Aktor dan ‘Actorness’ Dalam Amalan Paradiplomasi Global: Suatu Sorotan Literatur
Abstract
Amalan diplomasi konvensional berperanan sebagai instrumen asas hubungan antarabangsa khususnya pada abad ke-20 dan bertanggungjawab dalam mencorakkan komunikasi geopolitik. Abad ke-21 pula memperlihatkan bagaimana perubahan struktur politik-ekonomi global yang dijana oleh faktor globalisasi telah mula memberi impak kepada setiap lapisan masyarakat termasuk aktor negara dan sub-negara. Ia mendorong pemerkasaan jaringan antarabangsa melalui aktiviti atau amalan ‘paradiplomasi’. Kajian yang berbentuk kualitatif ini mengaplikasikan pendekatan sorotan literatur sebagai metod kajian. Dapatan kajian melalui sorotan kajian lepas menunjukkan terdapat lima (5) aktor paradiplomasi utama iaitu entiti sub-nasional (negeri/wilayah), entiti wilayah autonomi/semi-autonomi, entiti perbandaran, Syarikat Multi-nasional (MNC) dan Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO). Kerjasama ekonomi dan pengurusan sempadan dihujahkan sebagai antara pertimbangan utama paradiplomasi selain beberapa pertimbangan domestik dan luaran lain. Selain itu kajian turut melihat nilai ‘actorness’ sebagai penanda aras kepada sejauh mana aktor sub-nasional mampu melaksanakan aktiviti paradiplomasi dengan lebih meluas dan efektif.
Downloads
References
Aldecoa, F., & Keating, M. (1999). Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational governments. New York : Frank Cass Publishers.
Barston, R. P. (2019). Modern Diplomacy (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351270090
Blatter, J. & Kreutzer, M. & Rentl, M. & Thiele, J. (2008). The Foreign Relations of European Regions: Competences and Strategies. Western European Politics, 31. 464-490. 10.1080/01402380801939743.
Brattberg, E. & Rhinard, M. (2013). Actorness and effectiveness in international disaster relief: The European Union and United States in comparative perspective. International Relations, 27, 356-374. 10.1177/0047117813497298.
Bretherton, C. & Vogler, J. (2000). The European Union as Trade Actor and Environmental Activist: Contradictory Roles?. Journal of Economic Integration, 15(2), 163-194. doi: 10.11130/jei.2000.15.2.163.
Bull, H. (1977). Diplomacy and International Order. In: The Anarchical Society. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24028-9_7
Butler, R. (1961). Paradiplomacy, [in:] Studies in Diplomatic History and Historiography in Honour of G.P. Gooch, (ed.) Sarkissian A., 12–25, London: Longman.
Bywalec, G. (2018). Paradiplomacy in India As Exemplified by the State of Gujarat in Paradiplomacy in Asia. Case studies of China, India and Russia. Łódź, Poland : Łódź University Press.
Cornago, N. (2014). (Para)Diplomatic Cultures: Old and New. International Workshop Alternative Cultures of Diplomacy, Diplomatic Cultures Research Network. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272885542_ParaDiplomatic_Cultures_Old_and_New
Cornago, N. (2018). Paradiplomacy and Protodiplomacy. [Keynote Address].Cultures Research Network. 10.1002/9781118885154.dipl0211.
Criekemans, D. (2008). Are the boundaries between paradiplomacy and diplomacy watering down. Belgium: University of Antwerp and Flemish Centre for International Policy. http://www.wiscnetwork.org/ljubljana2008/papers/WISC_2008-68.pdf
Czeslaw, T. (2017). Paradiplomacy as a provincial state-building project: The case of Yunnan’s relations with the Greater Mekong Subregion. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(4), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw022
Duchacek, I. D. (1984). The International Dimension of Subnational Self-Government. Publius, 14(4), 5–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3330188
Duchacek, I. D. (1990). Perforated sovereignties: towards a typology of new actors. In Soldatos, P.;Michelmann, H (Eds.) Federalism and International Relations: the role of subnational units. international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
El-Dessouki, A. (2018). Domestic structure and sub-national foreign policy: an explanatory framework. Review of Economics and Political Science, 3(3), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-10-2018-008
Fitzgerald, A, H. (2019). Understanding Paradiplomacy: An Analysis of Subnational Diplomatic Activity in Brazil, Belgium, and the United States. IE International Policy Review (IPR), Journal 01 (1).
Harold, N. (1939). Diplomacy. London: Oxford University Press
Jacob, H. (2016). Putting The Periphery At The Center Indian States’ Role in Foreign Policy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_282_Jacob_States_Roles_Final.pdf
Jakob, K. & Teebken, J. (2020). WP3 Actorness and influence of the EU in home and global governance. D3.1 Working paper: testing EU actorness and influence in domestic and global governance.
Jha, P. (2014). Federalism, Regionalism and States' Paradiplomacy in India. (Published as a Chapter (pp. 234-260) in Lobo, L. , Sahu, M. & Shah,J. (Eds.) Federalism in India: Towards a Fresh Balance of Power. Jaipur: Rawat Publication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344309775_Federalism_Regionalism_and_States'_Paradiplomacy_in_India
Kaminski, T., Mierzejewski, D., Bywalec, G., Pietrasiak, M. & Słowikowski, M. (2018). Paradiplomacy in Asia. Case studies of China, India and Russia. Łódź, Poland : Łódź University Press.
Kania, M. (2019). Beyond the Economic Agenda: Towards a Normative Dimension of Paradiplomacy. Journal Politicke vedy, 22(2), 61-77. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/77572/kania_beyond_the_economic_agenda_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Kucera, W. & Pejsova, E. (2012). Russia’s Quiet Partnerships in Southeast Asia - Russia-Malaysia Strategic Partnership through Sabah Case Study. Irasec’s Discussion Papers, No. 13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302199076_Russia's_Quiet_Partnerships_in_Southeast_Asia
Laura, R. , Spray, S. & Shelton, J.T. (2008). Research and writing in international relations. /Sharon Spray, Laura Roselle.—2nd ed. Pearson Education Inc.
Lecours, A. (2008). Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World. Discussion Papers In Diplomacy; Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Kamudiplomasisi. http://www.kamudiplomasisi.org/pdf/kitaplar/paradiplomacylessonsfromthe.pdf
Lequesne, C. & Paquin, S. (2017). Federalism, Paradiplomacy and Foreign Policy: A Case of Mutual Neglect. International Negotiation, 22, 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-22001133.
Liu, T. & Song, Y. (2020). Chinese Paradiplomacy: A Theoretical Review. SAGE Open, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899048
Marié, S. (2018). Cultural paradiplomacy institutions and agenda. Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais, 18(2), 351-375. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7289.2018.2.28907
Mattheis, F. & Wunderlich, U. (2017). Regional actorness and Interregional Relations: ASEAN, the EU and Mercosur. Journal of European Integration, 39(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1333503
Mendes, V. & Figueira, A. (2017). Paradiplomacy and the International Competitiveness of Cities: the case of Rio de Janeiro. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 60(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201700103
Milani, C. R. S. & Ribeiro, M. (2011). International Relations and the Paradiplomacy of Brazilian Cities: Crafting the Concept of Local International Management. BAR : Brazilian Administration Review, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922011000100003
Mocca, E. (2020). (Nearly) Outside the Shadow of Hierarchy: An Enquiry into the Teleology of Municipal Paradiplomacy in the EU. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15, 303-328. https://brill.com/view/journals/hjd/15/3/article-p303_4.xml?language=en
Mukti, T. A. (2013). Paradiplomacy Kerjasama Luar Negeri Oleh Pemda Di Indonesia. The Phinisi Press Yogyakarta
Mukti, T.A. & Fathun, L.M & Muhammad, A. & Stivani, S. & Riyanto, S. (2021). Paradiplomacy Policies and Regional Autonomy in Indonesia and Korea. Jurnal Hubungan Internasional, 9(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.18196/jhi.v9i2.8931
Mukti, T.A. (2018). Paradiplomacy and the Future of Aceh Government. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 292. https://doi.org/10.2991/agc-18.2019.8
Novialdi, R. & Rassanjani, S. (2020). Optimizing the Ability of Aceh Province in Paradiplomacy Practice. Nation State Journal of International Studies, 3. 19-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.24076/NSJIS.2020v3i1.169
Novialdi, R. & Ahmad, R. & Muhammad, Z. & Saputra, J. & Bon, A. (2022). A Review of Paradiplomacy Literature: Mini-Review Approach. Proceedings of the 1st Aceh Global Conference.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359413542_A_Review_of_Paradiplomacy_Literature_Mini-Review_Approach
Oddone, N.& Rodríguez V, H. (2015). Cross-Border Paradiplomacy in Latin America. Latin American Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12059
Pajtinka E. (2017). Between Diplomacy and Paradiplomacy: Taiwan´s Foreign Relations in Current Practice. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics, 11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jnmlp-2017-0003
Pluijm, R.V.D.(2007). City Diplomacy: The Expanding Role of Cities in International Politics. Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendiel. https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/20070400_cdsp_paper_pluijm.pdf
Putri, S. O. (2019). Paradiplomacy of West Java Province in East Asia (2015–2018). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 391. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200108.009
Putri, S. O. (2022). Optimizing City Diplomacy Indonesia for Economic Development Through E-government Implementation. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR), 9(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v9i1.884
Rachmawati, I. & Dewi, M.A. (2021). Model of integrative border diplomacy in managing harmony between Indonesia and Malaysia: Case of Temajuk, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. GEOGRAFIA Online.TM Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 17(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.17576/geo-2021-1701-04
Riordan, S. (2003). The New Diplomacy. Polity
Royles, E. (2016). Substate Diplomacy, Culture, and Wales: Investigating a Historical Institutionalist Approach. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46(2), https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjv053
Ruël, H. (2013). Diplomacy means business. Zwolle (NLD): Windesheim.
Satow, E. (1962). Guide to Diplomatic Practice. (4th. Ed) London: Macmillan Publishers.
Sharma, C. K., Destradi, S., & Plagemann, J. (2020). Partisan Federalism and Subnational Governments' Internasional Engagements: Insights from India. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 50(4), 566–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa017
Sjöstedt, G. (1977). The External Role of the European Community. Westmead: SaxonHouse.
Snyder, H.(2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Surwandono & Maksum, A. (2020). The Architecture Of Paradiplomacy Regime In Indonesia: A Content Analysis’. Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, 22(1), 77-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.7454/global.v22i1.443
Soldatos, P. (1990). An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreign-policy actors. In Michelmann H, J. & Soldatos, P. (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press. 34-53.
Taherdoost, H. T. (2023). Nuts and Bolts of Conducting Literature Review: A Typology of Literature Review. Electronics, 12, 800. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12040800
Tavares, R. (2016). Paradiplomacy: Cities and States as Global Players. Oxford University Press.
Tewari, F. (2017). Paradiplomacy in India: Evolution and Operationalisation. [Occasional Paper].Observer Research Foundation (OFC), 119. https://www.orfonline.org/research/paradiplomacy-india-evolution-operationalisation/
Thontowi, J. (2011). Bilateral cooperation between the governments of Indonesia-Malaysia on management border territory. Jurnal Unisia, 33(74), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.20885/unisia.vol33.iss74.art1
Utomo, A. B. (2019). The Paradiplomatic Role of the ConIFA in Promoting Self-Determination of Marginalised Entities. Global Strategis, 13(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.20473/jgs.13.1.2019.25-36
