Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article argues that post-Soviet mayors are foreign policy actors that deserve more attention from area studies and foreign policy analysis scholars. Mayors have their own diplomatic preferences and goals – rooted in geopolitical and ethnonationalist views – that they can enact using city hall institutions and networks. They can work either in harmony or in opposition with central authorities by bolstering or compromising the executive's diplomatic goals and actions. These claims are explored in a case study of the foreign policy of Chișinău mayor Dorin Chirtoacă (2007–2017), whose diplomatic endeavors consolidated the Moldovan capital's ties with Romania and the European Union and minimized interactions with countries in the former Soviet Union, including Russia. At times, the mayor's actions abroad ran afoul of central authorities as he created an alternative foreign policy that undermined central foreign policy. The findings suggest that a more extensive investigation of how mayors interact with foreign actors would refine our understanding of foreign policy-making in the former Soviet Union and in Central and Eastern Europe more broadly.

How and why do diplomatic activities by sub-state units produce conflict with the central government? To answer this question, scholars have focused on multinational states in which at least one administrative unit—Catalonia, for instance—has an identity that is different from the rest of the country. Such noncentral governments (NCGs), the argument goes, are more likely to engage in uncoordinated bypassing activities and in the international projection of their specific identity in a manner that antagonizes central decision makers. That is especially the case if local elites are dissatisfied with the amount of local autonomy and the institutional tools available for identity protection. This article uses insights from the ethnic conflict and nationalism literature to advance sub-state diplomacy scholarship by adding a transnational dimension to the analysis. Three illustrative case studies—France-Canada-Quebec, Austria-Italy–South Tyrol, and Sweden-Finland–the Åland Islands—reveal that kin states can play a variety of roles in the triangular relationship with the kin NCG and the host state and can either exacerbate or dampen conflictual paradiplomacy. More broadly, the article is an effort to conceptualize the role of sovereign states in sub-state diplomacy.

AbstractHow and why do diplomatic activities by sub-state units produce conflict with the central government? To answer this question, scholars have focused on multinational states in which at least one administrative unit—Catalonia, for instance—has an identity that is different from the rest of the country. Such noncentral governments (NCGs), the argument goes, are more likely to engage in uncoordinated bypassing activities and in the international projection of their specific identity in a manner that antagonizes central decision makers. That is especially the case if local elites are dissatisfied with the amount of local autonomy and the institutional tools available for identity protection. This article uses insights from the ethnic conflict and nationalism literature to advance sub-state diplomacy scholarship by adding a transnational dimension to the analysis. Three illustrative case studies—France-Canada-Quebec, Austria-Italy–South Tyrol, and Sweden-Finland–the Åland Islands—reveal that kin states can play a variety of roles in the triangular relationship with the kin NCG and the host state and can either exacerbate or dampen conflictual paradiplomacy. More broadly, the article is an effort to conceptualize the role of sovereign states in sub-state diplomacy.

This article seeks to make two contributions to the literature on paradiplomacy. First, it provides an account of the foreign activities of the Gagauz autonomous region in the Republic of Moldova, which expands the empirical reach of scholarship in the post-Soviet area beyond studies of Russian regions. Second, it stresses that theory-building efforts need to incorporate consideration of foreign states that support diplomatic activities by non-central governments. Such patrons can exacerbate conflict between regional and central governments when they encourage paradiplomatic activities by regional governments to pressure the central government. Moscow's recent relationship with Gagauzia — and the Moldovan capital Chișinău's frustration with it — is illustrative of this theoretical point.

AbstractThis article makes theoretical and empirical contributions to the recent literature on the socialisation and punishment of state and non-state actors. First, it argues that the English School can add significantly to our understanding of the socialisation and punishment processes because of the theory's emphasis on great powers as 'custodians' of the society of states. Second, it analyses the policies of the United Kingdom, France, and, to a lesser degree, a number of other powers toward the Bolsheviks and the Whites during the Civil War and beyond (1917–1924). The basic argument is that London, Paris, and other capitals acted like 'guardians' of the society of states in their attempt to punish and socialise the participants in the Civil War.

This mixed-methods dissertation investigates the countries of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq (2003-2009) to identify the determinants of defection and of fluctuation in troop numbers. It makes theoretical contributions to the literature on alliance and coalition defection and speaks broadly to the question of international cooperation in the field of security. The major conclusion in this study is that the long-term reliability of military commitments of countries, particularly ones made within ad hoc coalitions, is fragile because it depends considerably on the domestic political process.