The Impact of ‘Intermestic’ Non-State Actors on the Conceptual Framework of Public Diplomacy

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



The concept of public diplomacy has traditionally been understood in state-centric terms and has been closely related to a state’s foreign policy. Despite conceptual evolution towards more dialogue and networking with different players, some authors continue to envisage public diplomacy as a state pursuit. The impact of globalization on politics, however, has provoked the emergence of an array of non-state organizations that have progressively increased their influence, power, legitimacy and credibility in the global arena. They may act complementary to or independent from states, and sometimes even challenge the role of the state. This article proposes an alternative approach to the concept of public diplomacy that can include non-state actors’ independent actions. The article explores three main conditions for non-state organizations that could contribute to broadening the conceptual framework of public diplomacy: emphasis on the object of the action; legitimacy to develop public diplomacy initiatives based on effectiveness; and a progressive disappearance of borders between the domestic and international dimensions (as so-called ‘intermestic’ actors attempt to do). These preconditions are examined in the following two scenarios: defending citizens’ interests before international institutions; and explaining and implementing international institutions’ policies locally.

The Impact of ‘Intermestic’ Non-State Actors on the Conceptual Framework of Public Diplomacy

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy



  • 2)

    See Hans TuchCommunicating with the World: US Public Diplomacy Overseas (New York: St Martin’s Press1990); Howard Frederick Global Communication and International Relations (Belmont CA: Wadsworth 1993); and Jarol Manheim Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press 1994).

  • 7)

    See Jan MelissenThe New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in international Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan2005); and Jan Melissen ‘Beyond the New Public Diplomacy’ Clingendael Paper no. 3 Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ October 2011.

  • 9)

    See Huijgh‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’; Josef Bátora, ‘Public Diplomacy between Home and Abroad: Norway and Canada’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 1 no. 1 2006 pp. 53–80; and Jordi Xifra ‘Catalan Public Diplomacy Soft Power and Noopolitik: A Public Relations Approach to Catalonia’s Governance’ Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies vol. 1 no. 1 1 August 2009 pp. 67–85(19).

  • 10)

    Bruce Gregory‘American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 6 no. 3/4 2011 351–372 at p. 353.

  • 11)

    See C. Kegley and E. WittkopfWorld Politics: Trend and Transformation (Boston, MA, and New York: Bedford/St Martin’s Press1999). As Szondi explains ‘intermestic’ are those affairs where international and domestic issues merge and encroach upon each other; see György Szondi ‘Central and Eastern European Public Diplomacy: A Transnational Perspective on National Reputation Management’ in Nancy Snow and Philip Taylor (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (New York: Routledge 2009) p. 304.

  • 21)

    Julie Mertus‘Considering Non-State Actors in the New Millennium: Toward Expanded Participation in Norm Generation and Norm Application’Journal of International Law and Politicsvol. 32 no. 2 2000 pp. 537–566; Ann Florini ‘Who Does What? Collective Action and Changing Nature of Authority’ in Higgott Underhill and Bieler (eds) Non-State Actors and Authority in the Global System pp. 15–31; and Arts ‘Non-State Actors in Global Governance’.

  • 22)

    Richard Langhorne‘The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors’Diplomacy and Statecraftvol. 16 no. 2 2005 pp. 331–339.

  • 24)

    Huijgh‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’ p. 67.

  • 29)

    Wiseman‘“Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue’ p. 41.

  • 30)

    Wiseman‘“Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue’ p. 41.

  • 31)

    See Paul SharpDiplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2009) pp. 53-71.

  • 32)

    Eytan Gilboa‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’The Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social ScienceSAGE Journals 2008 pp. 55–77.

  • 34)

    Paul Stubbs‘International Non-State Actors and Social Development Policy’Global Social Policy SAGE Publications vol. 3 no. 3 2003 pp. 319–348; Raymond Saner ‘Development Diplomacy by Non-State Actors: An Emerging Form of Multistakeholder Diplomacy’ in Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev (eds) Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities (Geneva: DiploFoundation 2006) pp. 93–104; and Simone Eysink ‘Human Rights’ Dialogue in ASEM: Do NGOs Have a Role to Play?’ Clingendael Discussion Papers no. 7 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ September 2006).

  • 37)

    Jim WhitmanThe Fundamentals of Global Governance (New York: Palgrave MacMillan2009) p. 9.

  • 40)

    M. Edwards‘International Development NGOs: Agents of Foreign Aid or Vehicles of International Cooperation?’Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterlyvol. 28 1999 p. 26.

  • 44)

    Kristine Kern and Harriet Bulkeley‘Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks’Journal of Common Market Studiesvol. 47 no. 2 2009 pp. 309–332.

  • 45)

    Karen Heard-LauréoteEuropean Union Governance: Effectiveness and Legitimacy of European Commission Committees (London: Routledge2010) p. 18.

  • 47)

    See Ulrich BeckPower in the Global Age (Malden, MA: Polity Press2005); and Manuel Castells ‘The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society Communication Networks and Global Governance’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 616 no. 1 2008 pp. 78–93.

  • 50)

    Lisa Young‘Gender Equal Legislatures: Evaluating the Proposed Nunavut Electoral System’Canadian Public Policyvol. 23 no. 3 1997 pp. 306–315; and J. Mansbridge ‘Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System’ in Stephen Macedo (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on ‘Democracy and Disagreement’ (New York: Oxford University Press 1999) pp. 211–229.

  • 51)

    Anthony Zito‘Epistemic Communities, Collective Entrepreneurship and European Integration’Journal of European Public Policyvol. 8 no. 4 August 2001 pp. 585–603.

  • 57)

    Heard-LauréoteEuropean Union Governance pp. 60–70.

  • 58)

    S. Bernstein and B. Cashore‘Can Non-State Global Governance Be Legitimate? An Analytical Framework’Regulation and Governancevol. 1 2007 pp. 347–371.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 149 149 53
Full Text Views 148 148 36
PDF Downloads 15 15 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0