EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE * &K ' , . Giovanni Delii Zotti THE TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS OF FRIULI-VENETIA JULIA A dissertation submitted foir the doctoral degree in the Department of Political and Social Sciences. Board of Examiners: Prof. Rudolf Wildenmann, Chairman Prof. Hans Daalder, Supervisor Prof. Umberto Gori, Co-supervisor Prof. Alessandro Pizzorusso Florence, 1981 European University Library iiiiiniiimi 3 0001 0011 7994 6 3 ¿ 1 o s i EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE THESES a/M* 327 'i 01 J S j j r * Giovanni Delli Zotti del THE TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS OF FRIULI-VENETIA JULIA A dissertation submitted for the doctoral degree in the Department of Political and Social Sciences Board of Examiners: Prof. Rudolf Wiidenmann, Chairman Prof. Hans Daalder, Supervisor Prof. Umberto Gori, Co-supervisor Prof. Alessandro Pizzorusso Florence, 1981 EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE Giovanni Delli Zotti THE TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS OF FRIULI-VENETIA JULIA A dissertation submitted for the doctoral degree in the Department of Political and Social Sciences. Board Of Examiners: Prof. Rudolf Wiidenmann, Chairman Prof. Hans Daalder, Supervisor Prof. Umberto Gori, Co-supervisor Prof. Alessandro Pizzorusso Florence 1981 1 INDEX 1. TYPOLOGIES OF ACTORS AND MODELS IN INTER-/TRANS-NATIONAL RELATIONS ......................................................... 5 1.1 The classic paradigm of international relations.......... 7 1.2 Major criticisms versus the state centric realism.............. g 1.3 Alternative paradigm of international relations..,............. 10 1.4 Typologies of actors in inter-/trans-r.ational relations.........11 1.5 InterVtrans-national organizations versus . ' inter-/traris-national interactions................... ........ .22 1.6 Defining the interactions.......................................25 2. THE PARTITION Or THE FIELD..........................................35 3. the SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH AND RELATED ISSUES....................... *7 3.1 Delimitating the field......................................... ^9 3.2 Trens-Frentier cooperation in Europe and in the Alpe-Adria region....... ...................................... 5 I 3.2.1 Introduction............................. ................5 1 3.2.2 The transfrontier region:actors and relations............ 52 3.2.3 The sub-national region: regionalism, regionalization • and center-periphery relations.......................... 5 4 3.2.4 ircundaries and international relations....................57 3.2.5 The transfrentier region........ ......................... 60 3.2.5.1 Localization of the transfrontier regions in Europe and objectives of cooperation.......... ..6] • 3. 2. 5.2 Forms of organization........................... 6 9 3.2.L Transfrontier regions and Europe.................... ....70 3.2.7 Trrinsfrentier cooperation in the Alpe-Adria.... .........7 I 3.3 Friuli-Vvnetia Julie and the Alpe-Adria transfrontier régi ci :....................................................... 7 4 3.3.1 Geographical aspects........... ......................... 74 3.3.2 Historical background. ................................... 7 6 3.3.3 Two social aspects.......... ............................ 8 1 3.3.3.1 Ths ethnic situation.............................. SI 3. 3.3.2 The Friulian emigration......... ................85 2 3.3.4 Political and economic structures of the area..... ......92 3.3.4.1 The internal alliances........................... 92 3.3.4.2 The statutes of the transfrontier partners...... 93 3.3.4.3 The creation of the EEC.......................... 93 3.3. 4.4 Bilateral agreements............... ............. 94 . 4. METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH (THE TRENDS/TRANSNATIONAL EVENTS NETWORK-DAIA SET)................................................ I0l 4.1 Introduction........... ....................................... I 03 4.2 The source............................ ....................... I 05 4.3 Identification of the events................. ................. 108 4.4 The weighting of the events.....................................108 4.5 Codification of the actors.................................... 109 4.6 Identification of the underlying dimensions............ ...... Ill 5. ANALYSIS Of THE RESEARCH DATA.................................... 115 5.1 The years in the file and the variable sequence........... 1 17 5.2 Variable- describing the source and the time dimension........ 12 1 5.3 The events.... .............................. ............ 128 5.3.1 l.svsl of aggregation of the actors and number of participants........... ................................. 128 5.3.2 Monthly patterns and sectors of activity........ .......133 5.3.3 The behavioral category of the event..... ............... 140 5.3.4 Tha loci of interaction................. ............... 15 1 5.4 The. actors.............................................. 159 5.4.1 Geographical localization of the actors................. 159 5.4.2 Functional characterization of the actors................ .162 ' 5.4.3 Et-Uvssn functional levels bilateral interactions........ 170 5.4.4 Ethnic characterization of the actors............ ...... 174 • 1 7 5 5.5 Trans’fror.tler interactions with the Alpe-Adria partners...... 5.6 Multilateral interactions......... ............................ 187 5.7 The structural déterminants of the levels of interaction........... 197 6. SUMMARY OF. FINDINGS.'......................................... 21* 6.1 Levels of interaction........................................ 213 6.2 Role of the actors.................... .......................2 14 6.3 Transfrontier interactions................................... 216 APPENDIX.............................................................2 17 I Sample of filing cards...... ........................... ......2 19 II Sample of code-sheet......................................... 22 1 III Definition of items of the variable "sector".................. 223 CHAPTER I TYPOLOGIES OF ACTORS AND MODELS IN INTER-/TRANS-NATIONAL RELATIONS t •oologies of actors and models In lnter-/trans-nationaI relations , . t The classic paradigm of international relations International relations, in the classical model, are seen as cr multi-polar interactions of units (the nation-states) that, t racting their autonomous foreign policies, try to take the greater a-ventage from the international environment. This model of the international system is completed and complicated by the presence cf alliances and, later, of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). Cut this development does not change fundamentally the classic pa­ radigm because the constituent units of these organizations are ¿always nation-states.The metaphor usually employed to describe this rodel of international relations is the "billiard-ball model". In the words of C.Alger: “The ’billiard ball model’ long guided research and teaching. It assumes that nation-states are unitary actors in international systems. It also assumes that nation states arc the most important actors, deeming it unnecessary to subject this assumption to empirical testing" (1) (cfr. fig. 1). Her.3 Morgenthsu and Raymond Aron can be cited here as the most ¡'•;;crtant exponents of the so called "political realism” (2). These fiwt*"crs are linked by a common belief thus summarized by Arend ti „'chart: "Les spécialistes des relations internationales qui pre- f < rcr-.t les méthodes traditionnelles adoptent généralement le modèle -‘«"archie internationale, choisissent l'Etat-nation comme unité • ~./se, ont des objectifs orientés vers l'action et ne croient ' î-‘ i.'on puisse édifier une théorie générale satisfaisante de leur ------- Domestic Interaction . ■----- — International Intersction Fig. 1: The State-Centric (Billiard-Ball) Model. Source: R.W.MANSBACH et a l . , The web of world politics, p.4 1.2. Major criticisms against state-centric realism “ We will not insist here on the description of the classical . paradigm of international relations. ' This model does not seem to be adequate any longer to grasp the entire realty of the system of international relations. The major challenges to it come from the increased relevance, on the international scene, of som.s (relatively) new actors. The awareness of the inadequacy of the state-centric' paradigm seems to be clear to the scholars that ere dedicating more and more time end effort to the study of such relevant actors as the multinational corporations, or some international non-goverr.rKntal organisations (INGOs: e.g. Red Cross International and the guerrilla movements of Palestine), and to the developing of new, more crr;:prehensivs models. To summarize the most important changes in , world politics that makes the state-centric realism obsolete, J.S.. Nye can be cited, who lists: "a) the changing role of military force, b) the increased role of communications across borders, c) the degree of gcvernment involvement in the provision of economic welfare, d) the increase in the number of issues in international politics, e) the increased role of non-state actors which in a sense could be said to have private foreign policies in their own, f) the management of foreign policy (there are direct contacts among what were once considered domestic bureaucracies of different governments]” (4). J.Rcsenau presents a list of changes*which for certain aspects can he added tc that of J.S.Nye: "one (change) is the proliferation cf macro units (actors). A second is the substantive decline in the ca­ pacity oi the governments to meet the challenges and, indeed, to govern. A third is the extensive mushrooming of subgroup