International relations of minority nations: Quebec and Wallonia compared
Today few people deny the existence of regional substate diplomacy (Criekemans 2010). But there is still no common agreement on a region’s right to do so and, above all, on their scope of action. This question goes against what used to be the dominant approach in international relations, the state-centric approach that leads to the logic of speaking with one voice. Increasingly, a multilevel-governance approach has contested this state-centric view and proposes an alternative logic of multiple actors speaking with their voice, nuancing strongly the seminal distinction between “sovereignty-... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | bookPart |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2015 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
Routledge
|
Schlagwörter: | International relations / Quebec / Wallonia |
Sprache: | Ndonga |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27683586 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/154217 |
Today few people deny the existence of regional substate diplomacy (Criekemans 2010). But there is still no common agreement on a region’s right to do so and, above all, on their scope of action. This question goes against what used to be the dominant approach in international relations, the state-centric approach that leads to the logic of speaking with one voice. Increasingly, a multilevel-governance approach has contested this state-centric view and proposes an alternative logic of multiple actors speaking with their voice, nuancing strongly the seminal distinction between “sovereignty-bound†and “sovereignty-free†actors (Rosenau 1990). From the 1970s, the world has seen the growing presence of sovereignty-free actors in international relations. Among these actors, non-central or, better, substate, governments of federal states have developed intensive foreign relations. These governments are using a range of techniques: from shaping the federal government’s foreign policy to establishing themselves directly in the international arena (Blatter et al. 2008). For minority nation governments this is particularly a challenge, as they have to act internally – where they have developed full-fledged legislative powers within a multinational federation – and externally – where international and national laws are often still reluctant to recognise their right of action (Lejeune 2003). Yet some minority nations have thrived in developing their own international relations. Bavaria, Catalonia, Flanders, Quebec, Scotland and Wallonia are often seen as successful international players even if they are not fully sovereignty bound (Michelmann 2009; Criekemans 2010). The international actions of these minority nations have been characterised under the umbrella of “identity paradiplomacy†(Paquin 2003); that is, a willingness to use international relations to foster a nation-building process within a multinational state. This observation was particularly prevalent for minority nations strongly in ...