Cultural paradiplomacy as a component of the «soft power» of subnational actors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31861/mhpi2019.39.41-49Keywords:
paradiplomacy, region, cultural diplomacy, «soft power», subnational actor, tourism, cultural paradiplomacyAbstract
The article deals with the interpretation of cultural paradiplomacy as one of the key tools for deepening the interaction of regions and the interpretation of this type of paradiplomacy as a component of the «soft power» of subnational actors. This kind of paradiplomacy is realized in the instrumental and symbolic aspects. The main goal of these aspects is the new quality of interactions through motivation of actors for economic cooperation, support of ethnic diasporas abroad and thereby, building the stability of the international relations in perspective. It is substantiated that culture plays one of the most important roles of modern politics and creates a positive image abroad. The cultural component of subnational regions does not rank first in a number of priorities in international relations, but despite this, the establishment of cultural ties is extremely important for them. It has been established that culture as a strategic resource conceals a tremendous potential for long-term strengthening of its international positions without the use of violent methods or unconventional methods of pressure on social relations. It is proved that the factor of culture as a component of «soft power» in world politics has recently acquired a new meaning, its influence on world social and economic processes and interstate relations is seriously increasing. It is determined that, in general, regions that implement paradiplomacy have a basic set of motives for this activity, which are in political, economic and cultural contexts.
Keywords: paradiplomacy, region, cultural diplomacy, «soft power», subnational actor, tourism, cultural paradiplomacy.
References
Tsivatyy, V. (2016). Novatsiyni tendentsiyi suchasnoyi dyplomatiyi: kon-tsept paradyplomatiyi yak instytutsiynyy napryam realizatsiyi transkordonnoho ta polityko-dyplomatychnoho spivrobitnytstva Ukrayiny, Zovnishni spravy, № 7, ss. 36-39.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 398 p.
Cohn,T., Merrill, D. eld., Smith, P. (1989). North American Cities in an Interdependent World: Vancouver and Seattle as International Cities, The New International Cities Era. Provo, pp. 73-118.
Criekemans, D. (2010). Regional Sub-State Diplomacy from a Comparative Perspective: Quebec, Scotland, Bavaria, Catalonia, Wallonia, Flanders, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol.5, No.1–2, pp. 37-64.
Duran, M. (2015). Mediterranean Paradiplomacies: The Dynamics of Diplomatic Reterritorialization, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 14-43.
Duran, M. (2013). An archaeology of Mediterranean diplomacy: the evidence of paradiplomacy, International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 147–158.
Fry, E. (2005). The Urban Response to Internationalization, London: Edward Elgar, 183 p.
Joenniemi, P. (2014). Paradiplomacy as a capacity-building strategy: the case of northwestern subnational actors, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 18-33.
Kuznetsov, A. (2015). Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy: Subnational Governments in International Affairs, London: Routledge, 184 p.
Lecours, A. (2018). Paradiplomacy and Stateless Nations: a Reference to the Basque Country, rezhym dostupu: http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/1472/1/dt-0106.pdf (data zvernennya: 29.08. 2018).
Lecours, A. (2002). Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regions, International Negotiation, Vol. 7, pp. 91-114.
Lecours, A. (2018). Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World, rezhym dostupu: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20081217_cdsp_diplomacy_ paper_paradiplomacy.pdf. (data zvernennya: 29.08.2018).
Michelmann, H. (1990). Federalism and International Relations: the role of subnational units, New York: Oxford University Press, 343 p.
