Suchergebnisse

No longer content to fade away into comfortable retirement, a growing number of former political leaders have pursued diplomatic afterlives. From Nelson Mandela to Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, to Tony Blair and Mikhail Gorbachev, this set of highly-empowered individuals increasingly try to make a difference on the global stage by capitalizing on their free-lance celebrity status while at the same time building on their embedded ?club? attributes and connections.In this fascinating book, Andrew F. Cooper provides the first in-depth study of the motivations, methods, and contributions made by these former leaders as they take on new responsibilities beyond service to their national states. While this growing trend may be open to accusations of mixing public goods with private material gain, or personal quests to rehabilitate political image, it must ? he argues ? be taken seriously as a compelling indication of the political climate, in which powerful individuals can operate outside of established state structures. As Cooper ably shows, there are benefits to be reaped from this new normative entrepreneurism, but its range and impact nonetheless raise legitimate concerns about the privileging of unaccountable authority.Mixing big picture context and illustrative snapshots, Diplomatic Afterlives offers an illuminating analysis of the influence and the pitfalls of this highly visible but under-scrutinized phenomenon in world politics. Andrew F. Cooper Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo.

''This is an important book for anyone interested in international publicpolicy. It gives a very clear picture of the workings of the 'actuallyexisting'legislative process of global governance (problem-specific,global conferences) and the central, perhaps essential, role of 'middlepowers' and Canada in particular.''Craig N. Murphy, M. Margaret Ball Professor of International Relations, Wellesley College, USA

The book explores how and why two self-identified middle powers adopted such distinctive styles in their diplomatic approaches. Focusing on a period of crucial developments in diplomacy, Andrew Cooper analyses the policies of each country, emphasizes distinctive interests and policies, and systematically compares key features of the actions of the two countries. While the book is very much policy driven, it is also firmly based on an appreciation of the distinctiveness of Australia and Canada. Cooper argues that the contemporary expression of duality in diplomatic approach can only be fully understood when set against the divergent historical experiences of the two countries. Not only has the structural, situational, and psychological location of Australia and Canada set them apart throughout the postwar period, but their pattern of political development has differed appreciably

AbstractThis article has two major inter-connected objectives about the ascendancy of informal international institutions on a global basis. The first objective is to highlight the extended scope of this phenomenon. The second objective of this article evaluates how the mainstream International Relations (IR) literature has treated the cascading wave of informal institutions. With this expansion in mind, the focus is on a critical evaluation of the rationalist institutionalist literature generally and rational design scholarship more specifically. This scholarship possesses some considerable foundational advantages. At the same time several important deficiencies stand out. First, in terms of participation, the scholarship remains excessively US-centric. Secondly, in terms of projection, the rationalist institutionalist literature lacks both historical context and an anticipatory component. Thirdly, in terms of the 'living personality' constitutive of informal institutions, the mode of analysis lacks nuance. Notwithstanding its claims of consistency with respect to the logic of institutionalism, the rationalist institutionalist literature is highly uneven in terms of its analysis about the nature of informal institutions. The most consistent component throughout rationalist institutionalist literature is what type of informal institutionalism is left out. Informal institutionalism is recognized to be on the ascendancy. But the core manifestation of informal institutionalism—state-based plurilateralism—is neglected in the analysis.

Summary
Public diplomacy has been externally directed via a strategy of assertive reputation-building. In an era of insurgent populism, this model faces strong backlash, driven by the image of public diplomacy being disconnected from domestic publics. Under these conditions, an opportunistic set of ascendant political leaders — even those located at the international system's core — have considerable incentive to diminish 'their' own diplomats as part of a wider campaign to stigmatize the traditional establishment. While more attention needs to be directed to the causes of this disconnection between diplomats and public, this article highlights a number of key ingredients in a menu of adaptation to the populist challenge. Above all, the focus of engagement in public diplomacy should be broadened to include domestic as well as foreign audiences. Disruption, it must be emphasized, does not mean the end of public diplomacy. Rather, public diplomacy must take a domestic turn.