Kharkevich M.V.
Forms of public diplomacy and types of states
// Politics and Society.
2016. ¹ 9.
P. 1244-1255.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0684.2016.9.16271 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=16271
Ôîðìû ïóáëè÷íîé äèïëîìàòèè è òèïû ãîñóäàðñòâ
Kharkevich Maxim Vladimirovich
PhD in Politics
Docent, the department of Global Political Processes, Moscow Institute of International Relations under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Abstract: The article examines the factors determining the choice of a public diplomacy form. The author identifies two basic forms of public diplomacy – a hierarchical and a network – corresponding to two dominant structures of social relations. The article also identifies three types of states based on the criteria of a state attitude towards a value of sovereignty: modern, premodern and postmodern. The analysis of variability of forms of public diplomacy and the conditions of its determination have produced the following results. First, in certain way the determinant of variability of the forms of public diplomacy is the structure of social relations, within the framework of which it is being implemented. Second, the choice of the network or hierarchical form of public diplomacy mostly depends on the type of state, which uses the instruments of public diplomacy. Modern and postmodern states are more prone to hierarchical forms of public diplomacy, and the postmodern more often choose the network form of public diplomacy. Sovereignty being understood as strive for autonomy rather corresponds with the hierarchical form of public diplomacy, which is more often used by the modern states. Deviation from sovereignty as the highest value allows the postmodern allows using the network public diplomacy, which in the long-term perspective is more efficient than the hierarchical form. Premodern states can use both forms of public diplomacy if permitted by their resources.
Keywords:
public diplomacy, government, hierarchy, networks, modernity, postmodernism, premodernism, mediated diplomacy, world politics, propaganda
References
1. Barabanov O.N. Suverennye gosudarstva i global'noe upravlenie // «Privatizatsiya» mirovoi politiki: lokal'nye deistviya – global'nye rezul'taty / Pod red. M.M. Lebedevoi. – M.: Golden-Bi, 2008. S. 81–90.
2. Dolinskii A. V. Evolyutsiya teoreticheskikh osnovanii publichnoi diplomatii // Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta. 2011. ¹ 2. S. 275-280.
3. Zinov'eva E.S. Mezhdunarodno-politicheskie aspekty razvitiya Interneta // Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. 2013. ¹
4. S. 135-140. 4.Krivokhizh S. V. «Myagkaya sila» i publichnaya diplomatiya v teorii i vneshnepoliticheskoi praktike Kitaya // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 13: Vostokovedenie. Afrikanistika. 2012. ¹ 3. S. 103-112.
5. Lebedeva M.M. Universitet v setevykh otnosheniyakh sovremennogo mira // Resursy modernizatsii. Materialy VII Konventa Rossiiskii assotsiatsii mezhdunarodnykh issledovanii 28-29 sentyabrya 2012 g. / Pod red. A.V. Mal'gina-M.: Aspekt Press, MGIMO (U), 2012. S. 322-326.
6. Marchukov A. N. «Publichnaya diplomatiya 2.0» vo vneshnepoliticheskoi deyatel'nosti RF. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12: Politicheskie nauki. 2014. ¹ 5. S. 90-105.
7. Neimatova A. Ya. MID Rossii i novaya publichnaya // Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2013. ¹ 1. S. 80-85.
8. Fel'dman D.M. O pravilakh mirovoi politiki // Voprosy filosofii.-2012. ¹ 5. S. 35-47.
9. Kharkevich M.V. Gosudarstvo v sovremennoi mirovoi politike // Vestnik MGIMO–Universiteta. 2010. ¹ 6. S. 160–166.
10. Abrahms M. Why Terrorism Does Not Work // International Security. 2006. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 42–78.
11. Bátora J. Public Diplomacy Between Home and Abroad: Norway and Canada // The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 2006. No 1, pp. 53–80. doi:10.1163/187119006X101852
12. Cowan G., Cull N. J. Public Diplomacy in a Changing World // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. No. 616(1), pp. 6–8. doi:10.1177/0002716207312143.
13. Cull N. J. Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. No. 616(1), pp. 31–54. doi:10.1177/0002716207311952
14. Data Driven Public Diplomacy: Progress Towards Measuring the Impact of Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities, 2014. Dostup: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/231945.pdf (provereno 19.08.2015).
15. Fahmy S., Wanta W., Nisbet E. C. Mediated public diplomacy: Satellite TV news in the Arab world and perception effects // International Communication Gazette. 2012. No. 74(8), pp. 728–749. doi:10.1177/1748048512459144
16. Fitzpatrick K. Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective // The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 2007. No. 2(3), pp. 187–211. doi:10.1163/187119007X240497
17. Gilboa E. Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. No. 616(1), pp. 55–77. doi:10.1177/0002716207312142
18. Gullion E. A. Definitions of public diplomacy. 1996. Dostup: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Murrow/Diplomacy/Definitions (provereno 19.08.2015).
19. Lancaster C. Foreign aid: Diplomacy, development, domestic politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. 288 p.
20. Metzl J. Network Diplomacy // Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. Spring-Winter, 2001. Dostup: http://carnegieendowment.org/2001/04/01/network-diplomacy/dv3 (provereno 19.08.2015).
21. Nye, J. S. Public Diplomacy and Soft Power // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. No. 616 (1), pp. 94–109. doi:10.1177/0002716207311699
22. Paschke K. T. Report on the Special Inspection of 14 German Embassies in the Countries of the European Union. Berlin: Auswärtiges Amt, 2002. Dostup: http://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/paschke-report (provereno 19.08.2015).
23. Potter E. Canada and the New Public Diplomacy // International Journal, 2002. No. 58(1), pp. 43–64. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40203812
24. Risse T. "Let's Argue!": Communicative Action in World Politics // International Organization. 2000. Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 1-39.
25. Schneider C. Diplomacy that works: “Best practices” in cultural diplomacy. Washington, DC: Center for Arts and Culture, Georgetown University. 2003. 16 p. Dostup: http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2013/by_program/afta_pubs/cac_pubs/Schneider.pdf (provereno 19.08.2015).
26. Sheafer T., Gabay I.Mediated Public Diplomacy: A Strategic Contest over International Agenda Building and Frame Building // Political Communication. 2009. No. 26(4), pp. 447–467. doi:10.1080/10584600903297240Sheafer&Shenhav, 2009
27. Sheafer T., Ben-Nun Bloom P., Shenhav S. R., Segev E. The Conditional Nature of Value-Based Proximity Between Countries: Strategic Implications for Mediated Public Diplomacy // American Behavioral Scientist. 2013. No. 57(9), pp. 1256–1276. doi:10.1177/0002764213487732Sheafer
28. Slaughter A. M. A new world order. Princeton University Press, 2009.
29. Suri N. Public Diplomacy in India’s Foreign Policy. Strategic Analysis. 2011. No. 35(2), pp. 297–303. doi:10.1080/09700161.2011.542927
30. Wang Y. Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. No. 616(1), pp. 257–273. doi:10.1177/0002716207312757
31. Wise K. Public relations and health diplomacy // Public Relations Review. 2009. No. 35, pp. 127–129.
32. Xifra J. “Building sport countries” overseas identity and reputation: A case study of public paradiplomacy // American Behavioral Scientist. 2009. No. 53(4), pp. 504–515.
33. Brovko V.Yu. Osnovnye podkhody k kontseptualizatsii informatsionnoi politiki // Trendy i upravlenie.-2014.-4.-C. 441-449. DOI: 10.7256/2307-9118.2014.4.13231.
34. A. E. Galumov Perspektivy publichnoi diplomatii i imidzha ES v Rossii // Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.-2012.-1.-C. 118-127.
35. Zol'nova M.G. Obshchestvennaya diplomatiya Shvetsii // Trendy i upravlenie.-2014.-2.-C. 137-146. DOI: 10.7256/2307-9118.2014.2.12407.
36. Galumov A. E. Rol' publichnoi diplomatii v formirovanii pozitivnogo imidzha ES v Rossii // Natsional'naya bezopasnost' / nota bene.-2012.-4.-C. 77-85.
37. Tsygankov P.A. Negosudarstvennye uchastniki mirovoi politiki: vzaimodeistvie s gosudarstvami i mezhpravitel'stvennymi organizatsiyami // Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya.-2013.-3.-C. 312-317. DOI: 10.7256/2305-560X.2013.3.8977.
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
