Subnational Leaders and Diplomacy

Subnational Leaders and Diplomacy Joana Setzer and Karen Anderton Summar Subnational diplomacy has become an increasingly important part of foreign policy and international relations This observation concerns a state of affairs which that is not necessarily obvious or given First, by definition, subnational governments usually conduct subnational activities and address problems which that affect their constituencies Second, in many countries subnational governments undertake such an agenda without an actual legal framework authorizing such initiatives However, with an intensified global interdependency, policy areas such as environmental protection, human rights, immigration, and trade, just to name a few, require action both at the international and territorialised territorialized levelslevel, as many of them transcend political administrative boundaries As a result, in the early 21st century it is possible to determine various forms of international relations conducted by subnational leaders This activity involves direct interactions undertaken by subnational leaders and bureaucrats with other actors across borders (private, non-governmental, and governmental—national or subnational), participation in transnational networks, and/or participation in international policymakingpolicy-making Because subnational governments are closer to the people and can test experimental or groundbreakinggroundbreaking policies with less risk, oftentimes they can become pioneers of measures which that can be rolled out or replicated elsewhere in the international domain Such policy leadership is just one element of subnational engagement in the diplomatic arena, whereby subnational governments move across jurisdictional levels, breaking the fixed scales in which they would traditionally operate In the past years, scholars investigating the external relations undertaken by subnational governments have dedicated great effort to understanding the motivations for regions to go into the international arena What these studies lack, however, is an understanding of what the implications are of subnational governments’ engagement in international relations are Subnational diplomacy has become an increasingly important part of foreign policy and international relations Increasing international interdependencies have necessitated that action on policy areas such as environmental protection, human rights, immigration, and trade, just to name a few, require global and local action as they not adhere to conventional political borders This development has brought about interactions between subnational leaders with other actors outside the subnational realm and across spheres (private, non-governmental, and governmental—national or subnational), participation in transnational networks, and/or participation in international policymaking Subnational governments operate closer to the people and can take more risks experimenting with new measures As such they often break ground on new policies ideas before they are rolled out or replicated elsewhere Such policy leadership is just one element of subnational engagement in the diplomatic arena whereby subnational governments move across jurisdictional levels, breaking the fixed scales in which they would traditionally operate Whilst the motivations of subnational governments for undertaking these roles has been the subject of past studies, little insight has been sought on what the implications are of subnational government involvement in international relations Keywords: Subnationalsubnational, diplomacy, paradiplomacy, leadersh Introduction Since the beginning of the 21st century, the nation-state-dominated arena of diplomacy has become increasingly populated by subnational leaders and the coalitions and networks that they form This observation concerns a state of affairs which that is not necessarily obvious or given First, by definition, subnational governments usually conduct subnational activities and address problems which that affect their constituencies Second, in many countries subnational governments undertake an international agenda without an actual legal framework authorizing such initiatives However, with an intensified global interdependency, policy areas such as environmental protection, human rights, immigration, and trade require action both at the international and territorialised territorialized levelslevel As a result, subnational leaders and bureaucrats establish direct interactions with other actors (private, non-governmental, and governmental—national or subnational) across borders They also participate in international policymakingpolicy-making and form and/or join transnational coalitions and networks.1 Because subnational governments are closer to the people and can test experimental or ground-breakinggroundbreaking policies with less risk, oftentimes they can become pioneers of measures which that can be rolled out or replicated elsewhere in the international domain Such policy leadership is just one element of subnational engagement in the diplomatic agenda, whereby subnational governments move across jurisdictional levels, breaking the fixed scales in which they would traditionally operate The trend toward subnational diplomacy appears increasingly inevitable In global climate governance, subnational leaders have built significant coalitions in support of the Paris Agreement goals (Leffel, 2018b) The German Marshall Fund (GMF) has a program to help city, state, and regional leaders engaging in global issues The program stimulates subnational leaders leveraging successes achieved at the local level to capture new audiences and markets, and, in turn, the backing of international success circles, backing to provide the resources and opportunities to support development at the local level (GMF, 2015) The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is the largest independent network of regions in wider Europe and is a forum for interregional cooperation (AER, 2018) As a field of study, international relations (IR) and governance studies describe subnational governments’ international agenda as an instance of “subnational diplomacy,” “sub-statesubstate diplomacy,” “paradiplomacy,” or “city diplomacy.” Already at this point it is worth making a line of distinction regarding the type of actor and type of phenomena under consideration The terms “paradiplomacy,” “subnational diplomacy,” and “sub-statesubstate diplomacy” have been used to consider the external relations of subnational governments— that is, states, regions, and provinces (Cornago, 2010a; Kuznetsov, 2015; Nganje, 2016; Royles, 2017; Tavares, 2016) For the external relations of local governments—that is, cities —the most appropriate term is “city diplomacy” (Acuto, 2013, 2016; Leffel, 2018a) This is an important distinction as local and regional governments have different capacities, and competences as well as and distinct scope of actions Also, city diplomacy typically lacks the representational tone found in sub-statesubstate or subnational diplomacy (Dickson, 2014) In this review the case of those diplomatic practices that are deployed by regional governments are considered, leaving the case of “city diplomacy” outside its scope Although we acknowledge and point out some of the differences and reasons for preferences between the terms “subnational diplomacy,” “paradiplomacy,” and “substatesub-state diplomacy,” we use the terms interchangeably intercheangebly along the text This article provides an analytical review of the scholarly literature on subnational diplomacy The first part of the article defines the key terms related to subnational diplomacy: “subnational governments” and “subnational leaders,”; “diplomacy,”; and “transnational action.” In what follows, the diplomatic activity performed by subnational leaders and governments is analysed analyzed within the context of two theoretical lenses: transnationalism and paradiplomacy These approaches attach different analytical and normative significance to subnational diplomacy The review suggests two directions for future research on subnational diplomacy First, there is scope to further develop its theoretical basis, providing a deeper understanding of the achievements and limitations of subnational governments’ international agenda Second, future research should continue exploring the implications of the international activity of subnational governments for global governance and for the reconfiguration of political authority Defining Key Terms The review analyses analyzes the phenomenon of subnational diplomacy, which consists of subnational governments, acting transnationally, to address matters that have been traditionally defined as foreign policy/relations For subnational diplomacy to occur, it has to meet three criteria First, the main actors involved have to be governmental, from a level below the nation-state (“subnational governments”) Second, their action—horizontal and vertical—has to occur across jurisdictional boundaries (“acting transnationally”) Third, subnational governments’ action across boundaries has to be directed at addressing world politics Actors Even in an “era of governance,” governments continue to play a central role (Baker & Eckerberg, 2008; Jordan, 2008; Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito et atl., 2005) Indeed, most multiactor interactions still rely on governments to initiate actions, formulate priorities, coordinate efforts, or legitimate their decisions (Van den Brande, Happaerts, & Bruyninckx et al., 2011, p 5) Moreover, governments are the only actors in multi-actor governance that have a legitimate democratic mandate to represent collective interests and be held accountable for itthem This review specifically concerns subnational governments We recognise recognize subnational government as the “coherent territorial entity situated between local and national levels, with a capacity for authoritative decision-making” (Marks, Hooghe, & Schakel et al., 2008, p 113) The term applies to the first immediate level of government below the national and above the local It involves regional governments such as states, provinces, domains, territories, länder, cantons, autonomous communities, oblasts, etc.and so on, depending on the country Subnational governments are also distinct from “local authorities,” which include all levels of government below the subnational In relation to the national government, subnational governments have a comparative advantage in terms of knowing the needs and reality of their citizens (Posner, 2010), having technical knowledge (Rabe, 2008), and being able to adapt general policies to specific circumstances (Doremus & Hanemann, 2008) In relation to local authorities, subnational governments encompass both urban and non-urban realities, have a larger population, and have more significant budgets and responsibilities Subnational governments can foster technological innovation (Adelman & Engel, 2008) Although some argue that the national level might be the most efficient locus for scientific inquiry because of scale economies in research and the possibility toof centralise centralizing information (Esty, 1996), subnational governments are in a better position to operate as laboratories for regulatory agendas (Doremus & Hanemann, 2008) Once the nation-state enters an international agreement, generally subnational governments are responsible for its implementation The same is true for local authorities (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004, 2006, 2007; Bulkeley, 2005, 2010; Puppim de Oliveira, 2009) Yet, subnational governments are particularly able to put international rules into effect through the implementation of subnational policies and regulation (Van den Brande et al., 2011) Depending on the distribution of powers within countries, subnational governments are the primary implementers of policies, programs, legislation, and fiscal mechanisms in the areas of energy, environment, transport, and land use land-use (Bruyninckx, Happaerts, & Van den Brandeet al., 2012; Chen, Malaki, Pruski, & Wang et al., 20) Subnational governments are becoming increasingly active in global governance Alongside with other non-state actors, they try to influence international policy and decision-making (Bruyninckx et al., 2012; Van den Brande et al., 2011) Significantly, a driver for such action has been inactivity of nation-state actors, or when they have failed to deliver on, or removed themselves from, international agreements (Anderton & Setzer, 2017) However, in multilevel governance systems, units of government should not be considered independently or separately As subnational governments are situated between the local and the national governments, they are impacted on and impact these other levels of governance Therefore, while although it is possible to focus on one particular level of government, any analysis of governance systems must take into consideration, implicitly and explicitly, the various existing interactions with lower and higher levels of government Sphere of Action The second criterion that characterises characterizes subnational diplomacy relates to the sphere of action in which subnational governments engage Here action is analysedanalyzed in the transnational sphere The word “transnational,” is an alternative to the word “nonstate,” that has beenwhich was coined by academics in order to assert that IR are is not limited to state actors “Transnationalism” is a concept that describes a movement that occurs across national borders, and which transcends the specific workings of the nation-state (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts, & Whatmore et al., 2009, p 773) Moreover, “transnational relations” have been defined as the “regular interactions across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non-state agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or an intergovernmental organization” (Risse, 1995, p 3) Subnational governments access the transnational sphere as they engage in IR International relations are generally understood as the political issues that take place between states and beyond their borders (Gregory et al., 2009) In this conception, states are bounded and sovereign, and represent the primary actors on the international stage Perceived shortcomings in international decision-making on various global problems have called sovereign governments into question as the exclusive political authorities for regulating transboundary risk and harm (Held, 2000; Young, 1997) These issues include safeguarding peace, protecting human rights, and promoting economic and social progress, as well as dealing with environmental problems, international terrorism, and AIDS Subnational governments act transnationally by crossing jurisdictional boundaries, and by dealing with international or transnational actors When acting transnationally, subnational governments can be categorized as hybrid actors (Hocking, 1994) They are governmental actors, yet not completely sovereign entities; they are simultaneously governmental (on the domestic level) and non-state (on the international level) The international activities undertaken by subnational governments involve a wide range of topics such as trade, tourism, university exchanges, agriculture, and shared government databases (e.g., Fry, 1990; Hocking, 1994; McMillan, 2012) Environment and climate change are also common areas which that bring subnational leaders to develop a diplomatic agenda (Rei, Setzer, & Cunha et al., 2013) Scope of Action The characterisation characterization of subnational diplomacy requires not only subnational governments acting transnationally, but also that their action is be directed at addressing matters that traditionally fall within the realm of the diplomatic activity The concept of diplomacy is contested Generally, diplomacy tends to be a synonym for foreign policy; in a more narrow sense, it refers to the practices of professional diplomats (Jonsson, 2002, p 213) There are also broader understandings of diplomacy Hamilton and Langhorne (2011), for example, define it diplomacy as “the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principals and accredited agents” (p 1) Sharp (1999, p 51) understands diplomacy as “a human condition that precedes and transcends the experience of living in the sovereign, territorial states of the past few hundred years.” Common functions of diplomacy are: representation (i.e., “acting on behalf of”) and communication Other functions include information exchange; negotiation; protection of citizens’ commercial and legal interests; promotion of economic, cultural, and scientific relations; and policy preparation The literature on diplomacy observes the increased number and types of international actors who participate in the diplomatic agenda It recognises recognizes multilateral diplomacy as a hallmark of the twentieth 20th century, with diplomats increasingly engaged in building coalitions with international organisations organizations or forming contact groups outside existing multilateral fora (Jonsson, 2002, p 216) However, whilst although international in nature, much of this non-state activity has different functions and objectives from those of diplomacy (Hocking, Melissen, Riordan, & Sharp et al., 2012) At the involvement of a growing range of non-state actors is fundamentally changing the environment in which the shaping and execution of international and domestic policy occurs Within this context, the concept of “paradiplomacy” was introduced to describe the involvement of subnational governments in IR As Cornago (2010b) argues, such involvement occurs through the establishment of formal and informal ties with foreign public or private entities, with the objective of promoting development in its social, economic, cultural, or political dimensions But a robust theory of the international relations undertaken by subnational governments is yet to be developed Again, Cornago reminds that despite being commonly approached in narrowly formal or policy-oriented terms, the diplomatic activity undertaken by subnational governments shows “unexpected yet important functional adjustments and symbolic struggles to which the modern diplomatic system has to respond” (2010a, p 91) Theoretical Lenses Acknowledging subnational governments’ presence in IR flows from a recognition of the increased participation of non-state actors in the international sphere, and as well as that state-centric approaches are insufficient to explain the presence of these actors in the international arena After the Second World War, and particularly in the 1960s, multilateral international regimes emerged in world politics, and non-state actors from the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academia increased their global influence (O’Neill, Balsiger, & VanDeveer et al., 2004) This reality was quickly depicted by scholars who were interested in the nature, the role, and the impact of non-state actors in IR Among the studies that have attempted to develop a framework to understand the international activity and role of subnational governments in addressing global problems, we consider three streams of literature Most scholars interested in the participation of non-state actors in international relations use a transnationalist lens and a multilevel governance approach to explore the role of NGOs and transnational advocacy networks Yet, by focusing on non-governmental actors and their transnational networks, subnational governments’ the international agenda of subnational governments per se escapes the transnationalist lens It is, therefore, necessary to move to theories which that focus on governmental actors With this specific end, a smaller number of internationalists have used the concept of paradiplomacy, sub-statesubstate diplomacy, or subnational diplomacy to analyse analyze subnational governments’the international agenda of subnational governments Transnationalism Research on transnational relations is often driven by the proliferation of non-state actors, as well as by the dissatisfaction with the focus of IR scholars on states and intergovernmental organizations (Andonova & Mitchell, 2010; Betsill, 2006) Keohane and Nye (1971) were among the first ones to call attention to the cross-border interactions of non-state actors They defined transnational relations as the “contacts, coalitions, and interactions across state boundaries that are not controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments” (p xi) This definition included all types of interactions taking place transnationally, including those carried out by the Catholic Church, by multinational corporations (MNCs), and by NGOs Keohane and Nye (1974) also distinguished transnational relations from transgovernmental relations, defined as “sets of direct interactions among sub-units of different governments that are not controlled or closely guided by the policies of the cabinets or chief executives of those governments” (p 42) In the 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in the number of transnational activities This was motivated by the widespread use of new communication technologies, by the end of the Routledge Schroeder, H., & Lovell, H (2012) The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations Climate Policy, 12(1), 23–37 Sharp, P (1999) For diplomacy: Representation and the study of international relations International Studies Review, 1(1), 33–57 Slaughter, A.-M (2004) A new world order Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Slaughter, A.-M., & Hale, T N (2010) Transgovernmental networks and multi-level governance In H Enderlein, S Wälti, & M Zürn (Eds.), Handbook on multi-level governance (pp 358–369) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Soldatos, P (1990) An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreignpolicy actors In H J Michelmann & P Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press Tavares, R (2016) Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players: New York, NY: Oxford University Press Thurner, P W., & Binder, M (2009) European Union transgovernmental networks: The emergence of a new political space beyond the nation-state? European Journal of Political Research, 48(1), 80–106 Trabajos de Investigación en Paradiplomacia (TIP) (2011, December 21) TIP—Trabajos de Investigación en Paradiplomacia, 1(1) Van den Brande, K., Happaerts, S., & Bruyninckx, H (2011) Multi-level interactions in a sustainable development context: different routes for Flanders to decision-making in the UN commission on sustainable development Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), 70– 82 Wapner, P (1998) Reorienting state sovereignty: rights and responsibilities in the environmental age In Karen Litfin (Ed.), The greening of sovereignty in world politics (pp 275–297) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Young, O R (1997) Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Zeraoui, Z (Ed.) (2009) Regionalismo y Paradiplomacia: La política internacional de las regiones Puebla, Mexico: Tecnológico de Monterrey and Montiel & Soriano Editores Zürn, M (1998) The rise of international environmental politics: A review of current research World Politics, 50(04), 617–649 Abbott, K (2012) The transnational regime complex for climate change Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571–590 Acuto, M (2013) The new climate leaders? Review of International Studies, FirstView, 1– 23 doi: doi:10.1017/39(4), 835–857.S0260210512000502 Acuto, M (2016) The SAGE handbook of diplomacy.: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications LtdSage Adelman, D E., & Engel, K (2008) Reorienting state climate change policies to induce technological change Arizona Law Review, 50(3), 835–878 Aguirre, I (1999) Making sense of paradiplomacy? An intertextual enquiry about a concept in search of a definition Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 185–209 Aldecoa, F., & Keating, M (1999) Introduction Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 4–8 Aldecoa, F., & Keating, M (Eds.) (2001) Paradiplomacia: Las relaciones internacionales de las regions Madrid, Spain: Marcial Pons Anderton, K., & Setzer, J (2017) Subnational climate entrepreneurship: Innovative climate action in California and São Paulo Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1273–1284 Andonova, L B., & Mitchell, R B (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1), 255–282 Assembly of European Regions (AER) (2018) Assembly of European regions RetrieveHome page.d September 13, 2018, from https://aer.eu/ Bäckstrand, K (2008) Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 74–102 doi: 10.1162/glep.2008.8.3.74 Baker, A (2009) Deliberative equality and the transgovernmental politics of the global financial architecture Global Governance, 15, 195–218 Baker, S., & Eckerberg, K (Eds.) (2008) In pursuit of sustainable development: New governance practices at the sub-national level in Europe New York, NY: Routledge Balthazar, L (1999) The Quebec experience: Success or failure? Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 153–169 Beland, D., & Lecours, A (2006) Sub-state nationalism and the welfare state: Québec and Canadian federalism Nations and Nationalism, 12(1), 77–96 doi: 10.1111/j.1469–8129.2006.00231.xBetsill, M M (2006) Transnational actors in international environmental politics In M M Betsill, K Hochstetler, & D Stevis (Eds.), Palgrave advances in international environmental politics (pp 172–202) Basingstoke U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Betsill, M M., & Bulkeley, H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The cities for climate protection program International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 471–493 Betsill, M M., & Bulkeley, H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change Global Governance, 12(2), 141–159 Betsill, M M., & Bulkeley, H (2007) Looking back and thinking ahead: A decade of cities and climate change research Local Environment, 12(5), 447–456 Betsill, M M., & Corell, E (2007) NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations Cambridge, MassachusettsMA: MIT Press Bruyninckx, H., Happaerts, S., & Van den Brande, K (Eds.) (2012) Sustainable development and subnational governments policy making and multi-level interactions Hampshire, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Bulkeley, H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks Political Geography, 24(8), 875–902 doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002 Bulkeley, H (2010) Cities and the governing of climate change Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1), 229–253 doi: doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-072809101747 Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M M (2003) Cities and climate change: Urban sustainability and global environmental governance Oxon, U.K.: Routledge Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P (2010) Governing climate change Oxon, U.K.: Routledge Bursens, P., & Deforche, J (2010) Going beyond paradiplomacy? Adding historical institutionalism to account for regional foreign policy competences The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5, 151–171 Chen, L., Malaki, A., Pruski, J., & Wang, W (2010) Subnational capacity building for the next international climate change agreement International Policy Studies Practicum: Stanford, CA: International Policy Studies Practicum Cornago, N (1999) Diplomacy and paradiplomacy in the redefinitionredefinition of international security: dimensions of conflict conflict and cooperation In F Aldecoa & M Keating (Eds.), Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational governments (pp 40–57) London, U.K.: Frank Cass Cornago, N (2010a) On the normalization of sub-state diplomacy The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1–2), 11–36 doi: 10.1163/187119110x12574289877281 Cornago, N (2010b) Perforated sovereignties, agonistic pluralism and durability of (para)diplomacy In C M Constantinou & J Der Derian (Eds.), Sustainable diplomacies (pp 89–108) London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Criekemans, D (2010a) Introduction The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1–-2), 1–9 doi: 10.1163/187119110x12574289877281 Criekemans, D (2010b) Regional sub-state diplomacy from a comparative perspective: Quebec, Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Wallonia and Flanders The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1–-2), 37–64 doi: 10.1163/187119110x12574289877281 Criekemans, D (2018) the diplomatic activities of regional substate entities: Towards a multilevel diplomacy? In G Lachapelle & P Oñate (Eds.), Borders and margins: Federalism, devolution and multi-level governance (pp 131–152): Opladen and Berlin, Germany, and Toronto, ON: Verlag Barbara Budrich Dickson, F (2014) The internationalisation of regions: Paradiplomacy or multi‐level governance? Geography Compass, 8(10), 689–700 doi: 10.1111/gec3.12152 Doremus, H., & Hanemann, M W (2008) Of babies and bathwater: Why the clean air act’s cooperative federalism framework is useful for addressing global warming Arizona Law Review, 50(3), 799–834 Duchacek, I D (1988) Multicommunal and bicommunal polities and their international relations In I D Duchacek, D Latouche, & G Stevenson (Eds.), Perforated sovereignties and international relations: Trans-sovereign contacts of subnational governments (pp 3–28) ConnecticutWestport, CT: Greenwood Press Duchacek, I D (1990) Perforated sovereignties: Towards a typology of new actors in International Relations In H J Michelmann & P Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units (pp 1–33) Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press Duchacek, I D., Latouche, D., & Stevenson, G (Eds.) (1988) Perforated sovereignties and international relations: Trans-sovereign contacts of subnational governments ConnecticutWestport, CT: Greenwood Press Duran, M (2011) French regions as diplomatic actors: The case of Provence-Alpes-Cote d/’Azur French Politics, 9(4), 339–363 Esty, D C (1996) Revitalizing environmental federalism Michigan Law Review, 95(3), 570–653, 614 Falkner, R (2008) Business power and conflict in international environmental politics Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Fry, E H (1990) State and local governments in the international arena The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509(1), 118–127 doi: 10.1177/0002716290509001011 German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) (2015) Leading towards greater global engagement Washington, DC: GMF Retrieved 13 September, 2018, from http://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/GMF_portfolio_workbook.pdf Gonzales, S., Cornago, N., & Ovando, C (2016) Relaciones transfronterizas y paradiplomacia en América Latina: aspectos teóricos y estudio de casos Santiago de Chile: Editorial RIL Gore, C D (2010) The limits and opportunities of networks: municipalities and Canadian climate change policy Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 27–46 Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M J., & Whatmore, S (Eds.) (2009) The dictionary of human geography (5th ed.) Padstow, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell Gupta, J., & Grubb, M (2000) Climate change and European leadership: A sustainable role for Europe? Dordrecht, GermanyBoston: Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Haas, P M (1989) Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control International Organization, 43(03), 377–403 doi: doi:10.1017/S0020818300032975 Haas, P M (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination International Organization, 46(01), 1–35 doi: doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442 Hamilton, K A., & Langhorn, R (2011) The practice of diplomacy: Its evolution, theory, and administration Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge Held, D (2000) Regulating globalization? The reinvention of politics International Sociology, 15(2), 394–408 doi: 10.1177/0268580900015002015 Heyvaert, V (2013) What’s in a name? The covenant of mayors as transnational environmental regulation Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(1), 78–90 doi: 10.1111/reel.12009 Hochstetler, K (2002) After the boomerang: environmental movements and politics in the La Plata River Basin Global Environmental Politics, 2(4), 35–57 Hocking, B (Ed.) (1993b1993a) Foreign relations and federal states London, U.K., and New York, NY: Leicester Licester University Press doi: 10.1162/152638002320980614 Hocking, B (1993a1993b) Localizing foreign policy: Non-central governments and multilayered diplomacy London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Hocking, B (1994) Les intérêstsintérêts internationaux des governementsgouvernements régionaux: désuétude de l’interne et de l’externe Études internationales, 25, 409–420 Hocking, B (1996) The woods and the trees: Catalytic diplomacy and Canada’s trials as a forestry superpower Environmental Politics, 5(3), 448–475 Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riordan, S., & Sharp, P (2012) Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century The Hague: In N I o I R “Clingendael” (Ed.), Futures for diplomacy.Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael Hoffmann, M J (2011) Climate governance at the crossroads: experimenting with a global response after Kyoto Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press Huijgh, E (2010) The public diplomacy of federated entities: Examining the Quebec model The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5, 125–149 Jackson, T (2018) Paradiplomacy and political geography: The geopolitics of substate regional diplomacy Geography Compass, 12(2), n/a-n/a doi: 10.1111/gec3.12357 Jonsson, C (2002) DimplomacyDiplomacy, bargaining and negotiation In W Carlsnaes, T Risse, & B A Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp 212–234) London, U.K.: Sage Jordan, A (2008) The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and looking forwards Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), 17–33 Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A (2005) The rise of “new” policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53, 477–496 Keating, M (1997) Stateless nation-building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in the changing state system Nations and Nationalism, 3(4), 689–717 Keating, M (1999) Regions and international affairs: Motives, opportunities and strategies Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 1–16 Keck, M E., & Sikkink, K (1998) Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Kellow, A (2006) A new process for negotiating multilateral environmental agreements? The Asia Pacific climate partnership beyond Kyoto Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60(2), 287–303 doi: 10.1080/10357710600696183 Keohane, R O., & Nye, J S (1971) Transnational relations and world politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Keohane, R O., & Nye, J S (1974) Transgovernmental relations and international organizations World Politics, 27(1), 39–62 Kincaid, J (1990) Constituent diplomacy in federal politics and the nation-state: Conflict and co-operation In H J Michelmann & P Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units (pp 54–75) Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press Krotz, U (2007) Parapublic underpinnings of international relations: The Franco-German construction of Europeanization of a particular kind European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), 385–417 doi: 10.1177/1354066107080129 Kuznetsov, A S (2015) Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international affairs Abingdon, U.K., and New York, NY: Routledge (Vol null) Lachapelle, G., & Paquin, S P p (Eds.) (2005) Mastering globalization: New sub-states’ governance and strategies London, U.K.: Routledge Latouche, D (1988) State building and foreign policy at the subnational level In I D Duchacek, D Latouche, & G Stevenson (Eds.), Perforated sovereignties and international relations: Trans-sovereign contacts of subnational governments (pp 29– 42) ConnecticutWestport, CT: Greenwood Press Lecours, A (2002) Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the foreign policy and international relations of regions International Negotiation, 7, 91–114 Leffel, B (2018a) Enmity Animus of the underling: Theorizing city diplomacy in a world society Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 13(4), 502–522 Leffel, B (2018b) Subnational diplomacy, climate governance & Californian global leadership USC Center on Public Diplomacy Policy Report.Retrieved from: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publication/subnational-diplomacy-climate-governancecalifornian-global-leadership Lutsey, N., & Sperling, D (2008) America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy Energy Policy, 36(2), 673–685 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.018 Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Schakel, A H (2008) Measuring regional authority Regional & Federal Studies, 18(2), 111–121 Mason, M (2008) The governance of transnational environmental harm: Addressing new modes of accountability/responsibility Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 8–24 doi: doi:10.1162/glep.2008.8.3.8 McHugh, J.T (2015) Paradiplomacy, protodiplomacy and the foreign policy aspirations of Quebec and other Canadian provinces Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 21(3), 238– 256., DOI: 10.1080/11926422.2015.1031261 McMillan, S L (2012) The involvement of state governments in US foreign relations New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan McMillan, S L (2017) The foreign relations of subnational governments In O U Press (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics Michelmann, H J (Ed.) (2009) Foreign relations in federal countries Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen’s University Press Moreno, L (2016) Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international politics Regional & Federal Studies, 26(2), 287–288 Newell, P (2000) Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse Cambridge, U.K., and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Nganje, F (2016) Sub-state diplomacy and the foreign policy-development nexus in South Africa South African Journal of International Affairs, 23(1), 1–20 doi: 10.1080/10220461.2016.1154889 O’Neill, K., Balsiger, J., & VanDeveer, S D (2004) Actors, norms, and impact: Recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 149–175 doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.090803.161821 Oddone, N., & Rodríguez Vázquez, H (2015) Cross‐border paradiplomacy in Latin America Latin American Policy, 6(1), 110–123 doi: 10.1111/lamp.12059 Osofsky, H M (2010) Multiscalar governance and climate change: Reflections on the role of states and cities at Copenhagen Maryland Journal of International Law, 25, 64–85 Paquin, S (2018) Multilevel governance and international trade negotiations: The case of Canada’s trade agreements In G Lachapelle & P Oñate (Eds.), Borders and margins: Federalism, devolution and multi-level governance (pp 153–166) Opladen and Berlin, Germany, and Toronto, ON: Verlag Barbara Budrich Paquin, S Pp (2004) Paradiplomatie et relations internationales: theorieThéorie des strategiesstratégies internationales des regionsrégions face a la mondialisation Brussels, Belgium: PIE—Peter Lang Paul, D E (2002) Re-scaling IPE: Subnational states and the regulation of the global political economy Review of International Political Economy, 9(3), 465–489 doi: 10.1080/09692290210150680 Piattoni, S (2010) The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press Pietrasiak, M (2018) Paradiplomacy in Asia: Case studies of China, India and Russia: Łódź, Poland: Łódź University Press Pluijm, R v d., & Melissen, J (2007) City diplomacy: The expanding role of cities in international politics In N I o I Relations (Ed.), Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Papers (Vol 10) The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael Posner, P L (2010) The politics of vertical diffusion: The states and climate change In B G Rabe (Ed.), Greenhouse governance: Addressing climate change in America (pp 73– 100) Washington DC: Brookings Institution Puppim de Oliveira, J A (2009) The implementation of climate change related policies at the subnational level: An analysis of three countries Habitat International, 33(3), 253– 259 doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.006 Rabe, B G (2008) Commentary Arizona Law Review, 50(3), 787–792 Ralston, H A (2013) Subnational partnerships for sustainable development: Transatlantic Cooperation between the United States and Germany Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Raustiala, K (1997) States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions International Studies Quarterly, 41, 719–740 Raustiala, K (2002) The architecture of international cooperation: Transgovernmental networks and the future of international law Virginia Journal of International Law, 43(1), 1–92 Rei, F., Setzer, J., and & Cunha, K (2013) La paradiplomacia ambiental en la nueva Gobernanza internacional Brazilian Journal of Environmental Law, 71, pp 265–286 Resnik, J., Civin, J., & Frueh, J B (2008) Ratifying Kyoto at the local level: Sovereigntism, federalism, and translocal organizations of government actors (TOGAs) Arizona Law Review, 50(3), 709–758 Risse, T (1995) Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures, and international institutions New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Rosenau, J N (1988) Patterned chaos in global life: Structure and process in the two worlds of world politics International Political Science Review, 9(4), 327–364 https://doi.org/10.1177/019251218800900404 Royles, E (2017) Sub-state diplomacy: Understanding the international opportunity structures Regional & Federal Studies, 27(4), 393–416 doi: 10.1080/13597566.2017.1324851 Rutan, G F (1988) Micro-diplomatic relations in the Pacific-Northwest: Washington State–-British Columbia interactions In I D Duchacek, D Latouche, & G Stevenson (Eds.), Perforated sovereignties and international relations: Trans-sovereign contacts of subnational governments (pp XX–XX163–188) New York, NY: Greenwood Press Setzer, J (2014) How subnational governments are rescaling environmental governance: the case of the Brazilian state of São Paulo Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Published online 28 November 2014 Assigned issue in 2017: Volume 19(5), pp 503–519 Setzer, J (2015) Testing the boundaries of subnational diplomacy: The international climate action of local and regional governments Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), pp 319–337 Schiavon, J A (2010) Sub-state diplomacy in Mexico The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5, 65–97 Schiavon, J A (2019) Comparative paradiplomacy London, U.K., and New York, NY: Routledge Schroeder, H., & Lovell, H (2012) The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations Climate Policy, 12(1), 23–37 Sharp, P (1999) For diplomacy: Representation and the study of international relations International Studies Review, 1(1), 33–57 doi: 10.1111/1521-9488.00140 Slaughter, A.-M (2004) A new world order Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Slaughter, A.-M., & Hale, T N (2010) Transgovernmental networks and multi-level governance In H Enderlein, S Wälti, & M Zürn (Eds.), Handbook on multi-level governance (pp 358–369) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Soldatos, P (1990) An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreignpolicy actors In H J Michelmann & P Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press Tavares, R (2016) Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players: New York, NY: Oxford University Press Thurner, P W., & Binder, M (2009) European Union transgovernmental networks: The emergence of a new political space beyond the nation-state? European Journal of Political Research, 48(1), 80–106 doi: 10.1111/j.1475–6765.2008.00825.x Trabajos de Investigación en Paradiplomacia (TIP) (2011, December 21) Trabajos de Investigación en Paradiplomacia TIP—Trabajos de Investigación Investigacion en Paradiplomacia, 1(1) Van den Brande, K., Happaerts, S., & Bruyninckx, H (2011) Multi-level interactions in a sustainable development context: different routes for Flanders to decision-making in the UN commission on sustainable development Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), 70–82 doi: 10.1002/eet.563 Wapner, P (1998) Reorienting state sovereignty: rights and responsibilities in the environmental age In Karen Litfin (Ed.), The greening of sovereignty in world politics (pp 275–297) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Young, O R (1997) Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Zeraoui, Z (Ed.) (2009) Regionalismo y Paradiplomacia: La política internacional de las regiones Puebla, Mexico: Tecnológico de Monterrey and Montiel & Soriano Editores Zürn, MichaelM (1998) The rise of international environmental politics: A review of current research World Politics, 50(04), 617–649 Subnational governments acting transnationally differ from the transnational networks that represent them in the international arena Narrowing the concept, three general categories of transnational actors are considered in transnationalist scholarly work (Betsill, 2006): NGOs, multinational corporations, and transnational networks Transnational networks include transnational advocacy networks (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), epistemic communities (Haas, 1992), social movements (Hochstetler, 2002), and transnational networks of subnational governments (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004) In Rosenau’s (1988) theory, one world of politics is composed of States states, and the other one of nonState state actors Paquin (2004), published in French, suggests an explanatory framework for paradiplomacy The analysis covers twelve 12 federal countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States It takes into consideration both regularized and informal practices undertaken Later Cornago (2010a) preferred the term “substatesub-state diplomacy” to paradiplomacy ... to subnational diplomacy: ? ?subnational governments” and ? ?subnational leaders, ”; ? ?diplomacy, ”; and “transnational action.” In what follows, the diplomatic activity performed by subnational leaders. .. actor and type of phenomena under consideration The terms “paradiplomacy,” ? ?subnational diplomacy, ” and “sub-statesubstate diplomacy? ?? have been used to consider the external relations of subnational. .. “city diplomacy? ?? outside its scope Although we acknowledge and point out some of the differences and reasons for preferences between the terms ? ?subnational diplomacy, ” “paradiplomacy,” and “substatesub-state