Mars and Venus in Action? The US and EU’s foreign relations strategies in academic discourse

Using the recently concluded Canada-European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) as a case study, this chapter aims to assess the nature, scope, and implications of shifting forms of cooperation observable in the negotiation/ratification process of mega-regional economic agreements. The emphasis would be on how sub-national and non-state actors, which are conventionally non-traditional actors in international relations, have influenced the outcome of CETA. The analysis in this chapter will also serve as a basis for identifying emerging patterns in the institutional evolution of international economic governance. To put the discussions in the context of the overarching theme of the Volume, the analyses in this chapter will be framed within two forms of interaction observable from the CETA negotiations. They are: shifting forms of cooperation between central and sub-national actors in international economic relations as evidenced by the collaboration strategies adopted during the CETA negotiations, and shifting forms of cooperation between sub-national governments and non-state actors in international economic relations.

The concept of international relations is very broad. In modern use it includes not only relations between States but also relations between States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations and other enterprises. As a result of the scientific and technological development of mankind and the accompanying economic, social and cultural developments, Is the only actor in international relations there are other international people have emerged to exist one by one in harmony with and consistent with these developments in humanity is no longer the international theater exclusive to the State alone, Lyon are better with the ability to work, performance and influence in international relations, the last of whom is an actor visible international individual.

Since the early days of modern public international law, the state has been the most important subject thereof. However, today, it is neither the sole, nor necessarily the primary, actor in international (environmental) relations. In recent years, the role of the state and, notably, the ability of the state to address environmental risks and threats, have increasingly come to be scrutinised. While states' standard setting remains important, commentators have argued that the ability and willingness of states to implement and enforce such standards have major weaknesses. Nevertheless, the state remains a truly important actor in international relations. It forms part of international governance, which has become multilevel governance. This article discusses the changing role of the state in international environmental governance. It examines states as authors, addressees, and guardians of international environmental law. The article also considers the over-estimation of Westphalian concepts of sovereignty, international environmental agreements, international environmental obligations, statehood as an element of a global system of environmental governance, and the role of the state in the transformation of the international legal system.

The historical tension between the powers of states and the rights of individuals sets the context for this look at the evolving role of non-state actors in international relations. Global connectivity has diluted state power, blurred borders and added a new dimension of non-state actor empowerment. The author’s firsthand observations, drawn from a career as a Canadian diplomat, bear witness to the ever-increasing role of non-state actors in foreign policy and international relations. This practitioner’s perspective presents some personal observations on how non-state actors have helped to shape Canada–Asia relations, with brief and selective examples from the author’s work in and on Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The piece also offers some concluding thoughts on the significance of this phenomenon for the broader conduct of international relations and the study of foreign policy.

The concept of international relations is very broad. In its modern usage, it encompasses not only the relations between states but also includes the relations between states and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and other actors. As a result of the scientific and technological advancements witnessed by humanity, along with the accompanying economic, social, and cultural developments, the state is no longer the sole actor in international relations. There are other international actors who have emerged successively, in harmony and accordance with these advancements. The international stage is no longer exclusive to the state alone. Alongside the state, international individuals have emerged who possess the ability to act, perform, and influence in international relations. The latest addition to these international actors is the individual international actor.

The article examines the European Union?s role in international relations, a subject of academic debates in EU studies for decades. Numerous concepts have emerged to highlight the EU?s unique character as an international actor. Among these, one of the most influential and widely discussed is the concept of EU as a normative power which presents the EU as a specific sui generis actor whose influence lies in the diffusion of norms and cosmopolitan action. The aim of this paper is to examine the concept of normative power in the light of contemporary concepts that express skepticism about the normative character of the EU as an actor in international relations. In this sense, the paper focuses on the studies that develop the concept of the EU as a ?normal power?. While the concept of normal power is introduced in only a few studies without a clearly defined interpretation of this concept, these works emphasize the importance of the relationship between the EU?s material-strategic interests, instrumental calculations, and normative dimensions. Furthermore, they highlight new challenges that question the dominance of the normative power concept and the constructivist approach in EU studies. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to contribute to the academic debate on the nature of the European Union as an actor in international relations and, second to draw attention to contemporary theoretical perspectives about the EU that are insufficiently understood in the domestic academic sphere.

This working paper sheds light on the ongoing transformations of the global order and the growing diversification of international relations. It presents and analyses the major trends and drivers that will shape international relations and international security in the decades ahead, and their possible impact on the European Union’s security and its external action. It argues that a gravitational shift of world affairs, which move from West to East, is underpinned by the long-term geoeconomic, geopolitical and normative rise of the Indo-Pacific Region and, above all, the rise of China. At the same time, it sustains that, while states remain the major actors in international relations, non-state transnational actors have gained in importance, in their capacity to exercise power and in their ability to create and respond to threats. By reviewing 20 foresight studies and scenario exercises developed since 2016, and whose authors aimed at mapping out key political and socio-economic trends that might impact the European Union over the coming decades, the paper presents and analyses six key drivers, arranged in three main categories: climate change and energy (natural disasters and degradation of natural environment and energy security); technological revolutions (technological innovation, and digital connectivity); and demographics (migration and demographic transformations). In addition, the paper compiles different scenarios for the future of global order and the European Union external action as presented in the reviewed foresight studies. In conclusion, it argues that the multiple combinations of the key drivers offer the EU opportunities to show leadership and shape international relations, even despite the gravitational shift towards the Indo-Pacific.

The relevance of the article lies in the analysis of the controversial issue of actors in international relations, which regularly arises in scientific circles. Specifically, it aims to resolve the question of whether the true actor in international relations is the individual subject or the state. The central argument posits a dualistic perspec-tive, emphasizing the interdependent nature of individuals and society as essential elements for analyzing in-ternational relations. Conclusion regarding the dual nature of the aforementioned concepts introduces novelty to the methodological framework for further research into events and conflicts, providing an additional tool for forecasting. The article consistently and argumentatively removes the contradiction, who really acts as an actor in international relations and what is it about when they say in the news agenda: “The government has decid-ed”.

In any country, the role of media is vital as it is a medium to keep the people informed on the latest developments in the country and elsewhere. Due to this assumed role of the press, media outlets are expected to remain objective, honest, and free from biases. Furthermore, media outlets were more localized traditionally. However, this media aspect has changed extensively in recent decades, most notably with the rise of the internet. Today, many prominent media outlets are either inclined toward a fixed political ideology or are owned by large media conglomerates with their corporate interests to look out for. This report aims to identify the role of media as a non-state actor in international relations. This is an important study to conduct in an era when media outlets are no longer limited to just their domestic market but instead have a truly global reach. Using a case study analysis method of data collection with a qualitative methodology, this study analyzes two prominent recent international events, the Syrian refugee crisis, and the Ukrainian refugee crisis. From the case study analysis, this study has established that the media now has the power of public diplomacy to influence policies in international relations as well.

Purpose This paper aims to study individuals in international relations especially private individuals in global politics. Therefore the paper focuses on analyzing the case of Mark Zuckerberg the founder and chief executive of Facebook who affects the international arena. The paper illustrates Zuckerberg’s strategies to assert wide influence and power within Facebook’s network and through multiple networks. Design/methodology/approach The paper follows new theories of studying the human agent in international relations, concentrating on private individuals as new actors in international relations (IR). Thus, depending on “network making power theory” and the “three-dimensional power perspectives; (discursive, structural and instrumental)”, the paper illustrates the case of Mark Zuckerberg as a private entrepreneur and his authority in the era of social media dominance with a focus on: Zuckerberg's discursive/ideational power strategy. Zuckerberg’s strategy to work as a switcher through multiple networks. The most obvious one is the Facebook network, through which he can assert global influence. Findings Formal state officials are not the only type of individuals who can affect international relations. Technological evolution has empowered private individuals as influential actors in international relations (IR). Interdisciplinary approaches became essential tools in studying new actors affecting IR. There are new patterns of power linked to individuals without formal positions. Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and global philanthropist, is considered an influential actor in IR depending on programming and switching strategies to assert his power in a networked world. Originality/value This paper is able to prove that there are new forms of power which belong to private individuals in a networked world.

The article examines the problem of the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts in the post-war period. The study is based on the theory of asymmetric conflict, which offers hypotheses about the reasons for the paradoxical defeat of developed countries against relatively weak opponents, including non-state actors. The empirical basis of the study is armed conflict databases, which allow us to test sole observations and hypotheses about the characteristics of asymmetric armed conflicts. The study uses the databases of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program Project (Sweden) and the COSIMO Project (University of Heidelberg, Germany) as well as publications of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The study shows that the phenomenon of asymmetric conflicts reflects several important patterns of armed conflicts in the post-war period: the predominance of intrastate over interstate conflicts; the internationalisation of armed conflicts through the involvement of other countries, international organisations or non-state actors; the direct or indirect involvement of great powers in such conflicts; and the majority of armed conflicts occurring in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Post-war armed conflicts are often referred to as “proxy wars” because the direct participants in the conflict are supported by external actors – states or non-state actors. The issues in conflicts between states and non-state actors are often political in nature, and the fundamental distinction between domestic and foreign policy has been overcome. The post-war period shows a gradual change of attitude towards the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts, which reflects the recognition of their legitimacy as participants in the conflict, the negotiation and conclusion of agreements on the cessation of hostilities. Non-state actors in armed conflicts are themselves legitimised as representing the interests of particular groups and the goals of their struggle. UN peacekeeping operations since the end of the Cold War confirm these changes. Research on the participation of non-state actors in armed conflict reveals a broadening of the agenda and methodology for the study of post-war armed conflict, reflecting significant changes in the practice of international relations. These changes concern who is recognised as a legitimate actor in international relations, what role non-state actors play in armed conflict, and how non-state actors are viewed by other actors in international relations – states, international governmental and non-governmental organisations.

Globalization and the increase of international relations have created new actors in international community. States are no longer the only parties in international relations, nowadays local government (city/province) has become one of the actors in international relations. In this context, law has an important role to regulate the relations between local government in a state with another local government in other state. It takes national and international law to arrange that international interaction or relations. In economic perspective, international relations by local government should give a real contribution to their local community and for their state. That’s why international relations by local government can be seen from law perspective and also from economic perspective.

Since the end of the cold war, many conflicts and tensions have occurred in the eastern neighbourhood of the European Union. The EU tries to take part to the settlements of these conflicts and tensions, but the results of its action have been poor so far. In this paper, we point the reasons of the European ineffectiveness. First, the EU is an actor in international relations but its influence is low in the neighbourhood that it shares with Russia. Up to now, it has proved unable to act as a security and stability supplier alongside Russia in this part of the world, because the fundamental principles of their external action are too different. Last but not least, Russia takes a dim view of various European political initiatives — such as the European Neigbourhood Policy -which are considered by Moscow as ways to deprive Russia from its area of influence.

For the last two decades much of the theoretical debate within International Relations has focused on the question of the state. Some discussion has been around the analytic primacy of the state as the constitutive actor in international relations, while some has focussed on normative questions, of the degree to which the state can be regarded as the primary guarantor of what is good, within and between states. ‘State-centric’ realism has reasserted traditional positions on the state and has, through the emergence of Neorealism, asserted new ones, especially in the field of international economic relations. Other paradigms have challenged the primacy of the state, either by asserting the role of non-state actors, as in theories of interdependence and transnationalism, or by asserting the primacy of global systems and structures over specific actors, state or non-state. All three of these approaches have been influenced by broader trends within political science: Realism by orthodox political theory; Transnationalism by the Pluralist and Behavioural rejection of the state in favour of studying actions; Structuralism by theories of socioeconomic determination.

Since the early 1970s much of the theoretical debate within International Relations has focused on the question of the state. Some discussion has been around the analytic primacy of the state as the constitutive actor in international relations, while some has focused on normative questions, of the degree to which the state can be regarded as the primary guarantor of what is good, within and between states. ‘State-centric’ realism has reasserted traditional positions on the state and has, through the emergence of neo-realism, affirmed new ones, especially in the field of international economic relations. Other paradigms have challenged the primacy of the state, either by asserting the role of non-state actors, as in theories of interdependence and transnationalism, or by asserting the primacy of global systems and structures over specific actors, state or non-state. All three of these approaches have been influenced by broader trends within political science: realism by mainstream political theory; transnationalism by the pluralist and behavioural rejection of the state in favour of studying actions; structuralism by theories of socio-economic determination.