“Freundship”?

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism. Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

Russia has been a longstanding and time-tested partner for India. Development of India-Russia relations has been a key pillar of India’s Foreign policy. India and Russia have enjoyed good relations since 1947 wherein Russia helped India in attaining its goal of economic self-sufficiency through investment in areas of heavy machine-building , mining, energy production and steel plants. Later India and Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in august 1971 which was the manifestation of shared goals of the two nations as well as blueprint for the strengthening of regional and global peace and security. After the dissolution of Soviet Union, India and Russia entered into a new Treaty of Friendship and cooperation in January 1993 and a bilateral Military-Technical Cooperation agreement in 1994. As the Indian government’s response to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis received a mixed reaction, it puts a serious introspective question to Indian lawmakers: is Indian foreign policy still dependent upon the big superpowers or are we moving towards Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India)? After abstaining in UN Security Council, New Delhi again abstained from voting in United Nations General Assembly on a resolution condemning “in the strongest terms” Russia’s belligerence against Ukraine and calling on Moscow to “immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from Ukraine’s territory within its internationally recognised borders.” In the current crisis, India has strived to maintain a non-aligned collinear, avoiding pointing a finger or naming names. This has proven to be challenging in the present predicament. It has done so by reiterating fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter and international law, but also appeals for a halt to violence and to return for dialogue as “the only response to addressing disagreements and conflicts, however daunting that may sound at this time.”

The people from the informative generation can easily obtain information and recognize the fake and truth. They are no longer under the control of the government. Global communication caused the change of the governmental image. As a result, public diplomacy becomes the ruler of building the national image in order to become the key of the public authority. This paper studies the above case from two perspectives. One is from the public diplomatic aspect, which divides various means to show the propagandas to foreigners. The other one is to change the policy to the foreigners by instilling the above notion through communications. The purpose of this study is to analyze how to use the means of the public diplomacy in order to make Chinese soft power into a national image. The results of this study have 3 aspects. 1.The perspective from the Chinese communist organization: a.The public diplomacy by Chinese communist has no clear boundary to mean the diplomatic achievement. This concept only exists among the high posited political leaders. However, this concept seems only has a little power among outsiders. b.The “organization of the inter-governmental management regard of the public diplomacy” has not been established among most of the agencies. 2.The characteristic of the Chinese communist public diplomacy: a.The method of the Chinese communist public diplomacy seems more like a cultural diplomacy. The propaganda about the Chinese culture is purposely molded along with the media communication. b.The lack of the development of an active public diplomacy. For instance, the establishment of the Confucius institution based on increased Chinese learners among foreigners. 3.The characteristic of the public diplomacy during Hu Jin-tao’s period: a.Method based on propaganda. Divide the concept of the propaganda and public diplomacy. b.The stereotype of the propaganda from the “real china” and “imaged china”. c.The expansion of the international propaganda to avoid dominated American authority over other western countries. Try to actively increase interpretation power. d.Chinese featured public diplomacy: the value of the American public diplomacy is worldwide well-known. On the contrary, the value of the Chinese public diplomacy is the political interpretation power. The concept of the public diplomacy also has another interpretation in China. It is the public diplomacy toward Chinese common people. On the other words, they removed the mysterious feeling that was established among the common people. Today’s Chinese public diplomacy is to open the information to the common people.

The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisciplinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplomacy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment. Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective „new” as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as actors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda.

Public diplomacy is a new diplomatic field that emerges as states influence each other socially, culturally and politically by using soft power tools. Russia and Türkiye have used this new tool of diplomacy intensively, especially since the end of the cold war. Both countries have used and continue to use public diplomacy, a new field of diplomacy, by acting with common identity tools in the Balkans, which is an important region of the security corridor in geopolitical terms. In the theories of International Relations, public diplomacy has been evaluated from a realist, liberal and constructivist perspective. In the article, how Russia and Türkiye use public diplomacy tools is analyzed with a comparison through the Russkiyy Mir Foundation and Yunus Emre Institute, which were established at the same time for similar purposes. The states where the Russian World Foundation is most influential are Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, and their relations with Russia have been studied in more detail. General information was given about the activities of the Russian World Foundation in other Balkan countries. When the content analysis of the fields of activity of Russia was made, it was concluded that Russia applied to public diplomacy with a realistic perspective to restore its global and regional image and obtain strategic area. Türkiye has used public diplomacy in order to act jointly with regional elements in order to preserve and strengthen its historical and cultural unity. Yunus Emre Institute activities as Türkiye's Balkans public diplomacy tool have been examined. Activities through Bosnia-Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Kosovo, which are the regions where Yunus Emre Institute is most influential, were examined in more detail and general activity information about other Balkan countries was given. When the content analysis of Türkiye's fields of activity is done, Türkiye has realized its public diplomacy on a constructivist basis, with a more inclusive purpose, establishing its communication with the region on unity, and prioritizing the construction of a common identity and culture that sees the region as a part of itself.

Indonesian public diplomacy has been understood as an effort to attach a certain image like a moderate, democratic and progressive image. Nevertheless, the image is not always present in bridging Malaysian bilateral relations. In Malaysia Malaysia's bilateral relations practice, public diplomacy reveals itself in a different face. This article places public diplomacy not only as an effort to maintain the image in rationalists view, but public diplomacy as an effort to maintain relationships through shared identity. Through Indonesian diplomatic studies on Malaysia's three main issues over the past 15 years, it was found that public diplomacy was present as an effort to maintain relations through the shared identity as the Bangsa Serumpun (One Kin) or known as Kinship. Although Malaysia social economic context has changed, Indonesia still believes that the obligation to place the stability of relationships is a priority. Self-refrain and encouraging public dissemination become the practices of Indonesian public diplomacy towards Malaysia. Through qualitative methods, Indonesian policy documentation studies of three major bilateral issues found that Kinship is still the main reference for Indonesia in maintaining bilateral relations although it’s practiced differently. Key Words: Public Diplomacy, Shared Identity, Kinship.

This research explores the interrelationship of national security between Taiwan and Japan, based on reviewing Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, three communiques between China and U.S. (Shanghai Communique, Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, and China-U.S. August 17 Communique), Taiwan Relations Act, and Sino-U.S. Treaty of Peace, China-Japan Joint Communique, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China, The Guidelines For U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation (Japan's Circumference Situation Method), and etc. We find that under the Japan-US Security Arrangements, if U.S. gets involved in a military conflict between Taiwan and Mainland China, Japan will be compelled to drag into the conflict. Therefore, it is highly impossible for Japan to Completely keep away from Taiwan's national security. Generally, outsiders recognize that the economical tie between Taiwan and Japan is strong, but the diplomatic relation, especially that of the national security, is weak. As a matter of fact, this point of view is not true.

This article examines the Siamese inter-state relations since the mid-nineteenth century by placing them within the wider regional contexts of ”East Asia.” After the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce with the British in 1855 and the gradual colonization of mainland Southeast Asia toward the 1880s, it is generally understood that Siamese diplomatic relations with its neighboring countries were replaced with relations with the colonial powers. However, Thai archival records suggest that there existed continuous negotiations between Siam and other Asian countries, particularly China, and that such relations still constituted an important part of Siamese diplomacy after 1855. By examining a few cases that indicate the importance of the continuing relationship with Asia even in the late nineteenth century, this article proposes a need to look at modern Siamese diplomatic history from a broader regional and longer historical perspective by taking the Asian context into consideration.

Purpose. The aim of the article is to identify the basic concepts of the formation of public diplomacy. Methodology of research. The theoretical and methodological basis of the research is the fundamental provisions of the modern theory of international economic relations, scientific works of scientists. In the process of research, general scientific and special methods were used, in particular: dialectical, monographic and systemic analysis – to substantiate the essence of the functioning of modern diplomacy; analysis and synthesis – for studying the object and subject of research; abstract and logical – during the formation of theoretical generalizations, assumptions, conclusions. Findings. Distinctive features of modern diplomacy, new forms and methods of conduct are considered. The historical development of public diplomacy is defined. It is emphasized that in the information age, public diplomacy acquires a new character and covers wider areas. It is substantiated that the European integration vector of Ukraine's foreign policy forces more active use of public diplomacy tools. The peculiarities of the formation of the image and reputation of the country, including with the help of tools of public diplomacy, are revealed. The strategic aspect of the development of Ukraine's public diplomacy through countering the threats that are growing in war conditions is argued. Originality. The theoretical concepts of public diplomacy and the peculiarities of the implementation of its tools are revealed. The theoretical and methodological approaches to uncovering the essence of public diplomacy on the basis of the generalization of existing scientific approaches, the involvement of soft power in the implementation of public diplomacy projects have gained further development. The strategic vectors of Ukraine's public diplomacy through countering modern threats are substantiated. Practical value. The obtained results of the research can be used for further scientific developments on improving the theoretical basis of public diplomacy and increasing its role in international relations. Key words: global transformations, cultural diplomacy, international security, international image, propaganda, public diplomacy, social and economic processes, Public Diplomacy Strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.

While propaganda was central to U.S. public diplomacy in earlier times, and remains central today, the United States must now practice true public diplomacy, which should rely, not only on political theory and the theories of international relations, but also on theories and models of public relations that are based on two‐way symmetrical communication and community‐building. A propaganda model centers the United States at the hub of the global milieu in its relationships with other nations, i.e., a diplomatic worldview in which the ‘spokes’ of America's communication and relationships radiate outward to satellites of stakeholders; in contrast, the United States is not centered so self‐importantly in a community‐building model. Rather, this model recognizes that America is only one part of a global social system. America's public diplomacy must recognize that the United States' global constituents are ‘publics,’ not ‘markets,’ and that an effective public diplomacy model must be one that is not propaganda or market‐oriented advocacy, but one that is based on two‐way symmetrical communication and community‐building.

International relations (IR) theory is favorably described in almost every syllabus since 1930. The most important questions asked were: “What is theory?” and “Is there a reason for IR theory?” The most widely used texts all focus on the first question and suggest, among others, that IR theory is “a way of making the world or some part of it more intelligible or better understood.” We can gauge where the teaching of IR theory is today by analyzing a sample of syllabi from IR scholars serving on the Advisory Board of the International Studies Association’s (ISA) Compendium Project. These syllabi reveal some trends. Within the eight undergraduate syllabi, for example, a general introduction to IR theory is taught in four separate classes. Among the theories discussed in different classes are realism, classical realism, neo-realism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, world-systems theory, imperialism, constructivism, and international political economy. Novel methods for teaching IR theory include the use of films, active learning, and experiential learning. The diversity of treatments of IR theory implied by the ISA syllabi provides evidence that, with the exception of the proliferation of perspectives, relatively little has changed since the debates of the late 1930s. The discipline lacks much semblance of unity regarding whether, and how, to offer IR theory to students. Nevertheless, there have been improvements that are likely to continue in terms of the ways in which theories may be presented.

In this article the author analyzes a theoretical direction called “Peripheral Realism”, which has arisen within the scope of neorealism in 1990s due to an acknowledged Argentinean political scientist Carlos Escudé. The author makes an attempt to provide a complex analysis of the original theory of 1992 and compares it with the modern realities of international relations. The author also conducts a comparative analysis of the original theory and its revised version of 2016, in order to trace the dynamics of its development. The main objective of the study is to establish whether the theory of peripheral realism can be attributed to the so-called ‘non-Western’ theories of international relations. First of all, the article is based on an in-depth analysis of the theoretical basis of Carlos Escudé’s peripheral realism theory on the basis of his main writings of 1992 and 1995, as well as an analysis of subsequent variations of the theory in 2012 and 2015. The study also uses a comparative analysis method, which contrasts the features and theoretical positions of the canonical ‘grand’ theories of international relations (especially realism and neo-realism, being the origins for the theory) and correlates them with those of the theory of peripheral realism in order to highlight the role and place of this theory in the configuration of Western and non-Western theories of international relations. The author concludes that the uniqueness of the concept comes from assessing reality from the point of ‘weaker’ and developing countries, which is not generally customary for Anglo-Saxon theories. This unique feature puts the concept of peripheral realism beyond the perceptions of the nature of world politics generally accepted in the research community. The study was originally drafted for the research seminar “Non-Western Theories of International Relations” of the Department of theory and history of international relations of RUDN University, as well as for the joint research seminar of RUDN and HSE University “Non-Western Theories of International Relations in a Polycentric World.”

Public diplomacy is a relatively young concept and a field of study that has produced a deluge of literature since the turn of the century. The learning curve has been considerable. This bibliography is mainly based on the literature since 2010, so as to present cutting-edge knowledge in the field. The worldwide practice of diplomatic engagement with people preceded the integration of its terminology within governments and ministries of foreign affairs. In the present century, public diplomacy efforts have become increasingly mainstreamed. The practice is subject to wider evolutions occurring in international relations, diplomacy, and state-society relations. As such it is considered to be different from traditional government-to-government diplomacy, in the first place because it engages nonstate actors. Many policymakers and scholars associate public diplomacy primarily with “soft power” and there is no one-size-fits-all definition in what is a truly multidisciplinary field of study. The initial normative debate has distracted from deeper issues in the field and public diplomacy’s evolution and significance. Two common conceptual frameworks recur in the early-21st-century literature: “old” (unidirectional government communication) and “new” (network relational multi-actor) public diplomacy. These categories are attempts to make sense of public diplomacy’s concepts and key functions in a fast-changing international environment. More recent scholarship seeks to move beyond these categorizations by emphasizing the integration of old and new as well as public diplomacy’s integration within diplomacy. Some of the latest work on public diplomacy is in response to recent trends in international politics, such as enhanced geopolitical rivalry, the impact of digital technologies and the rise of populism. US writings once dominated the literature, but contributions from Europe have been significant, while academic output from the postcolonial world is growing rapidly and is increasingly important. This article begins with works that offer a General Overview. Following this, selected secondary sources on Soft Power are listed and, in New Century, New Public Diplomacy, works discuss early-21st-century trends in the debate, followed by Beyond the New Public Diplomacy. Works cited under Coming of Age: Diplomacy’s Public Dimension highlight the importance of realizing that public diplomacy accompanies wider developments in diplomatic practice. This section stresses new themes and modes of communicative practice. Literature cited under Public Diplomacy Worldwide focuses on the United States, China, and India as well as the European Union, and the article concludes with Book Series and Journals.

本論文以歷史文獻搭配外交決策、國家利益、國際關係理論以及地緣政治密碼等四種層次的分析法，研究自一九八二年「馬爾維納斯群島戰爭」迄今智利對阿根廷外交政策之演變。有鑒於國際環境的瞬息萬變與偶發事件層出不窮，故本文採用三種國際關係理論：現實主義、新自由制度主義及社會建構主義，驗證不同時空背景之下，智利對於國家利益的定義及偏好轉變而執行不同之外交政策，冀望賦予本文更完整多面向的國際政治分析。 智利在馬島戰爭中雖然並非直接當事方，卻迫於南美洲軍事失衡所造成的安全困境，冒著被拉丁美洲排擠的風險選擇與英國組成秘密軍事同盟共同對抗阿根廷，無疑顯示出冷戰時期「安全存續」為唯一至上的國家利益。然而隨著智、阿兩國政府相繼回歸民主之後，雙方歷經多年的溝通對話與合作，相互諒解並達成共識建立制度，除了陸續和平解決領土爭端，也達成兩國經濟及實體等多方面利益互惠，在「國際建制」的概念下促進國家多元發展。 《智利－阿根廷和平友好條約》於二○一四年屆滿三十周年，《麥普整合協定》更緊密結合兩國關係，雙方聯手致力推動跨兩洋發展計畫及南美洲國家整合。智利在馬島主權議題，一方面發揮「利基外交」實力以扮演英、阿之調停者自居；但智利同時又聯合英國、巴西進行海上軍演，形成競合的外交立場。智利對阿根廷採取既支持又圍堵之雙軌外交政策，除了企圖加強本國「和平主義者」之國際形象並贏取南美洲國家好感之外，也符合智利在太平洋、大西洋及南極洲的傳統國家利益。 關鍵字：智利、阿根廷、外交政策、國家利益、馬爾維納斯群島

Introduction Benjamin Tze Ern Ho (bio) Of late, Chinese scholars have argued for the need to incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream international relations (IR) theory, which is seen as privileging a Western-centric reading of international affairs. Given the global prominence of China, it behooves scholars and policymakers alike to consider how these ideas are being translated into contemporary Chinese conceptions of international order and influencing China's foreign policy practices. The four essays in this roundtable attempt to do just that. First, Feng Zhang adopts a historical perspective on the study of China's engagement with the international order and examines the implications of the Xi Jinping doctrine for the country's foreign policy. Second, Xiaoyu Pu discusses China's policies and actions in the Indo-Pacific, including its strategic calculations, its perceptions of the U.S. role in the region, and the sources of rising tensions between the United States and China. Using a "status dilemma" framework, Pu argues that Sino-U.S. competition is fueled by concerns in the United States and China that the other side seeks domination and regional hegemony, respectively. Third, Beverley Loke analyzes Chinese and U.S. discourses of great-power management. She examines how each country sees itself as a responsible stakeholder and assesses their respective approaches to a "new model of great-power relations." Finally, Catherine Jones argues that, despite the use of grand political slogans, Beijing's foreign policy practices reflect more modest objectives, not unlike the behavioral strategies of middle powers. Taken together, these essays provide important analytical insights for better understanding China's foreign policy actions and the extent to which Chinese ideas concerning international affairs are playing out in practice. The rest of this introduction provides a brief sketch of Chinese thinking about international relations in light of China's rise and its importance for our understanding of Chinese political worldviews. [End Page 2] China's prominence in international relations has emboldened Chinese IR scholars in recent years to advocate a "Chinese way" of thinking about international relations and incorporate traditional Chinese ideas into mainstream IR scholarship. Qin Yaqing, the president of the China Foreign Affairs University, observes that efforts to develop Chinese IR theory have gathered momentum since the start of the 21st century, given China's growing economic strength and international influence.1 While these concepts have yet to obtain universal traction and are still largely in an embryonic stage, the ability to theorize, as Qin puts it, "is a sign of intellectual maturity."2 Chinese scholars are increasingly using indigenous resources to articulate what they view as a unique Chinese contribution to the wider discipline. The importance of articulating a Chinese approach to IR theory lies in part in the need to establish and present Chinese national interests to the international community. In a study of the relationship between China's global ascendancy and its IR theory, Hung-Jen Wang identifies the three main features of Chinese scholarship as "identity, appropriation, and adaptation."3 In the first phase of scholarship, the identities of Chinese IR scholars were shaped by China's political systems, cultural values, and historical experiences. Such work emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s following China's reintegration into the international system. Chinese scholars next began to appropriate Western IR theories using the Chinese principle of ti-yong (substance-function)—that is, by combining Chinese concerns with the learning of foreign concepts. The third phase saw Chinese scholars adapt these concepts of Western IR scholarship (such as "balance of power" and "nation-state") to analyze events in China. To this end, Wang observes that "repeated cycles of learning and appropriation may ultimately relativize the universal values of those and other concepts found in Western IR theories so as to transform their original Western meanings."4 Similarly, in his survey of the development of IR theory in China, Qin argues that the development of IR as an academic discipline in China has moved from pre-theory to a theory-learning (or theory-deepening) stage. The theory-innovation phase, whereby scholars "seek to explain reality and understand social phenomena from a distinctly Chinese perspective," [End Page 3] has yet to materialize...