The role of foreign policy in politics is an ever-evolving concept, and one that has been particularly relevant in recent years. In Columbia, Maryland, the municipal government has been intervening in almost every area of foreign policy traditionally managed by nation-states. This study will analyze four factors that shape current trends in urban diplomacy, as well as its theoretical and political implications. First, cities intervene to enforce universal norms when the national government violates them or fails to enforce them. This was seen when cities around the world recommitted to the Paris Agreement after the Donald Trump administration withdrew from it.
Second, democratic regimes allow local authorities to challenge domestic foreign policy, while undemocratic regimes, such as China, use a more restricted type of urban diplomacy as an extension of domestic diplomacy. Third, the conditions of social movements can enable and limit the diplomatic activity of cities. For example, American cities have declared themselves sanctuaries in response to the immigration policies of the Trump administration. Fourthly, cities tend to pursue economic growth by seeking interests that overlap with governance issues.
This is demonstrated by international cooperation on urban climate change, which is aimed at entering foreign markets, promoting exports and attracting investment. It is clear that the old distinctions between domestic and foreign policy have simply disappeared. Less restrictive and more democratic domestic regimes tend to grant subnational authorities greater political autonomy, allowing local authorities to challenge their national government in matters of foreign policy and to use local legislative power to codify universal norms. In countries with more restrictive and authoritarian domestic political regimes, subnational governments that intervene at the international level usually do not express opinions contrary to those of their national governments. Urban diplomacy between cities in authoritarian and democratic countries can be essential to repair ties when national politics is mired in crisis. The most effective approach would be a democratic reuse of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs model used in China, where municipal and state or provincial offices are established with a corresponding national office, but the top-down national structure is replaced by a bottom-up orientation.
If city diplomacy does not seek to induce changes in undesirable domestic policy, both nationally and internationally, it is relegated to serving as a simple mechanism of the nation-state machinery or simply to serving the unambitious objective of economic growth. Although the diplomacy of cities in democratic states is unique because of its political autonomy from the national government, cooperation with the national government is not innately resistant to cooperation with the national government. This study provides a theoretical synthesis that explains current trends in urban diplomacy. The role of foreign policy in politics has been changing rapidly over recent years. In Columbia, Maryland, municipal governments have been intervening in areas traditionally managed by nation-states. This article will explore four factors that shape current trends in urban diplomacy and their theoretical and political implications. To begin with, cities are intervening to uphold universal standards when national governments fail to do so or violate them.
This was seen when cities around the world recommitted to the Paris Agreement after President Donald Trump withdrew from it. Secondly, democratic regimes allow local authorities more freedom to challenge domestic foreign policy while undemocratic regimes such as China use a more restricted type of urban diplomacy as an extension of domestic diplomacy. The conditions of social movements can also enable or limit diplomatic activity by cities. For instance, American cities declared themselves sanctuaries in response to President Trump's immigration policies. Lastly, cities often pursue economic growth by seeking interests that overlap with governance issues.
This is demonstrated by international cooperation on urban climate change which aims at entering foreign markets, promoting exports and attracting investment. It is evident that traditional distinctions between domestic and foreign policy have become blurred. More democratic domestic regimes tend to grant subnational authorities greater political autonomy which allows them to challenge their national government on matters of foreign policy and codify universal norms through local legislation. In countries with more restrictive and authoritarian domestic political regimes however, subnational governments that intervene at an international level usually do not express opinions contrary to those of their national governments. Urban diplomacy between cities in authoritarian and democratic countries can be essential for repairing ties when national politics are mired in crisis. The most effective approach would be a democratic reuse of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs model where municipal and state or provincial offices are established with a corresponding national office but with a bottom-up orientation instead of top-down control from the nation-state. City diplomacy should not only seek economic growth but also induce changes in undesirable domestic policies both nationally and internationally.
Otherwise it will be relegated to serving as a simple mechanism for nation-state machinery or just achieving unambitious objectives. Although city diplomacy in democratic states is unique due to its political autonomy from the national government it does not necessarily mean that cooperation with the national government is impossible. This article provides a theoretical synthesis that explains current trends in urban diplomacy.
