Suchergebnisse

This analysis considers the emergence of South Africa's parliamentary diplomacy, or the role of Parliament on the international stage, since 1994. The early discourse both within Parliament and in academic analysis, reflects an emphasis on the role of oversight and the role of Parliament in the foreign policy decision-making process. Recognition of the role of parliamentary diplomacy has been slow to develop, although Parliament is increasingly acknowledging its role as an international actor. This has seen the development of structures and policy to support this. The value of parliamentary diplomacy as part of a country's international relations, however, remains an area in need of further deliberation. This analysis begins by unpacking the concept of parliamentary diplomacy before addressing the emerging role and value of parliamentary diplomacy for South Africa, particularly through the linkages between parliamentary diplomacy and soft power in promoting foreign policy.

Who makes South Africa's foreign policy? This has been an area of continuous discussion following South Africa's transition to democracy in 1994. In the foreign policy analysis discourse considerable attention has been given to the role of the head of state and government in shaping foreign policy, particularly in developed countries. With South Africa's own President assuming a predominant role in foreign policy, there is a need for further reflection on the impact of this position in foreign policy decision making. Using existing theory and current analysis this article highlights the different approaches adopted by South Africa's first four democratically elected presidents, from the international statesmanship of Mandela, to the micro-management of Mbeki, the stabiliser role of Motlanthe and the consensus-building to absent leader position of Jacob Zuma. Drawing on Joseph Nye's discussion of the characterisation of transformational and transactional leadership, this analysis traces the approaches of the different Presidents in shaping South Africa's foreign policy and international engagement.

The G77 + China represents a multilateral group, engaged in multilateral diplomacy, across multiple fora. While the group has negotiated positive outcomes in terms of trade through its role in the UNCTAD, environmental negotiations have demonstrated the challenges facing the group in maintaining unity, and in turn, raised questions concerning its relevance. This review article considers the divisions that have emerged within the group, as well as those that have emerged between the G77 + China and developed countries within the context of the climate change negotiations. What is significant is that multilateral diplomacy within the group has seen the continuance of unity, despite considerable difference, yet there has been less success in bridging the divide between developed and developing countries as talks move towards the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP) in 2015.

While debate continues around the usefulness of the concept of Science Diplomacy, in practice international scientific relations are already facilitating diplomatic engagement, and diplomaticrelations are supporting international scientific engagement. This interaction takes place in the context of the current global knowledge structure where industrialised or developed states are the "producers" of knowledge, and developing states the "consumers". With science, technology and innovation integral to addressing transnational challenges, this article considers the expanding body of literature, which is primarily from developed states, highlighting the shortfall in understanding the role of developing states in science diplomacy. The article then considers developments in South Africa's science diplomacy, arguing that Pretoria demonstrates a two-track approach; one that reflects the state's pursuit of international recognition as a "producer" and exporter of knowledge at the centre of the global knowledge structure; and the second, where a shortfall in capacity and resources has increasingly seen the state as a "consumer" or importer of knowledge in meeting domestic priorities.