Conference Program

The epistemological development of paradiplomacy have evolved, focusing on key themes such as the motivations driving international actions of subnational governments, their legal perspectives, the interplay between paradiplomacy and regional integration, the dynamics within federations, and the benefits and limitations arising from international networks of subnational public entities. The international endeavors of subunities aiming to emancipate from the central government, termed as protodiplomacy, have also garnered reflections contributing to the systematization of potential nuances in the international actions of subnational governement. This work argues that there is a gap in theoretical analyses within a specific niche of the international dimension of subnational governments, namely, when these governments oppose the central/federal government in their international actions not to break with the State, as in the case of protodiplomacy, but to fulfill their constitutionally prescribed competencies. Some studies have identified this movement in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. In these cases, subunities, at the international level, clearly and emphatically positioned themselves against the federal government, seeking to fulfill what the Constitution and infraconstitutional norms of these states envisaged, such as environmental preservation, access to health, migrant rights. We term this phenomenon as "paradiplomacy of resistance." Departing from case study to conceptual framework development, this work seeks to understand the characteristics, motivations, and limitations of paradiplomacy of resistance. By exploring this niche within the international actions of subnational governments, the study aims to contribute to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of paradiplomacy.

This paper has been inspired by the vision presented in the report of the UN Secretary General Our Common Agenda (2021) and in the report of High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism entitled A Breakthrough for People and Planet. Effective and Inclusive Global Governance for Today and the Future (2023). Taking into account the growing role of cities in international relations, the research aim of this paper is to answer a question: how to increase the effectiveness of multilateralism? The author claims that more effective multilateralism has to be more inclusive and cities should be formally included. The author also offers arguments in favor showing the growing role of cities in international relations, cooperation and solving global problems such as migration, climate change and pandemics like the recent one of Covid-19.

There is a growing academic interest in the phenomenon often described as city diplomacy. However, these studies often take the ontology of a city as a global actor for granted. This approach overlooks the practices, narratives, and symbolism that contribute to cities’ recognition as actors in global society. So, to unearth the processes through which cities construct and communicate an identity as global actors, this paper draws from the ‘practice turn’, the ‘narrative turn’ and recent work about the importance of symbols in world politics (Linklater, 2019). Specifically, this paper focuses on two practices of city diplomacy: gift-giving and garden-building. By analyzing these practices and the interplay between urban, national, and cosmopolitan narratives and symbols related to these practices, this paper outlines alternative ways to study and interpret city diplomacy. Furthermore, it makes suggestions about how city diplomacy and national diplomacy narratives converge and diverge. Specifically, the paper asks, why do cities give symbolic objects to foreign entities and why do cities build gardens named after foreign cities or liberal values like peace and friendship? To answer this question, the paper adopts an interpretive approach that combines insight from social constructivism, practice theory, and visual methodologies. It focuses on two Chinese cities; namely Suzhou and Nanjing and the cities’ gifting of Taihu stones and building of an ‘international friendship’ park.

The politics of building and reinforcing national identity is a fundamental objective of any identity entrepreneur working in a small, non-sovereign nation like Quebec or Catalonia. Small non-sovereign nations, where national sentiment is very strong, are likely to venture into the international arena to gain recognition for the legitimacy of their project, and to find the resources and support they lack internally. Despite this, much of the literature on the subject equates any international action by small non-sovereign nations with protodiplomacy, i.e. strategies to foster international recognition of a small non-sovereign nation seeking to undertake secession. This article clarifies the concepts of identity-based paradiplomacy and protodiplomacy, and warns against the pitfalls of methodological nationalism. It also demonstrates that the international actions of small, non-sovereign nations generally come from the register of identity paradiplomacy. It is based on the case of Quebec, with a few elements of comparison with Catalonia, Scotland and Flanders.

Despite the initial resistance registered throughout the world, the practices, institutions, discourses and techniques that it deploys, substate paradiplomacy has experienced a process of normalization throughout the world, being now a regular feature of the contemporary diplomatic realm. This normalization process has not been free of tensions. Many of them occurred only within states, in the form of intergovernmental conflict or legal controversies. But others, although less frequently, also significantly affected relations between states. When both dimensions intermingle, a (para)diplomatic incident erupts. Through the examination of a selection of cases recorded throughout the world, we aim to show that such incidents, due to their liminal character, more than simly expressive of the transformations of the diplomatic system, and perhaps more importantly, can be seen as discreet but tenacious operators of the never-ending re-articulation of political order, within, between and across states.