Russian-Backed Paradiplomacy in the ‘Near Abroad’: Gagauzia, Moldova and the Rift over European Integration
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Cristian Cantir in
Current site
Google Scholar
This article seeks to make two contributions to the literature on paradiplomacy. First, it provides an account of the foreign activities of the Gagauz autonomous region in the Republic of Moldova, which expands the empirical reach of scholarship in the post-Soviet area beyond studies of Russian regions. Second, it stresses that theory-building efforts need to incorporate consideration of foreign states that support diplomatic activities by non-central governments. Such patrons can exacerbate conflict between regional and central governments when they encourage paradiplomatic activities by regional governments to pressure the central government. Moscow’s recent relationship with Gagauzia — and the Moldovan capital Chișinău’s frustration with it — is illustrative of this theoretical point.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
2
Gulnaz Sharafutdinova, ‘Paradiplomacy in the Russian Regions: Tatarstan’s Search for Statehood’, Europe–Asia Studies, vol. 55, no. 4 (2003), p. 614; Manuel Duran, ‘French Regions as Diplomatic Actors: The Case of Provence–Alpes–Cote d’Azur’, French Politics, vol. 9, no. 4 (2011), p. 341; and David Criekemans, ‘The Case of Flanders (1993-2005): How Subnational Entities Develop their Own “Paradiplomacy”’, in K.S. Rana (ed.), Foreign Ministries: Managing Diplomatic Networks and Optimizing Value (Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2007), p. 118.
-
3
Noe Cornago, ‘On the Normalization of Sub-State Diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 5 (2010), p. 14.
-
7
Duchacek, ‘Multicommunal and Bicommunal Politics and their International Relations’, p. 5.
-
8
André Lecours, ‘Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regimes’, International Negotiation, vol. 7, no. 1 (2002), pp. 91-114.
-
9
Sharafutdinova, ‘Paradiplomacy in the Russian Regions’, p. 626; and also Kuznetsov, Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy, p. 105.
-
10
Mariana Andrade e Barros, ‘Outlooks for the Legal Framing of Paradiplomacy: The Case of Brazil’, Federal Governance, vol. 7, no. 3 (2010), pp. 39-49.
-
12
Sharafutdinova, ‘Paradiplomacy in the Russian Regions’, p. 624; Duran, ‘French Regions as Diplomatic Actors’, p. 348; Rafiq Dossani and Srinidhi Vijaykumar, Indian Federalism and the Conduct of Foreign Policy in Border States: State Participation and Central Accommodation Since 1990 (Stanford, ca: Stanford University, Asia–Pacific Research Centre, 2005), p. 8; Stephane Paquin and Guy Lachapelle, ‘Why Do Sub-States and Regions Practise International Relations?’ in Guy Lachapelle and Stephane Paquin (eds), Mastering Globalization: New Sub-States’ Governance and Strategies (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 82.
-
14
For example, Lecours, ‘Paradiplomacy’, pp. 97-98; Tom Donas and Jan Beyers, ‘How Regions Assemble in Brussels: The Organizational Form of Territorial Representation in the European Union’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 43, no. 4 (2013), p. 545. See also Jorge A. Schiavon, ‘Sub-State Diplomacy in Mexico’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 5 (2010), p. 92.
-
15
Lecours, ‘Paradiplomacy’, pp. 97-98. See also Donas and Beyers, ‘How Regions Assemble in Brussels’, p. 545.
-
16
Kripa Sridharan, ‘Federalism and Foreign Relations: The Nascent Role of the Indian States’, Asian Studies Review, vol. 27, no. 4 (2003), pp. 469-470.
-
17
Mark Callanan and Michael Tatham, ‘Territorial Interest Representation in the European Union: Actors, Objectives, and Strategies’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 21, no. 2 (2014), p. 203.
-
18
Paquin and Lachapelle, ‘Why Do Sub-States and Regions Practise International Relations?’, p. 88; and Schiavon, ‘Sub-State Diplomacy in Mexico’, p. 74.
-
22
André Lecours, ‘Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, December 2008), p. 3.
-
23
See also Duran, ‘French Regions as Diplomatic Actors’, p. 342; and Paquin and Lachapelle, ‘Why Do Sub-States and Regions Practice International Relations?’, p. 82.
-
24
Fritz Nganje, ‘Paradiplomacy and the Democratization of Foreign Policy in South Africa’, South African Journal of International Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1 (2014), p. 97; Joana Setzer, ‘Environmental Paradiplomacy: The Engagement of the Brazilian State of Sao Paulo in International Environmental Relations’, Ph.D. dissertation, London School of Economics (2013), p. 190; and Schiavon, ‘Sub-State Diplomacy in Mexico’, p. 85.
-
25
Lecours, ‘Political Issues of Paradiplomacy’, p. 6. See also Nganje, ‘Paradiplomacy and the Democratization of Foreign Policy in South Africa’, p. 94; and Noe Cornago, ‘Diplomacy and Paradiplomacy in the Redefinition of International Security: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation’, in Aldecoa and Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in Action, pp. 45-46.
-
27
Lecours, ‘Political Issues of Paradiplomacy’, p. 7; and Lecours, ‘Paradiplomacy’, p. 95.
-
31
Fritz Nganje, ‘The Developmental Paradiplomacy of South African Provinces: Context, Scope and the Challenge of Coordination’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 9 (2014), pp. 119-149; Joana Setzer, ‘How Subnational Governments are Rescaling Environmental Governance: The Case of the Brazilian State of Sao Paolo’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning (2014), pp. 1-17; and Herish Khalid Mohammed and Francis Owtram, ‘Paradiplomacy of Regional Governments in International Relations: The Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government (2003-2010)’, Iran and the Caucasus, vol. 18 (2014), pp. 65-84.
-
33
Lecours, ‘Paradiplomacy’, p. 103. See also Peter Bursens and Jana Deforche, ‘Going Beyond Paradiplomacy? Adding Historical Institutionalism to Account for Regional Foreign Policy Competences’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 5 (2010), p. 165.
-
37
Helge Blakkisrud and Pal Kolsto, ‘From Secessionist Conflict toward a Functioning State: Processes of State- and Nation-Building in Transnistria’, Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 27, no. 2 (2011), pp. 178-210.
-
38
Jeff Chinn and Steven D. Roper, ‘Territorial Autonomy in Gagauzia’, Nationalities Papers, vol. 26, no. 1 (1998), p. 95.
-
40
Neukirch, ‘Autonomy and Conflict Transformation’, p. 2; King, ‘Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics’, p. 741; and Chinn and Roper, ‘Territorial Autonomy in Gagauzia’, p. 87.
-
41
James Alexander Kapalo, Text, Context, and Performance: Gagauz Folk Religion in Discourse and Practice (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 5.
-
43
King, ‘Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics’, p. 741; Neukirch, ‘Autonomy and Conflict Transformation’, p. 2; Chinn and Roper, ‘Territorial Autonomy in Gagauzia’, p. 90; Andrei Avram, Territorial Autonomy of the Gagauz in the Republic of Moldova: A Case Study (Leipzig: Moldova-Institut Leipzig, 2010), p. 6; Natalia Putină, ‘The Role of the Geopolitical Factor in the Formation of Gagauzian Autonomy within the Republic of Moldova’, Annals of the University of Oradea: International Relations and European Studies (rise), vol. 2 (2010), p. 144.
-
46
Ivan Katchanovski, ‘Small Nations but Great Differences: Political Orientations and Cultures of the Crimean Tatars and the Gagauz’, Europe–Asia Studies, vol. 57, no. 6 (2005), pp. 877-894; and Putină, ‘The Role of the Geopolitical Factor in the Formation of Gagauzian Autonomy Within the Republic of Moldova’, pp. 131-146.
-
47
William Crowther, ‘Ethnic Politics and the Post-Communist Transition in Moldova’, Nationalities Papers, vol. 26, no. 1 (1998), pp. 147-164; Neukirch, ‘Autonomy and Conflict Transformation’, p. 4; King, ‘Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics’, pp. 749-750; and Wober, ‘Making or Breaking the Republic of Moldova?’, p. 10.
-
57
Duchacek, ‘Multicommunal and Bicommunal Politics and their International Relations’, pp. 12-13.
-
58
King, ‘Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics’, p. 753.
-
64
Duran, ‘French Regions as Diplomatic Actors’, p. 348; see also Lecours, ‘Political Issues of Paradiplomacy’, p. 3.
-
71
Lecours, ‘Political Issues of Paradiplomacy’, p. 3; and Setzer, ‘Environmental Paradiplomacy’, p. 168.
-
73
On Turkey’s role, see King, ‘Minorities Policy in the Post-Soviet Republics’, p. 749; and Ozgehan Șenyuva, ‘Turkey: Politics of Balance and Caution toward Moldova’, in Marcin Kosienkowski and William Schreiber (eds), Moldova: Arena of International Influences (Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2010), p. 209. See also Putină, Unitatea Teritorială Găgăuzia, pp. 147-149.
-
76
Șenyuva, ‘Turkey’, pp. 208-210. See also Putină, ‘The Role of the Geopolitical Factor in the Formation of Gagauzian Autonomy Within the Republic of Moldova’, p. 144.
-
87
Luke March and Graeme P. Herd, ‘Moldova between Europe and Russia: Inoculating Against the Colored Contagion?’, Post-Soviet Affairs, vol. 22, no. 4 (2006), pp. 349-379, especially pp. 371-372.
-
88
Chloe Bruce, ‘Power Resources: The Political Agenda in Russo-Moldovan Gas Relations’, Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 54, no. 3 (2007), pp. 29-47.
-
90
Paul D. Quinlan, ‘A Foot in Both Camps: Moldova and the Transnistrian Conundrum from the Kozak Memorandum’, East European Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2 (2008), p. 146.
-
101
Wober, ‘Making or Breaking the Republic of Moldova?’ p. 24. Chișinău’s position on the matter was significantly more restrained.
-
129
See Sharafutdinova, ‘Paradiplomacy in the Russian Regions’, p. 618.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 776 | 191 | 37 |
| Full Text Views | 254 | 20 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 140 | 29 | 0 |
Russian-Backed Paradiplomacy in the ‘Near Abroad’: Gagauzia, Moldova and the Rift over European Integration
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Cristian Cantir in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This article seeks to make two contributions to the literature on paradiplomacy. First, it provides an account of the foreign activities of the Gagauz autonomous region in the Republic of Moldova, which expands the empirical reach of scholarship in the post-Soviet area beyond studies of Russian regions. Second, it stresses that theory-building efforts need to incorporate consideration of foreign states that support diplomatic activities by non-central governments. Such patrons can exacerbate conflict between regional and central governments when they encourage paradiplomatic activities by regional governments to pressure the central government. Moscow’s recent relationship with Gagauzia — and the Moldovan capital Chișinău’s frustration with it — is illustrative of this theoretical point.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 776 | 191 | 37 |
| Full Text Views | 254 | 20 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 140 | 29 | 0 |