate evolved primarily around the changes that occurred during the 1970s and

1980s in federal states when constitutional units succeeded in reinforcing a strong sense of national identity in many countries (Aguirre, 1999, p. 186 – 187).

Furthermore, constitutional units became more flexible entities than states to deal with the emerging thrusts of globalization, especially in the economic field (Magone,

2006, p. 2). As José Magone9 (2006) stated,

There is always a danger to conflate the political and cultural revival of the regions with changing economic strategies of the nation-state to push forward regionalization, but the reality is that starting in the second half of the 1970s regionalism and regionalization became intrinsically linked (p. 2).

The late studies of Stein Rokkan10 on regional cleavages confirm this emergence of regionalism across various European countries (Rokkan Urwin, 1983). Gradually, regionalization began to be looked at as a way of transforming the nation-state, giving rise to the formation of regional actors (Fawcett, 2005, p. 25; Magone, 2006, p.

2).

2.2.2. Definition of Paradiplomacy

The term ʺdiplomacyʺ derives from the ancient Greek diploma, composed of diplo, meaning ʺfolded in twoʺ, and refers to the conduct of official relations between sovereign states (Szykman, 1995). The prefix para derives from the Greek language

9 José Magone is a Professor of Global and Regional Governance at the Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany. 10 Stein Rokkan, deceased in 1979, was a Norwegian political scientist and sociologist. He was a Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen, Norway. 11

and has two meanings: nearby and outside (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011).

Consequently, paradiplomacy is a term with two meanings: (1) an addition to the traditional inter-state diplomacy, and/or (2) a deviant form of diplomacy (not-normal or out-side) (Kiilo, 2006, p. 11).

One of the first mentions of the term paradiplomacy appeared in The territorial dimensions of politics: Within, among, and across nations edited by Duchacek in 1986.

Duchacek defined paradiplomacy as ʺactivities parallel to, often coordinated with, complementary to, and sometimes in conflict with centre-to-centre macro- diplomacyʺ (p. 32). The primary reason for inventing that term was to compensate the insufficiency of the term diplomacy to cover all the specters of international relations (Kiilo, 2006, p. 11). The second reason was to reflect both the idea of parallelism and subsidiarity. In this sense, paradiplomacy was able to represent not only the motivations of constituent governments to develop international relations but also the in-state relations between central and non-central governments (Lecours,

2002b, p. 93 – 97). It is this broad perspective on paradiplomacy, i.e. external relations of constituent units, that guides the analysis in this thesis.

2.2.3. Factors Conditioning Paradiplomacy

The realization that " t he nation state has become too small for the big problems of life and too big for the small problems" has driven the expansion of constituent governments´ international activities (Bell, 1977, p. 132). The fact that drivers of paradiplomacy can be found at both domestic and international level has been acknowledged in many research studies on paradiplomacy. Already in 1990

Soldatos created an explanatory framework distinguishing between (1) domestic causes at federated-units level (i.e. objective segmentation11, perceptual

11 Objective segmentation refers to geographic, economic, political, cultural, linguistic, and religious characteristics that differentiate a constituent unit from the central state (Soldatos, 1990, p. 36). 12

segmentation12, electoralism, regionalism/nationalism, asymmetry of federated units, growth of federated units, and me-tooism), (2) domestic causes at federal level (i.e. federal errors/inefficiency, problems with nation-building process, institutional gaps, constitutional uncertainties, and foreign-policy domestification), and (3) external causes of paradiplomacy (i.e. global interdependence, micro-regional interdependence, macro-regional interdependence, and involvement of external actors) (p. 45). Overall, scholars do agree on all these factors however, they usually do not agree on the importance that should be attached to each of the individual factors.

2.2.4. Typology of Paradiplomacy

Paradiplomacy is not a homogenous phenomenon; it is a result of the coexistence of different types of paradiplomacy (Neves, 2010, p. 23). Duchacek (1990) made a distinction between three forms of paradiplomacy based upon dimensions of geographical proximity: (1) transborder regional microdiplomacy13 (representing formal and informal interactions of constituent units across national borders conditioned by geographic proximity and the need to solve common problems), (2) transregional microdiplomacy (symbolizing cooperation of constituent units that are not neighbours but whose central governments are), and (3) global paradiplomacy

(referring to political-functional contacts of constituent units with foreign central governments, international organizations, private sector industry, or interest groups)

(p. 16 – 27).

In addition to these three forms of paradiplomacy, Duchacek (1990) identified one more form of paradiplomacy: protodiplomacy. This particular kind of political activism, however, differs significantly from the other three in that its primary aim is to either prepare the way to independence or acquire as much international

12 Perceptual segmentation refers to the segmentation of attitudes or perceptions where the perceptions may or may not have a basis in reality (Soldatos, 1990, p. 36). 13 In later texts Duchacek uses the term paradiplomacy instead of microdiplomacy. 13

recognition of the constituent units´ limited sovereignty as possible (p. 18 – 19;

Keating, 2000, p. 3; Keating, 1999, p. 13).

In his study An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreign- policy actors, Panayotis Soldatos (1990) further developed some of Duchacek´s concepts, suggesting that:

We have two main categories of paradiplomacy: first, global paradiplomacy . . . , where federated units deal with issues concerning the whole international system (e.g. peace and war, liberalization of international trade) . . . Our second type of paradiplomacy is regional, where the issues involved are of a regional relevance to the communities taking part in a subnational activity (e.g. issues involving relations between the province of Québec and New York State) (Soldatos, 1990, p. 37).

Moreover, Soldatos also distinguished between macro-regional paradiplomacy, which takes place when actors deal with issues concerning communities which are non-contiguous (e.g. Québec-France), and micro-regional paradiplomacy, where the issues concerning communities have a geographical contiguity (e.g. Québec-New

England states) (p. 37 – 38).

In the early 1990s, the growing importance of multilateral and regional integration14 put pressure on the concept of paradiplomacy. Brian Hocking criticized that concept for two reasons. First of all, according to him, it served to reinforce the distinction between central and non-central governments in the field of international relations; and second, it considered constituent governments as unitary actors,

14 In the late 1980s and early 1990s two independent processes of internationalization of constituent politics occurred: (1) the importance of trade agreements in North America increased and (2) the European Union (EU), characterized by a highly complex structure of collective decision-making involving actors at different levels across which competencies are dispersed, was established. As a result, the central state had to accept the participation of non-state actors in the process of multilateral and regional integration (Kaiser, 2005, p. 91 – 92). 14

neglecting the diversity of interests and strategies they embrace. Therefore, Hocking dismissed the concept of paradiplomacy in favour of his concept of multilayered diplomacy which he described as a ʺdensely textured webʺ, in which constituent governments

[A]re capable of performing a variety of roles at different points in the negotiating process. In so doing, they may become opponents of national objectives; but, equally, they can serve as allies and agents in the pursuit of those objectives (Hocking, 1993, p. 2 – 3; Kovziridze, 2008, p. 124).

The concept of multilayered diplomacy succeeded in taking into account the political nature of constituent governments and emphasizing the patterns of linkage between levels of political authority. As a result, activities of non-central governments did no longer have to be examined from a purely state-centric point of view, but from their own position (Hocking, 1993, p. 69). Nevertheless, the difficult point with the concept of multilayered diplomacy was that it seemed to offer too simplistic and optimistic theoretical solution to a political problem: the compatibility between the foreign activities of constituent governments and the diplomatic activities of central governments (Aguirre, 1999, p. 201). Therefore, the term paradiplomacy has not been removed from the vocabulary of scholars and is used throughout this thesis as well.

This thesis examines the first three forms of paradiplomatic activities as identified by Duchacek (1990).

2.4. Conclusion

The current paradiplomacy era, that is the period extending from the early

1960s to date, is viewed as a distinct historic period defined in terms of dynamism, growth, and impact on the international behavior of sovereign players. Diplomacy

15

has become unambiguously multi-layered, shifting from a purely state-centric approach to one welcoming input from constituent units (Totoricagüena, 2005, p.

284).

"Think globally and act locally" has been the traditional rallying cry for constituent units to be actively involved in international affairs (Fry, 2005, p. 121).

This rallying cry has taken different forms and varied significantly across countries.

In the "post-diplomatic" world, diplomacy is no longer concentrated or static but is fluid and dynamic.

16

3. Methodological Section

3.1. Research Method

The paper applies the theoretical framework to a comparative case study of two constituent governments: Québec and Wallonia. The qualitative approach, taken in this study, is best fitted for the comparison of policies because of its attention to specific contextual variables. The two cases under examination Québec and

Wallonia are very similar, except for the level of the object of study. Both cases are, therefore, compared in a systematic manner, which is assured when the comparison is both structured and focused (George & Bennett, 2005, p. 67 – 70). The method used is structured as it requires the research to pose the same research questions to guide the data collection and examination of each case. The method is focused as the comparison investigates specific elements of the examined cases (i.e. Québec´s and

Wallonia´s constitutional settings, intergovernmental relations, and paradiplomatic activities).

3.2. Case Selection

The reasons for the selection of Québec and Wallonia for a comparison analysis were several. First, both Québec and Wallonia have similar socio-economic background and political systems. These factors are especially important when attempting to come closer to the ideal of comparable cases (Lijphart, 1975, p. 158 –

177). Second, constituent units of the developing world, as opposed to the constituent units of the developed world, usually lack financial resources and skilled personnel required to conduct paradiplomacy. Third, in many of the least developed federations the centre performs majority of governmental functions and leaves only little space for the constituent units in terms of getting involved in the international arena (Michelmann, 2011, p. 4). For all these reasons, the choice of francophone

17

constituent units for comparison was restricted to the developed world as it is only in these settings that comparative analysis is worthwhile.

3.3. Sources

The comparative analysis of Québec’s and Wallonia’s paradiplomacy is based on both primary sources and secondary literature, at both theoretical and empirical level. At the theoretical level, the thesis examines literature concerning the development, definition, and typology of paradiplomacy, as well as most often cited motivations for the involvement of constituent units in foreign affairs. This part of the research draws predominantly upon secondary works including books, monographs, academic booklets, and journal articles. At the empirical level, the thesis examines both comparative and case studies of Québec’s and Wallonia’s paradiplomatic activities. However, to obtain a more accurate picture of Québec’s and Wallonia’s paradiplomatic activities, the analytical part of the thesis is based mainly on primary sources including Québec’s and Wallonia’s official government websites, government documents, speeches, and discussions in both English and

French language.

There is plenty of information on the Internet about paradiplomacy of constituent units. To use only the relevant secondary sources for this thesis, the

Academic Search Complete database (provided by EBSCO), the JSTOR: Journal

Storage database (provided by JSTOR), and the Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory database (provided by ProQuest) were chosen as the main sources for academic articles. After trying different combinations of search terms, the following search queries were selected: "paradiplomacy", "paradiplomacy of Wallonia",

"paradiplomacy of Quebec" and "diplomacy of constituent units". These search terms proved to be optimal compared to alternative combinations.

18

4. Analytical Section

Comparing the diplomatic activities of constituent units is a difficult undertaking, particularly because of the different constitutional and institutional settings in each country (Criekemans, 2010b, p. 2). Moreover, already in 1990 Ivo

Duchacek wrote that the interventions of constituent governments in international relations differ in form, intensity and frequency (p. 15 – 16). However, a comparison of cases with similar socio-economic background, political practices, and culture is worth conducting (Criekemans, 2010b, p. 2).

This chapter uses an inductive rather than a deductive approach. The main objective of this chapter is to explore and compare Québec’s and Wallonia’s constitutional settings, intergovernmental relations, and paradiplomatic activities on the international stage. The dimensions of Québec´s and Wallonia´s paradiplomatic activities under examination are as follows: (1) number of concluded formal treaties and agreements, (2) number of offices/representation established abroad, (3) participation in multilateral organizations, and (4) budget of foreign policy.

4.1. Historical Context

To provide a brief context of how Québec and Wallonia became international actors, this section outlines some of the main events that led to the assignment of competences over international relations to Québec and Wallonia.

4.1.1. Québec as an International Actor

Canada came into existence in 1867 when the British North America (BNA) Act declared Canada a centralized federation, today consisting of 13 constituent units15

(provinces and territories) (Lecours, 2009, p. 119 – 120). However, it was not until

15 In 1867, Canada consisted only of four provinces including Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, which were soon joined by other provinces, including Manitoba (1870), Northwest Territories (1870), British Columbia (1871), Prince Edward Island (1873), Yukon (1898), Alberta (1905), Saskatchewan (1905), Newfoundland (1949), and Nunavut (1999) (Government of Canada – Privy Council Office, 2010a). 19

1931 when the Statute of Westminster acknowledged Canadian sovereignty over foreign affairs16 and until the 1960s when the "British umbilical cord" was completely cut (Balthazar, 1999, p. 154).

Four important initiatives structured Québec´s emerging relations with the world: (1) opening of the Maison du Québec in Paris in 1961, (2) signing of the first agreement on education with France in 1965, (3) adoption of Gérin-Lajoie doctrine in

196517, and (4) Québec´s participation in international conferences on education of francophone countries. These events ultimately led to the recognition of Québec as a legal person (CBC, 2001 Nossal, Roussel Paquin, 2011, p. 306). In spite of that,

Ottawa claims to be the only depository of sovereignty, holding competency over international relations. As such, it refuses to formalize and institutionalize the general framework governing Québec’s international actions and Québec can thus conduct its foreign policy only within the constraining requirements of the federal government (Balthazar, 1999, p. 160; Bélanger, 2002, p. 198 – 201).

4.1.2. Wallonia as an International Actor

Belgium was created in 1830 as a unitary, centralized state. The accommodation between the Francophone community of the south and the Dutch community of the north was "less a love match than a marriage of convenience". However, the process of integration of the two linguistic communities was smoothed by the relative economic backwardness of Flanders as there was little pressure on the Francophone establishment to recognize the Flemish as an equal partner in the state (O’Neill, p.

243 – 244).

The turning point of the unitary state occurred in the 1960s when the Flemish economy experienced boost while the economic supremacy of Wallonia declined. At

16 Canada remained a colony of the British Empire until that time therefore, it needed to follow the UK foreign policy (Lecours, 2009, p. 117). 17 To this day the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine is considered to be the official foundation of Québec’s international activities (Balthazar, 1999, p. 159). It advocated for Québec’s autonomous international actions based on identity and not just constitutionality (Bélanger, 2002, p. 199).

20

that time, many in the Flemish community advocated for cultural parity rather than subordination to Francophone dominance. Thus, when in the 1970s Flemish demands for cultural autonomy18 intersected with Walloon demands for economic autonomy19, the formation of Belgian Regions and Communities seemed unavoidable

(Dumont et al., 2006, p. 36).

The Belgian state was remade by means of four state reforms of 1970, 1980, 1988, and 1992, which led to the establishment of a basic framework on which a fully- fledged federal structure could be raised (Portal Belgium, 2009). In 1993 Belgium was declared a federal state (Article 1 of the Constitution of Federal Belgium) composed of six constituent units: the French Community, the Flemish Community, the

German Community, the Walloon Region, the Flemish Region, and the Capital

Region of Brussels (Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Federal Belgium).

4.2. Constitutional Setting

Structural context plays a significant role in determining the scope and intensity of constituent units´ paradiplomatic activities (Lecours, 2002a, p. 7). It can either provide opportunity for an action or impose constrains on the constituent units to operate abroad. Examining especially treaty-making/treaty-implementing powers and the establishment of offices/representation abroad, this section will help reveal which constituent unit is given more room for maneuver on the international scene.

4.2.1. Treaty-making and Treaty-implementing Powers

Contrary to most federal constitutions, the Canadian Constitution Act, 1867, was silent on the question of international relations. It did not explicitly assign competences over foreign policy to either level of government (Nossal, Roussel

Paquin, 2011, p. 286). Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, assigned 29 specific

18 The Flemish demands were made in reaction to the cultural and social hegemony of the French language (Dumont, 2006, p. 36). 19 The Walloon demands resulted from a Flemish upturn in economy and Wallonia’s consequent defensive reaction (Dumont, 2006, p. 36). 21

heads of power to the federal government, making the federal government responsible for making laws for the Peace, Order, and Good Government of

Canada20. Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, assigned 16 specific heads of power to the provinces21. Finally, sections 93, 94A and 95 enumerated concurrent powers22 (Cameron, 2002, p. 108 – 111 Government of Canada – Privy Council

Office, 2010b Simeon Papillon, p. 6 – 7).

The silence regarding the competence over foreign affairs was not unusual since

Canada did not become a sovereign government until 1931 and the responsibility over international relations was left in the hands of London (Nossal, Roussel

Paquin, 2011, p. 286 – 287). However, with the acquisition of sovereignty over foreign affairs, a question was quickly raised whether the federal government had the power to force provincial governments to implement treaties that fell under their jurisdiction. It was Ontario in the Labour Conventions case of 1937 that challenged such power (Patry, 1980, p. 155). In the same year, the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council in London23 ruled that by virtue of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, the provinces were not obliged to undertake legislative measures in order to implement treaties concluded by the federal government (Nossal, Roussel

Paquin, 2011, p. 287 – 288). Since then, international treaty-making in Canada has followed a dualist model: negotiation, signature, and ratification of treaties have

20 Some of the important competences of the federal government include defence, military, trade and commerce, direct/indirect taxation, authority for money and banking, Indian reserves, and treaty powers (Government of Canada – Privy Council Office, 2010b). 21 Some of the important competences of the provincial government include direct taxation within the province, administration of civil/criminal justice, property and civil rights within the province, health and welfare, and matters of merely local nature (Government of Canada – Privy Council Office, 2010b). 22 The concurrent powers include education, pensions, agriculture and immigration. In addition to these, there are also three areas in which the federal and provincial government overlap, i.e. criminal law, the courts, and the federal spending power and share cost programs (Cameron, 2002, p. 111). 23 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in Council or to the Judicial Committee (Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2011). 22

been the exclusive prerogatives of the federal government while implementation of treaties has belonged to either level of government (Barnett, 2008, p. 5).

On the contrary, in Belgium the division of powers has been based on the principle of residual powers of the federal government24 and attributed powers of the constituent units25,26 (Swenden & Jans, 2006, p. 886). Since the revision of the

Constitution in 1993, Belgian constituent units have been not only entitled but even compelled by the Constitution to manage their own international relations. The autonomy of Belgian constituent units is in this regard unique in the world.

According to Article 167 of the Constitution, the federal government conducts international relations

W ithout prejudicing the competency of the Communities and the Regions to deal with international cooperation, including the conclusion of treaties, for the fields that fall within their competences in conformity with the Constitution or by virtue of the latter.

The same Article also stipulates that "the governments of the Communities and

Regions as defined in Article 121 each conclude, for those areas that concern them,

24 Those powers include defence, justice, social security and pensions, public health, finance, public services administration etc. (for a detailed list of federal competences see Lehmann, 2002, p. 47 – 48). 25 The communities manage the so-called "person-bounded competences" which comprise three broad areas: education, cultural matters, and matters of immediate concern to citizens25 (Articles 24, 128 – 130 of the Constitution The Special Act of 8 August 1980). The regions manage the so-called "territorially-bounded competences" including economic and territorial matters such as infrastructure, spatial and structural planning or environmental policy (Bursens & Massart-Piérard, 2009, p. 93 Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa, n.d.). 26 The situation in Wallonia differs from that of Flanders. While the competences of the Flemish Community and Flemish Region have in practice been merged (they are managed by one Flemish Government and monitored by one Flemish Parliament), the competences of the French-speaking Community Government and Walloon Regional Government have remained separate (Criekemans, 2011). However, already in 1996 the French Community and the Walloon Region passed a cooperation agreement limited to closer ties in international relations between the Commissariat general des Relations internationales de la Communauté Française (CGRI) and the Direction générale des Relations internationales de la Région Wallonie (DRI) (Bursens Massart-Piérard, 2009, p. 108).

23

the treaties that fall within the realm of their Council´s i.e., Parliament´s competency". From a comparative perspective, the constitutional principle "in foro interno, in foro externo", which implies absence of hierarchy between the federal and constituent level of government, makes the Belgian federal structure exceptional

(Criekemans, 2010b, p. 2 – 3).

The in foro interno, in foro externo principle also prescribes alignment between the internal and external powers of the constituent units. Accordingly, if a constituent government is competent internally for a certain domain, it automatically becomes competent for that domain externally. The Belgian constituent units thus possess a true international legal personality, which entitles them to make and implement international treaties for matters that fall into the area of their exclusive competencies (Beyers Bursens, 2006, p. 10).

4.2.2. Establishment of Representation Abroad

The government of Québec has acquired international presence through the establishment of representation offices abroad. Section 92(4) of the Constitution Act,

1867, gave provinces authority over the Establishment and Tenure of Provincial

Offices. These offices have served numerous purposes: they have assisted in the negotiation of international agreements and networking with consulates of other countries (McNiven Cann, 1993, p. 179 – 180), acted as the first line for lobbying foreign governments, promoted trade and investment between Québec and another foreign country/constituent unit, and arranged local visits for provincial politicians

(Nossal, Roussel Paquin, 2011, p. 294).

In Belgium, the constituent units are also entitled to designate their own representatives abroad, be it part of or separately from the diplomatic and consular posts of Belgium (Tombeur, 2001 in Paquin, 2010, p. 176; Van den Brande et al, 2011, p. 73). The Belgian ambassador does not have any superior authority over the representatives of constituent units (Paquin, 2010, p. 177). Consequently, no other

24

constituent units in the world have been given as much freedom as the Belgian ones in terms of foreign representation (Evens, 2008, p. 3).

4.3. Intergovernmental Relations

According to Michael Keating (2000), political factors are the most important ones in determining the possibilities and constraints for paradiplomacy. To Keating, the attitude of state governments towards their constituent units is very important.

While some governments continue to perceive all matters reaching beyond the state boundaries as their exclusive jurisdiction, others have woken up to the fact that the distinction between domestic and international affairs is ever more difficult to draw and have begun to cooperate with constituent units (p. 8). The main objective of this section is to find out which federal government, that of Canada or that of Belgium, gives its constituent units more room to (1) input in the making of the national foreign policy and/or (2) develop their own paradiplomatic activities. The focus is on the nature of intergovernmental relations and the degree to which those relations are formalized (institutionalized).

4.3.1. Nature of Intergovernmental Relations

Canadian intergovernmental relations are characterized by executive federalism, i.e. discussions can take place at various levels: between the first ministers, ministers, deputy ministers, senior officials, or public servants from both orders of government. Cooperation can be either vertical, i.e. between the federal and provincial government, or horizontal, i.e. between the provincial governments

(Hudon, 2004, p. 2). Although Canada is a highly decentralized federation, the federal government remains the dominant force in intergovernmental relations. This is mainly a consequence of the constitutional provisions that in practice confer significant advantage to the federal government (Trench, 2003, p. 5). At the same time, however, the federal government must consult the provinces regarding matters that fall into the area of their jurisdiction (Michelmann, 2011, p. 6).

25

When it comes to negotiating international treaties falling under the provincial jurisdiction, the need for discussions between the federal government and constituent units is essential. Traditionally, there have been more or less regular consultations between the two orders of government before an international treaty was negotiated. These consultations would take different forms ranging from meetings of first and sectoral ministers to the establishment of regular committees for consultations. Yet, the federal government would not allow the provinces to participate directly in the negotiations (Michelmann, 2011, p. 6 – 7). As of now, the practice has somewhat changed with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade

Agreement (CETA), which, if concluded, will be the most important trade agreement negotiated by Canada since NAFTA. The provinces themselves actively participate in the negotiations and commit to the Agreement, particularly because at the end they will be the ones responsible for implementing most of the Agreement’s provisions.

Therefore, the EU has made the provinces’ presence at the negotiations a ʺcondition sine qua non" for beginning the negotiations (Leblond, 2010, p. 74, 77). Whether this practice persists is to be seen.

The Belgian constituent units enjoy what Québec has attempted to achieve in its relationship with Ottawa for a long time: the right to conduct foreign relations, i.e. to negotiate, conclude, and implement international treaties on matters under their jurisdiction. And even though the Belgian constituent units must inform the federal government of all the international agreements they enter into and the federal government can suspend their treaty-making procedures if the broad orientation of

Belgian foreign policy is compromised, the federal government has not taken such an action yet and is unlikely to do so.

With regard to treaty implementing procedures, both the federal and constituent governments must ensure that they comply with the obligations they have undertaken. The constitution does allow the federal government to take responsibility for obligations undertaken by a constituent unit if that constituent unit

26

is found in conflict with the adopted international agreements however, such a situation has not arisen yet (Michelmann, 2011, p. 23).

4.3.2. Formalization (institutionalization) of intergovernmental relations

Canada differs from other federations in that it has not developed any permanent structures in which foreign relations are the primary focus, nor has it adopted any formal political arrangements guiding its foreign policy (Lecours, 2009, p. 122). Over the past few decades, several mechanisms have been developed to support intergovernmental relations; however, these mechanisms have neither been formally anchored in the Constitution, nor have they had any basis in a law or a statute. Rather, they have tended to evolve on an ad hoc basis, in response to changing political dynamics (Government of Canada – Privy Council Office, 2011).

At the apex of these mechanisms are the federal/provincial First Ministers´

Conferences and the Annual Premiers´ Conferences that bring together Canada´s most senior political leaders. They provide a forum for the exchange of information and negotiation of general policy directions. The frequency of meetings varies depending on the political agenda. Much of the work in intergovernmental relations also takes place in Ministerial Meetings. It is the Councils of federal and provincial

Ministers that are responsible for the development of policies in specific sectors.

Finally, below the political level there are numerous meetings among deputy ministers and other senior officials (Government of Canada – Privy Council Office,

2011). As Stéphane Paquin (2010) argues, these mechanisms are not sufficient.

According to him:

[T]he provinces have a limited role in intergovernmental mechanisms. Given the importance of the provincial role in the implementation of treaties that affect their spheres of jurisdiction, one might have hoped for more institutional settings that are not simply for a discussion. It should be normal to hope for 27

institutions where decisions are taken jointly and where the federal government is obliged to take into account the views of provinces, as is the case in Belgium (p. 181).

The lack of formal, institutionalized intergovernmental structures in Canada is fundamentally different from the many cooperative characteristics and mechanisms found in Belgium where formal cooperation takes place through one or more of the following procedures. The most formal one is the Deliberation Committee

(Reuchamps Onclin, 2009, p. 33). It is a "compromise-building measure of last resort" used when all other mechanisms have failed to resolve disputes between the federal government and constituent units (Swenden Jans, 2006, p. 887). The

Deliberation Committee consists of the prime minister, five federal ministers and six constituent unit ministers (with the same number of Flemish and Walloon representatives) who meet once a month (OECD, 2010, p. 83).

Second, Interministerial Conferences are established for dealing with high- level specialized discussions on specific policy issues between the federal and constituent unit ministers of various policy areas27 (Happaerts, Schunz & Bruyninckx,

2011, p. 8). The decisions taken at Interministerial Conferences have no binding power (OECD, 2010, p. 83). In both Deliberation Committee and Interministerial conferences decisions are taken unanimously (Jans & Tombeur, 2000, p. 153).

Finally, the federal government and constituent units conclude cooperative agreements for the development of joint initiatives and shared exercise of competences (OECD, 2010, p. 153). Cooperative agreements are the most common intergovernmental mechanism in Belgium (Jans & Tombeur, 2000, p. 148). Several hundreds of such agreements have been concluded and because their development occurs in that similar way as that of international treaties, it is often said that Belgium

27 The Interministerial Committee on Foreign Policy (ICFP), for instance, brings together both federal and constituent unit ministers for foreign affairs (Evens, 2008, p. 3; Lagasse, 1997, p. 10). 28

resembles an international organization (Happaerts, Schunz & Bruyninckx, 2011, p.

7).

4.4. Paradiplomatic Activities in Action

Paradiplomacy is a term that corresponds to the organized political exercise of constituent units’ series of international actions. To compare which constituent unit,

Quebec or Wallonia, is more active on the international stage, this section examines several dimensions of Québec´s and Wallonia´s paradiplomatic activities: (1) the number of formal treaties/agreements they have concluded and implemented, (2) the degree of their representation abroad, (3) their participation in multilateral organizations, and (4) the amount of money they invest into their foreign policies.

However, before delving into the actual comparison of Quebec´s and Wallonia´s paradiplomatic activities, this section first provides brief information about the constituent units´ ministries of international relations.

4.4.1. Ministries of International Relations

Québec is one of the most active constituent units on the international stage. Its diplomacy is anchored in the Ministry of International Relations, which was established in 1967 as the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, replacing and expanding on an earlier Ministry of Federal-Provincial Relations. This new department gave substance to Québec’s international involvement and, at the same time, the need for more coherent, better coordinated efforts of Québec’s international efforts was acknowledged (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2008a).

Wallonia has recently found itself in a process of fusing external activities of both the French-speaking Community and the Walloon Region. The reciprocal desire of the two Belgian constituent units for synergy culminated in 1996 when a cooperation agreement was signed. This agreement laid down the groundwork for a form of coordination on the international scene by bringing together agencies of the

French-speaking Community, i.e. the Commissariat Général des Relations

29

Internationales (CGRI)28, and of the Walloon Region, i.e. the Division des Relations

Internationales (DRI)29 (Portal Wallonia, 2007). Since 1996 four additional cooperation agreements have been signed by the French Community, the Walloon Region, and the Brussels Capital Region´s French Community Commission (COCOF) (Bursens

Massart-Piérard, 2009, p. 108). In 2005 it was further decided that the French- speaking Community and the Walloon would be fused, representing the three governments (French-speaking Community, Walloon Region, and COCOF) on the international stage (CFWB, n.d.). The new foreign ministry, called Wallonie –

Bruxelles Internationales (WBI), became operational in 2009 (Criekemans, 2010c, p.

72).

4.4.2. Formal Treaties and Agreements

The making of international commitments is the most developed form of

Québec’s and Wallonia´s relations with its foreign partners. In practice, both Québec and Wallonia distinguish between different types of international documents with regard to their nature and scope (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec,

2011a WBI, 2009, p. 6). First of all, there are bilateral international agreements, which contain international commitments for which the constituent governments are responsible. To date, Québec has signed over 689 of those agreements, of which 382 are currently in force (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011b). In

Belgium, the CGRI-DRI administers different agreements signed by the French- speaking Community, Walloon Region, and COCOF on a daily basis. While some of the agreements involve only one of the units, many of them are co-signed. In 2009, the number of bilateral exclusive treaties administered by the WBI amounted to 69 for the French-speaking Community, 56 for the Walloon Region, and 13 for the

COCOF, that is 131 agreements in total (WBI, 2009, p. 6).

28 The CGRI was created in 1982 and began its activities in 1983. It was a semi-governmental body that looked after the international affairs regarding community matters (WBI, n.d.). 29 The DRI is was created in 1981 and incorporated into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Walloon Region in 1983 (WBI, n.d.). 30

Second, Québec has exclusive power to implement multilateral conventions that fall under its jurisdiction. To date, Québec has declared itself bound by 28 of them

(Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011c). Wallonia, having not only treaty-implementing but also treaty-making powers, has signed over 345 treaties that touch upon competences of both the Belgian federal government and the constituent units30 (Criekemans, 2010b, p. 21).

Finally, both the Government of Québec and the Government of Wallonia sign various forms of non-binding agreements including declarations of intent, joint statements, joint press releases, and reports of discussions. To date, Québec has signed more than 165 of those agreements (Ministère des Relations internationals

Québec, 2011d). As for Wallonia, the data regarding the number of non-enforceable agreements it signed are not available.

4.4.2. Representation Abroad

In 2011, Québec maintained 29 provincial representative offices in 17 countries including seven general delegations31, five delegations32, 11 bureaus33, four satellite offices34, and representations in two international organizations35 (Ministère des

Relations internationals Québec, 2011e, p. 4). Moreover, the Government of Québec routinely conducts some 150-200 cultural, political and commercial missions every year (Nossal, Roussel, & Paquin, 2011, p. 304).

30 The so-called mixed treaties. 31 The general delegations are located in Brussels, London, Mexico, Munich, New York, Paris, and Tokyo (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011e, p. 4). 32 The delegations are located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Rome (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011e, p. 4). 33 The bureaus are located in Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Damas, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, Shangai, Stockholm, Vienna, and Washington (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011e, p. 4). 34 The satellite offices are located in Milan, Santiago, Seoul, and Taipei (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2011e, p. 4). 35 The international organizations are OIF and UNESCO (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2008b). 31

The Wallonian CGRI-DRI supports a large network of representatives abroad as well. Moreover, because the foreign policy of Wallonia is closely linked to three additional policy areas: International Trade Investment, International cultural policy, and International educational activities, the representation network consists not only of 16 political representatives of CGRI-DRI36, but also of a number of sectoral representations from, among others, the Walloon Agency for Export and

Foreign Investment (AWEX)37 and the Association for the Promotion of Educational

Training Abroad (APEFE)38 (Criekemans, 2010c, p. 66, 84). Moreover, there are six

Wallonia-Brussels offices in southern countries managed jointly with the APEFE39, a representation office in Baton Rouge and Louisiana, 44 lecturers and French teachers posted to European states and Israel under CGRI contract, and language lecturers and assistants posted in several bilateral partners within the EU (WBI, 2009, p. 5).

4.4.3. Participation in Multilateral Organizations

The belief that Québec will be able to exercise more influence in the international arena by rallying other partners and working more closely with them is the underlying premise of its policy (Gagnon-Tremblay in Ministère des Relations internationals, 2006, p. x). Operating as "Canada Québec", Québec has been actively involved in the International Organization of La Francophonie (OIF) since 1970. It is through La Francophonie that Québec best affirms its international personality in multilateral settings. Not only does La Francophonie give Québec an opportunity to

36 The delegations with a diplomatic statute are: Algiers, Berlin, Brussels, Bucharest, Dakar, Geneva, Hanoi, Kinshasa, Paris, Peking, Prague, Québec, Rabat, Santiago du Chile, Tunisia, Warsaw. In 2009, 146 individuals worked in the Walloon representations abroad (WBI, 2009, p. 5). 37 AWEX, as a foreign trade agency, carries out a mission of promotion and information for the benefit of both Wallonia and the foreign business community. AWEX has 107 representatives in 73 different countries (AWEX, 2011, p. 2). 38 APEFE does not have representatives abroad. Nevertheless, there are coordinators for the missions in the different countries. In 13 countries, where APEFE is active, APEFE has a separate coordination bureau. In other cases, this role is exercised by coordinators from the bureau of CGRI-DRI (APEFE, 2008). 39 The Wallonia-Brussels offices are located in Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Haiti, and Rwanda (WBI, 2009, p. 5). 32

forge alliances and develop joint positions that increase its capacity for action, but it also serves as a forum for discussions and collaboration between governments

(Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2009). La Francophonie is also one of the most important multilateral platforms for the foreign policy of Wallonia. The

French Community became its member in 1980 and, after France and Canada, is the third major financial contributor to the organization (La Revue Toudi, 2009).

With the exception of La Francophonie, it is the federal government that represents Canada before international organizations. However, Québec is convinced that the voice of Canada abroad must reflect positions and interests of both the federal and provincial governments. For that reason, Québec is ready to work within

Canadian delegations, not only with representatives of the federal government, but also with members of the Council of the Federation40 (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2006, p. 28). A historic first for Québec occurred in 2006 when the Government of Québec and the Government of Canada signed an agreement establishing formal role for Québec as part of the UN. Québec’s presence as a full participating member of the Permanent Delegation of Canada to the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) provides Québec with the right to be consulted prior to Canadian interventions in multilateral for a, a request submitted by each of Québec’s successive governments over the past four decade (Ministère des Relations internationals Québec, 2009).

Compared to Quebec, Wallonia´s involvement in multilateral organizations is much more comprehensive. It participates in organizations such as the Council of

Europe, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and other specialized agencies of the UN (Portal Wallonia, 2007). Since 2005, the WBI also indirectly

40 The Council of the Federation is an institution in Canada established in 2003. It is made up of the premiers of Canada’s provinces. The main purpose of this Council is to discuss issues relating to intergovernmental relations (Council of the Federation, n.d.). 33

participates in the Human Rights Council of the UN, World Health Council of the

World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO)

(Criekemans, 2010b, p. 27 – 28). Closer to home, the WBI also pursues numerous initiatives to reinforce its presence at the EU level. The WBI represents Belgium in the

EU Council of Ministers and other EU institutions when matters falling under their jurisdiction are negotiated there (Michelmann, 2011, p. 25). In addition to that,

Wallonia benefits from intervention in the framework of the Regional Cooperation

Objective via programs including Interreg IV-A41, Interreg IV-B42, and Interreg IV-C43.

4.4.4. Budget

Both Québec and Wallonia invest a lot of money in the development of their foreign policy. However, when comparing the budget allocated to Quebec’s foreign policy in 2009 to that of Wallonia in 200744, it is evident that Quebec invests significantly more into its foreign policy―$124,000,000―than Wallonia―$88,035,692

(for a detailed break-down of the Quebec’s financial resources see Ministère des

Relations internationals Québec, 2010, p. 60; for a detailed break-down of Wallonia’s financial resources see Criekemans, 2010c, p. 76).

41 Cross-border Interreg IV-A programmes aim to bring adjacent cross-border regions closer together. These programmes involve a wide variety of areas of common interest e.g. culture, tourism, economic development, and transport. The program partners are the region of Wallonia, the French and German speaking community of Belgium, the Gran Duchy of Luxembourg, the German Länder of Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate, the Prefecture of the region of Lorraine, the Regional Council of Lorraine, the General Councils of the departments Moselle, Meuse and Meurthe-et-Moselle (Interreg IV-A, n.d.). 42 Transnational Interreg IV-B programmes centre on promoting a higher degree of territorial integration with a goal of achieving sustainable, harmonious, and balanced development actŕoss the EU and better territorial integration with other neighbouring countries. Key areas of focus include innovation, environment, accessibility and sustainable urban environment. There are 13 programme zones (SEUPB, n.d.). 43 Inter-regional cooperation Interreg IV-C supports areas such as innovation and the knowledge economy, environment and risk prevention. Its aim is to contribute to the economic modernization and competitiveness of Europe. Co-operation projects are eligible across all 27 EU states, Norway, and Switzerland (Interreg, IV-C, n.d., SEUPB, n.d.). 44 The newest data of Wallonia´s budget for foreign policy are for year 2007. 34

5. Conclusion

Québec and Wallonia can be compared in many ways; both are part of a decentralized federation, both are open economies, and both fall into the category of francophone units. However, what makes these cases interesting is that they remain different where it is important for this research, i.e. their constitutional setting, intergovernmental relations and, thus, their actual paradiplomatic activities.

5.1. Constitutional Setting

The Canadian constitutional setting is by far less permissive to paradiplomatic activities than that of Belgium. First of all, Canadian constituent units are not accorded any power to speak on behalf of the Government of Canada or to formally shape Canadian foreign policy. That is different from Belgium where constituent units enjoy great autonomy in the international arena, particularly due to the exclusive and non-hierarchical division of powers. In terms of treaty-making and treaty-implementing powers, Canadian constituent units are accorded only treaty- implementing powers in policy fields that fall under their jurisdiction whereas

Belgian constituent units have an important role at every step of treaty-making and treat-implementing in policy fields that fall under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, in cases of inaction, the Government of Canada does not ratify a treaty after a province has passed legislation for the implementation of the treaty. In Belgium, on the other hand, the federal government can substitute for the constituent unit governments in ratifying international agreements, which ultimately puts significant pressure on the constituent governments (Paquin, 2010, p. 197).

5.2. Intergovernmental Relations

As it was shown in the previous chapter, the Canadian practice does not allow provinces to input in the making of national foreign policy to nearly the degree as is the case in Belgium (Michelmann, 2011, p. 37). Canadian provinces have an

35

asymmetrical role in intergovernmental mechanisms; there are very few institutions in Canada where decisions are taken collectively and where the federal government has to take into account the views of the constituent units. In the case of Belgium, the two levels of government cooperate very closely. The secret of Belgium´s success is in its highly institutionalized intergovernmental mechanisms. Because Canada does not have intergovernmental mechanisms of coordination, many problems remain unresolved (Paquin, 2010, p. 196).

5.3. Paradiplomatic Activities in Action

In addition to the constitutional setting and intergovernmental relations/mechanisms, the international context favours Walloon paradiplomacy as well. The EU provides a formidable external opportunity structure for Wallonia to develop its paradiplomacy. As André Lecours (2002a) argues: "the EU allows

Wallonia and other Belgian units, in virtue of the peculiarity of Belgian federalism, to give their paradiplomacy a very distinctive outlook" (p. 11). And as Hans

Michelmann (2011) adds: "it is almost meaningless because of the scope and intensity of the EU integration process to equate Canada’s role in NAFTA with that of member states in the EU" (p. 37). There is no political integration or supranational forum in

North America where constituent units could bypass the central state and develop their own formal relationships (Lecours, 2002a, p. 13). Moreover, Québec’s involvement in other international organizations is limited as well; the federal government allows Québec’s direct involvement only in La Francophonie and

UNESCO.

5.4. Hypothesis

It is evident that even though Wallonia’s constitutional setting is more favourable to paradiplomacy than that of Québec, and the Government of Canada provides its constituent units with more opportunities to input into the making of a national foreign policy and/or the development of the constituent units´ own

36

paradiplomatic activities, Quebec’s involvement on the international stage is comparable to, and in some cases more extensive than, that of Wallonia. It is, therefore, possible to state that the opportunity structure of Quebec and Wallonia does not reflect the degree of Quebec’s and Wallonia’s involvement on the international stage.

5.5. Future Research

What then counts for Québec’s strong international activity? For André Lecours

(2002a) it is nationalism. According to him, constituent units with strong nationalist sentiments are much more likely to develop an international presence than regions where no such sentiments exist (p. 7). Indeed, Walloon political leaders rarely speak of Wallonia as a nation; rather, they use the concept of political community. In

Québec, on the other hand, nationalism accounts for its extensive paradiplomacy and international network. Nationalism constitutes a way to affirm the distinctiveness of

Québec’s identity vis-à-vis the Canadian identity (p. 10 – 12).

However, different authors endorse different "key" explanatory variables for conducting paradiplomacy (see Keating 2000 Michelmann, 2011). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore whether nationalism is really the one, most important, force that accounts for Québec’s extensive paradiplomacy.

37

6. Bibliography

6.1. Primary Sources

APEFE (Association for the Promotion of Educational Training Abroad). (2008).

Rapport d´activités 2008. Retrieved from http://www.apefe.be/rapports-

dactivites.html.

AWEX (Wallonia Foreign Trade and Investment Agency). (2011). Anuga 2011.

Brussels: Belgium. Retrieved from http://awex.bg/shared/Brochure%20a

nuga%20anglais.pdf.

CBC. (2001). The Quiet Revolution: The provincial government spearheads

revolution in Québec. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCO

NTENTSE1EP16CH1PA1LE.html.

CFWB (La Communauté française deviant le Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles). (n.d.).

Wallonie-Bruxelles International (WBI). Retrieved from http://www.cf

wb.be/index.php?id=103.

Council of the Federation. (n.d.). About the Council. Retrieved from

http://www.councilofthefederation.ca/aboutcouncil/aboutcouncil.html.

Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa. (n.d.). Bilateral relations: Belgian federalism and

international relations. Retrieved from http://www.diplomatie.be/ott

awa/default.asp?id=28&ACT=5&content=88&mnu=28.

Government of Canada – Privy Council Office. (2011). Intergovernmental relations in

the Canadian context. Retrieved from http://www.pco-

bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=relations&doc=context/context-

eng.htm.

Government of Canada – Privy Council Office. (2010a). Act establishing the

provinces and territories of the Canadian federation. Retrieved from

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=provterr&sub=acts-

lois&doc=acts-lois-eng.htm. 38

Government of Canada – Privy Council Office. (2010b). The constitutional

distribution of legislative powers. Retrieved from http://www.pco-

bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=federal&sub=legis&doc=legis-eng.htm.

Interreg-A. (n.d.). Programme. Retrieved from http://www.interreg-

4agr.eu/en/page.php?pageId=338.

Interreg IV-C. (n.d.). About the programme. Retrieved from

http://www.interreg4c.eu/about_programme.html.

La Revue Toudi. (May 12, 2009). Promouvoir la Wallonie sur la scène européenne et

mondiale. Retrieved from http://www.larevuetoudi.org/fr/story/9-promouvoir-

la-wallonie-sur-la-sc%C3%A8ne-europ%C3%A9enne-et-mondiale.

Ministère des Relations internationales du Québec. (2011a). International

commitments. Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/informer/ente

ntes/engagements.asp.

Ministère des Relations internationals Québec. (2011b). International agreements.

Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/informer/ententes/index.asp?ty

pe_eng=1.

Ministère des Relations internationals Québec. (2011c). Multilateral conventions.

Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/informer/ententes/index.asp?ty

pe_eng=2.

Ministère des Relations internationals Québec. (2011d). Non-binding agreements.

Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/informer/ententes/index.asp?ty

pe_eng=4.

Ministère des Relations internationales du Québec. (2011e). Rapport annuel de

gestion, 2010 – 2011 (Sommaire). Québec, QC: Gouvernment du Québec.

Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/pdf/publications/Sommaire_R

AG_2010-2011.pdf.

39

Ministère des Relations internationals. (2010). Rapport annuel de gestion 2009 – 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/pdf/rapport_annuel_2009-

2010.pdf.

Ministère des Relations internationals. (2009). Forums interntionaux. Retrieved from

http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/relations_Québec/forums_internationaux/index.a

sp.

Ministère des Relations internationals. (2008a). History of the department. Retrieved

from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/ministere/histoire_ministere/index.asp

Ministère des Relations internationals. (2008b). International organizations. Retrieved

from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/relations_Québec/organisations_inter

nationales/index.asp.

Ministère des Relations internationals. (2006). Québec´s international policy:

Working in concert. Retrieved from http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/en/p

df/Politique.pdf.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2010). Better

regulation in Europe: Belgium 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.planejamento.gov.br/secretarias/upload/Arquivos/seges/arquivos/

OCDE2011/OECD_Belgium_2010.pdf.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2011). Para-prefix. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/137251?rskey=jv1Azb&result=10&isAdvanced

=false#eid.

Portal Belgium. (2009). Belgium, a federal state. Retrieved from

http://www.belgium.be/en/about_belgium/government/federale_staat/.

Portal Wallonia. (2007). The Walloon Region and the French-speaking Community.

Retrieved from http://www.wallonie.be/en/discover-wallonia/wallonia-and-

europe/international-relations/the-walloon-region-and-the-french-speaking-

community/index.html.

40

SEUPB (Special EU Programmes Body). (n.d.). Interreg IVB/C. Retrieved from

http://www.seupb.eu/programmes2007-2013/interreg-overview.aspx.

The Constitution Act. (1867). UK, 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3.

The Constitution of Federal Belgium. (1994). Coordinated Constitution.

The Special Act of August 8, 1980 on the Reform of the Institutions. Retrieved from

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&table_

name=loi&cn=1980080802.

WBI (Wallonie-Bruxelles International). (2009). Rapport d´activités 2009. Retrieved

from http://www.wbi.be/cgi/objects3/objects/media/0/1/3/5/7/0135783_media/m

edia0135783_media_1.pdf.

WBI (Wallonie-Bruxelles International). (n.d.). Wallonie-Bruxelles International.

Retrieved from http://www.wbi.be/cgi/bin3/render.cgi?id=0023372_arti

cle&ln=ln1&userid=&rubr=gen.

6.2. Secondary Literature

Aldecoa, F. & Keating, M. (1999). Introduction. In Francisco Aldecoa & Michael

Keating (Eds.), Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational

governments. London, UK: Frank Cass Publishers.

Aguirre, I. (1999). Making sense of paradiplomacy? An intertextual enquiry about a

concept in search of a definition. In Francisco Aldecoa Michael Keating (Eds.),

Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational governments (p. 185-

209). London, UK: Frank Cass Publishers.

Balthazar, L. (1999). The Québec experience: Success or failure? Regional and Federal

Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 153-169.

Barnett, L. (2008). Canada’s approach to the treaty-making process. Library of

Parliament. Retrieved from

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0845-e.pdf.

41

Bélanger, L. (2002). The domestic politics of Québec’s quest for external

distinctiveness. American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 195-214.

Bell, D. (1977). The future world disorder: The structural context of crisis. Foreign

Policy, No. 27, p. 109-135.

Beyers, J. Bursens, P. (2006). The European rescue of the federal state: How

Europenization shapes the Belgian state. Paper prepared for the ECPR Standing

Group in the EU Third Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, 21-23

September, Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.jhubc.it/ecpr-

istanbul/virtualpaperroom/011.pdf.

Blatter, J., Kreutzer, M., Rentl, M. Thiele, J. (2008). The foreign relations of

European regions: Competences and strategies. West European Politics, Vol. 31,

No. 3, pp. 464-490. London, UK: Routledge.

Bursens, P. & Massart-Piérard, F. (2009). In Hans J. Michelmann (Eds.), Foreign

relations in federal countries, p. 92-113. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen´s University

Press.

Busse, D. (1993). Semantic strategies as a means of politics: Linguistic approaches to

the analysis of ‚semantic struggles‚. In Pertti Ahonen (Eds.), Tracing the semiotic

boundaries of politics: Approaches to semiotics (p. 121-128). Berlin, Germany:

Mounton de Gruyter. Retrieved from http://www.phil-fak.uni-

duesseldorf.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Institute/Germanistik/AbteilungI/Busse/Te

xte/Busse-1993-03.pdf.

Cameron, D. R. (2002). Canada. In Ann L. Griffiths (Eds.), Handbook of federal

countries, 2002, p. 105 – 119. Forum of Federations. Québec, QC: McGill

University Press.

Cerny, P. (2000). Restructuring the political arena: Globalization and the paradoxes of

the competition state. In Randall D. Germain (Eds.), Globalization and its critics:

Perspectives from political economy (p. 117-138). New York, NY: St. Martin´s Press.

42

Criekemans, D. (2011). Belgium: The non-government country? Global Affairs.

Retrieved from http://www.globalaffairs.es/en/belgium-the-non-government-

country/.

Criekemans, D. (2010a). Regional sub-state diplomacy today. Leiden, The Netherlands:

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Criekemans, D. (2010b). Foreign policy and diplomacy of the Belgian regions:

Flanders and Wallonia. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of

International Relations ´Clingendael´. Retrieved from

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2010/20100300_cdsp_discussion_paper_

in_diplomacy_criekemans.pdf.

Criekemans, D. (2010c). The foreign policy and diplomatic representation of the

Belgian regions: Flanders and Wallonia compared. In Ferran REquejo (Eds.),

Foreign policy of constituent units at the beginning of 21st century, p. 43-102.

Barcelona, Spain: Institut d´Estudis Autonòmics.

Duchacek, I. D. (1990). Perforated sovereignties: Towards a typology of new actors in

international relations. In Hans J. Michelmann Panayotis Soldatos (Eds.),

Federalism and international relations, p. 1-33. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Duchacek, I. D., Latouche, D. & Garth, S. (1988). Perforated sovereignties and

international relations: Trans-sovereign contacts of subnational governments. New

York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Duchacek, I. D. (1986). The territorial dimension of politics: Within, among, and across

nations. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Duchacek, I. (1984). The international dimension of subnational self-government.

Publius, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 5-31. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330188.

Dumont, H., Lagasse, N., Van der Hulst, M., & Van Drooghenbroeck, S. (2006).

Kingdom of Belgium. In Akhtar Majeed, Ronald L. Watts, & Douglas M. Brown

43

(Eds.), Distribution of powers and responsibilities in federal countries. A global

dialogue on federalism, Vol. 2, p. 34-65. Québec, QC: McGill-Queen’s University

Press.

Evens, F. (2008). Organisation of external relations. Forum of Federations: The Global

Network on Federalism. Retrieved from http://www.forumfed.org/libd

ocs/2009/2008-09-18-Evens.pdf.

Fawcett, L. (2005). Regionalism from an historical perspective. In Mary Farrell, Björn

Hettne, Luk van Langenhove (Eds.), Global politics of regionalism: Theory and

practice (p. 21-37). London, UK: Pluto Press.

Fry, E. H. (2005). Sub-state strategies in an era of globalization and the information

technology revolution. In Stéphane Paquin & Guy Lachapelle (Eds.), Mastering

globalization: New sub-states’ governance strategies, p. 116-123. New York, NY:

Routledge.

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social

sciences. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

Griffiths, A. L. (2005). Handbook of federal countries, 2005. Forum of Federations.

Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Happaerts, S., Schunz, S. & Bruyninckx, H. (2011). Federalism and intergovernmental

relations: The multi-level politics of climate change policy in Belgium. Working

Paper No. 58. Retrieved from http://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/wo

rking_papers/new_series/wp51-60/wp58.pdf.

Hocking, B. (1999). Patrolling the ‘frontier’: Globalization, localization and the

‘actorness’ of non-central governments. In Francisco Aldecoa & Michael Keating

(Eds.), Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational governments.

London, UK: Frank Cass Publishers.

Hocking, B. (1993). Introduction. In Brian Hocking (Eds.), Foreign relations and federal

states, p. 1-8. London, UK: Leicester University Press.

44

Holm, H. & Sorensen G. (1995). Introduction: What has changed? In Hans-Henrik

Holm & Georg Sorensen (Eds.), Whose world order? Uneven globalization and the

end of the Cold War, p. 1-17. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Hooghe, L. (1996). Recensions/Reviews. Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29,

No. 1, pp. 202-203. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/a

ction/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6242248&fulltextType=BR&fileId=

S0008423900007630.

Hudon, M-E. (2004). The Council of the Federation and Canadian intergovernmental

relations. Library of Parliament. Retrieved from http://dsp-

psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/PRB-e/PRB0419-e.pdf.

Jans, M. T. & Tombeur, H. (2000). Living apart together: The Belgian

intergovernmental cooperation in the domains of environment and economy. In

Dietmar Braun (Eds.), Public policy and federalism. Burlington, ON: Ashgate

Publishing.

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. (2011). Home page. Retrieved from

http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/.

Kacowicz, A. M. (1998). Regionalization, globalization, and nationalism: Convergent,

divergent or overlapping? Working Paper No. 262. Presented at the IPSA Study

Group II: New World Orders? Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.

Kaiser, R. (2005). Sub-state governments in international arenas: Paradiplomacy and

multi-level governance in Europe and North America. In Stéphane Paquin &

Guy Lachapelle (Eds.), Mastering globalization: New sub-states’ governance

strategies, p. 90-103. New York, NY: Routledge.

Keating, M. (2000). Paradiplomacy and regional networking. Hanover, Germany:

Forum of Federations.

Keating, M. (1999). Regions and international affairs: Motives, opportunities and

strategies. In Francisco Aldecoa Michael Keating (Eds.), Paradiplomacy in

45

action: The foreign relations of subnational governments. Special issue of Regional

and Federal Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (p. 1-17).

Kiilo, T. (2006). Paradiplomacy and intergovernmental relations in the case of

Russian diaspora politics. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Tartu, Estonia:

University of Tartu.

Kincaid, J. (2009). Preface. In Hans J. Michelmann (Eds.), Foreign relations in federal

countries: A global dialogue on federalism, Volume 5. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen´s

University.

Kincaid, J. (2001). Roles of constituent governments. Ottawa, ON: Forum of

Federations.

Kovziridze, T. (2008). Hierarchy and interdependence in multi-level structures:

Foreign and European relations of Belgian, German, and Austrian federated

entities. Doctoral Thesis. Brussels, Belgium: VUBPRES Brussels. Retrieved from

http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/online/Hierarchy%20and%20Interdependence%20in

%20Multi-level%20Structures.pdf.

Lagasse, C.-E. (1997). Le système des relations internationales dans la Belgique

fédérale. Courrier Habdomadaire, No 1549-1550. Bruxelles, Belgium: CRISP.

Leblond, P. (2010). The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement:

More to it than meets the eye. Options Politiques, July – August. Retrieved from

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul10/leblond.pdf.

Lecours, A. (2009). Canada. In Hans J. Michelmann (Eds.), Foreign relations in federal

countries, p. 115-140. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen´s University Press.

Lécours, A. (2008). Political issues of paradiplomacy: Lessons from the developed

world. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. Retrieved from

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/20081217_cdsp_diplomacy_paper_

paradiplomacy.pdf.

Lecours, A. & Moreno, L. (2006). Paradiplomacy and stateless nations: A reference to

the Basque country. Madrid, Spain: Concordia University and Spanish National

46

Research Council. Retrieved from http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/147

2/1/dt-0106.pdf.

Lécours, A. (2002a). When regions go abroad: Globalization, nationalism and

federalism. Kingston, ON: Queen´s University. Retrieved from

http://www.pinkcandyproductions.com/portfolio/conferences/globalization/pdf

s/lecours.pdf.

Lecours, A. (2002b). Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the foreign policy and

international relations of regions. International Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 91-

114.

Lehmann, W. (2002). Atribution of powers and dispute resolution in selected federal

systems. Working Paper (Constitutional Affairs Series). Luxembourg,

Luxembourg: European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.uni-

mannheim.de/edz/pdf/dg4/AFCO103_EN.pdf.

Leslie, P. (2002). Globalization, multi-level governance, and democracy. Kingston,

ON: Queen´s University. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/co

nf/Arch/02/02-1/leslie.pdf.

Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research.

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 158-177.

Magone, J. S. (2006). Paradiplomacy revisited: The structure of opportunities of

global governance and regional actors. Final draft. Retrieved from

http://www.unizar.es/union_europea/files/documen/conferencia%2010.2006/Jo

seMAGONE%20final.pdf.

Massart-Piérard, F. (2005). Du local à l´international: Nouveaux acteurs, nouvelle

diplomatie. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, Vol. 12, No. 2. Louvain-la-

Neuve, Belgique: Université Catholique de Louvain.

McNiven, J. D. Cann, D. (1993). Canadian provincial trade offices in the United

States. In Douglas M. Brown Earl H. Fry (Eds), States and provinces in the

international economy, p. 167-184. Berkley, CA: University of California

47

Québec, QC: Queen´s University. Retrieved from http://www.queen

su.ca/iigr/pub/archive/books/Statesandprovince-brownfry1993.pdf.

Michelmann, H. J. (2011). Québec’s constituent diplomacy in comparative

perspective. Paper delivered at the 2011 International Studies Association

Convention, March 16. Montreal, QC.

Michelmann, H. J. (2009). Introduction. In Hans J. Michelmann (Eds.), Foreign

relations in federal countries, p. 3-8. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen´s University

Press.

Michelmann, H. J. (1990). Conclusion. In Hans J. Michelmann Panayotis Soldatos

(Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units, p. 299 –

315. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Neves, M. S. (2010). Paradiplomacy, knowledge regions and the consolidation of

‚soft power‚. JANUS.NET – e-journal of International Relations, No. 1, p. 10-28.

Retrieved from http://janus.ual.pt/janus.net/en/arquivo_en/en_vol1_n1/en_v

ol1_n1_art2.html.

Nossal, K. R., Roussel, S. & Paquin, S. (2011). International policy and politics in Canada.

Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada.

O’Neill, M. (1998). Re-imagining Belgium: New federalism and the political

management of cultural diversity. Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 51, No. 2, p. 241-

258.

Paquin, S. (2010). Federalism and multi-level governance in foreign affairs:

Comparison of Canada and Belgium. In Requejo Ferran (Eds.), Foreign policy of

constituent units at the beginning of 21st century, p. 161-186. Barcelona, Spain:

Institut d´Estudis Autonòmics.

Paquin, S. (2001). Les nouvelles relations internationales: Le Québec en comparaison.

Bulletin d´Histoire Politique, Vol. 10, No. 1. Montréal, QC: Université du Québec.

Patry, A. (1980). Le Québec dans le monde. Montréal, QC: Leméac.

48

Pop, A. (2006). Globalization, regionalization and the EU-Japan-U.S. triad. Romanian

Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 25-37.

Requejo, F. (2010). Foreign policy of constituent units in a globalised world. In Ferran

Requejo (Eds.), Foreign policy of constituent units at the beginning of 21st century.

Barcelona, Spain: Institut d´Estudis Autonòmics.

Reuchamps, M. Onclin, F. (2009). La federation belge. In Bernard Fournierand

Min Reuchamps (Eds.), In federalism en Belgique et au Canada: Comparaison

sociologique, p. 21-40. Bruxelles, Belgium: De Boeck.

Rokkan, S. Urwin, D. W. (1983). Economy, territory, identity. Politics of West European

peripheries. London, UK: Sage.

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political

Science Review, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 1033-1053.

Simeon, R. Papillon, M. (n.d.). Canada. Forum of Federations. International

Association of of Centers for Federal Studies. Retrieved from

http://www.federalism.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/Canadag2.pdf.

Soldatos, P. (1990). An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as

foreign-policy actors. In Hans J. Michelmann Panayotis Soldatos (Eds.),

Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units, p. 34 – 53. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Söderbaum, F. (2009). Consolidating comparative regionalism: From euro-centrism to

global comparison. Paper for the GARNET 2008 Annual Conference, University

of Bordeaux. Retrieved from http://garnet.sciencespobord

eaux.fr/Garnet%20papers%20PDF/SODERBAUM%20Fredrik.pdf.

Swenden, W. & Jans, M. T. (2006). Will it stay or will it go? Federalism and the

sustainability of Belgium. West European Politics, Vol. 29, No. 5, p. 877-894.

Szykman, S. (1995). Diplomacy: An historical perspective. Retrieved from

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995R/Szykman/History.html.

49

Totoricagüena, G. (2005). Diasporas as non-central government actors in foreign

policy: The trajectory of Basque paradiplomacy. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics,

Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 265-287.

Trench, A. (2003). Intergovernmental relations in Canada: Lessons for the UK?

London, UK: The Constitution Unit. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sp

p/publications/unit-publications/101.pdf.

Van den Brande, K., Happaerts, & Bruyninckx, H. (2011). Multi-level interactions in a

sustainable development context: Different routes for Flanders to decision-

making in the UN Commission on sustainable development. Environmental

Policy and Governance, Vol. 21, p. 70-82. Retrieved from http://onlinelibr

ary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.563/pdf.

Wolff, S. (2007). Paradiplomacy: Scope, opportunities and challenges. The Bologna

Center Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 10, pp. 141-150. Bologna, Italy: The

Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://bcjournal.org/storage/BCJ-

2007edition.pdf.

All internet sources were verified to November 15th, 2011.

50