Regional & Federal Studies

ISSN: 1359-7566 (Print) 1743-9434 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/frfs20

Secondary foreign policy: Can local and regional

cross-border cooperation function as a tool for
peace-building and reconciliation?

Martin Klatt & Birte Wassenberg

To cite this article: Martin Klatt & Birte Wassenberg (2017) Secondary foreign policy: Can local
and regional cross-border cooperation function as a tool for peace-building and reconciliation?,
Regional & Federal Studies, 27:3, 205-218, DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2017.1350652

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2017.1350652

Published online: 19 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=frfs20

Download by: [University of Prince Edward Island] Date: 20 July 2017, At: 05:06
REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 27, NO. 3, 205–218
https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2017.1350652

INTRODUCTION

Secondary foreign policy: Can local and regional

cross-border cooperation function as a tool for peace-
building and reconciliation?
Martin Klatta and Birte Wassenbergb
a
Centre for Border Region Studies, University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Denmark;
b
Institut d’études politiques, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

ABSTRACT
Studies on international relations increasingly focus on actors at the sub-state
level. The terms para-diplomacy or proto-diplomacy are used to describe
international activities of state institutions below the national level and
outside the foreign services. In this special issue, we have collected seven
case studies from Europe, North America and Asia, where the authors analyse
recent developments of de- and re-bordering focusing on the role of non-
central state actors with regard to cooperation, reconciliation and peace-
building. The cases demonstrate the wide range of multi-level governance
and personal interaction of cross-border regions, but also the persistence of
the central state as a norm-setting actor of international relations. We suggest
labelling these activities of local international relations secondary foreign
policy, widening and précising the terms of para-diplomacy or proto-
diplomacy used within Political Sciences to describe regional, non-central
state activities in international relations.

KEYWORDS Secondary foreign policy; conflict resolution; peace-building; reconciliation; border regions;
cross-border cooperation

Secondary foreign policy: a new term for sub-state international

diplomacy
This special issue addresses whether and how international activities of non-
central governments (NCGs) and non-governmental actors (NGAs) can serve
as a tool for peace-building and reconciliation in border regions. The increas-
ing role of NCGs and NGAs as actors of foreign policy is a frequently discussed
topic in federal as well as regional studies. There is indeed evidence that, since
the 1980s, especially in Europe and North America, local and regional actors
have become more engaged in international activities which traditionally
have been considered a competence reserved for the nation state.
However, there is yet no consensus among scholars or politicians on how

CONTACT Martin Klatt mk@sam.sdu.dk Centre for Border Region Studies, University of Southern
Denmark, Alsion 2, DK-6400 Sønderborg, Denmark
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
206 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

to name these activities. This cannot exclusively be blamed on their diversity,

as they all have in common that they operate outside the usual channels of
diplomacy. The term most frequently used in this context is para-diplomacy,
which was introduced into the academic debate and developed theoretically
by Soldatos (1990) and Duchacek (1988, 1990) in the late 1980s. This insinu-
ates a form of parallel diplomacy besides ‘real’ diplomacy, but it also alludes
to the fact that the subnational and non-state actors involved have limited
capacities and legal powers compared to those of national governments
(Joenniemi and Sergunin, 2014: 18). This term has then been further declined
with regard to different types and objectives of the international activities
concerned. Thus, Duchacek (1988) has identified three categories of para-dip-
lomatic activities of subnational political entities: cross-border regionalism,
trans-regional diplomacy and global para-diplomacy. For his part, Soldatos
(1990: 38–39) differentiates between supportive para-diplomacy, where
NCGs’ diplomatic activities are coordinated by or jointly executed with the
federal government, and substitutive para-diplomacy, where these activities
exist parallel to central governments’ foreign policy and can be either in
harmony or in disharmony with the latter.
Alongside para-diplomacy, a large number of other denominations for
NCG’s international activities can be found in the scientific literature. Ducha-
cek et al. (1988: 12–13), for example, discussed the potential of a segmented
foreign policy by NCGs and NGAs referring to international activities that do
not involve national security and generally aim at improving (trans-)regional
economic development. Kincaid (1990) has employed the term constituent
diplomacy, arguing that it is about international activities of constituent gov-
ernments (federal states, provinces, cantons, Länder, republics, municipalities)
which are part of an integrated political and administrative system englobed
by the nation state. In contrast to this, proto-diplomacy has been applied to
designate foreign activities of regions aspiring to become themselves
nation states such as the Canadian province of Québec, the British region
of Scotland or the Spanish autonomous community Catalonia (Duchacek,
1988: 22; McHugh, 2015). From a more global point of view, Hocking (1993:
69–71) suggests the term of multi-layered diplomacy to explain the manage-
ment of increasingly complex foreign relations embracing actors and interests
at both domestic and international levels, where the focus is on linkages
between central governments, NCGs/NGAs and other stakeholders. Finally,
for the European Union (EU) and its system of shared sovereignty, the
notion of pluri-national diplomacy has been used by Aldecoa (1999: 84–85)
to describe the formalized negotiation process between NCGs and central
governments to achieve reciprocal loyalty in their respective diplomatic
activities.
In this special issue, we contribute to the terminological debate by introdu-
cing another term, that of secondary foreign policy, which is derived from the
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 207

German Nebenaußenpolitik, a concept used to describe the German Länder’s

initiatives on the diplomatic floor, especially when they first set up European
Community (EC) representations in Brussels in the mid-1980s in order to influ-
ence European policies (Nasse, 1986: 619–628). The term thus reflects the orig-
inal understanding of these activities as a new phenomenon which takes
place in parallel and in addition to the traditional foreign policy. However,
in the case of the German Länder, their international activities were con-
ducted ‘next to’ (neben) the foreign policy of the federal government and
not necessarily in line with the latter. In contrast to this, the term of secondary
foreign policy suggests that international relations by NCGs and NGAs are not
situated on the same level as those of the national state: they may be con-
ducted in parallel but are clearly subordinated to the ‘primary’ foreign
policy, either in support or in opposition to the latter.
Our choice of this term is reflected in the diversity and complexity of inter-
national relations beyond primary foreign policy of nation states and suprana-
tional organizations. It is wider than para-diplomacy, as it opens to include
non-federal or quasi-federal actors, both governmental, political and from
civil society. Thus, it serves to unite different analytic lenses used to assess
and evaluate the complexity of international relations at the ground level:
in border regions, which are the objects of this special issue. Our focus on
reconciliation furthermore justifies the choice of an encompassing term, as
reconciliation is a matter of policies on multiple levels, including multiple
actors: from all governmental levels, but even more important NGAs from
civil society.

NCGs/NGAs’ international activities

NCG/NGAs’ international activities are usually analysed as newer, post-WW II
political phenomena, even though their origins can be traced back to
earlier periods in European History. Thus, medieval proto-statehood was
already characterized by a varied set of clerical and secular actors who inter-
acted in complex forms of power sharing and ‘cross-border’ relations. This
changed only with the rise of the modern nation state, which, in most
cases, was accompanied with absolutism, with the desire of monarchs, dicta-
tors and other leaders to consolidate their position against competing politi-
cal, economic and military forces by means of power centralization and state
bordering (Kincaid, 1990: 61–62). But even in the heydays of the Westphalian
system, it was never justified to reduce complex political international devel-
opments to simple state-to-state relations. As Duchacek (1988: 3) has
explained, this would mean to underestimate the influence of private actors
from the economic sector (firms, banks) which were largely involved in inter-
national relations, but also the effect of the first period of globalization at the
end of the nineteenth century, in which the world became more and more
208 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

interconnected by means of transport and communication. However, it is true

that in times of crisis, a country based on strong federalism like the US was
keen to monopolize foreign policy at the central government level, especially
during the First and Second World Wars and the economic Depression
(Kincaid, 1990: 64). Still, subnational units could always try to either influence
decision-making processes of central governments from within or to bypass
these by creating formal or informal transnational contacts with neighbouring
or distant foreign sources of power and knowledge (Duchacek, 1988: 5).
Since the Second World War, the scope of international relations has
extended dramatically beyond the classical sphere of economic exchange,
national defence and the search for a balance of power. Today, with an inter-
dependence of foreign and domestic policy, international politics concern all
economic, social and cultural policy areas of the developed welfare state. This
provoked NCG/NGAs’ interest to not only influence their central governments’
foreign policies, but also to supplement or even challenge it with their own
activities. From the 1970s onwards, it has, for example, led US states and Cana-
dian provinces to increase their representations in foreign countries, mostly to
pursue their various investment and trade interests. Nevertheless, secondary
foreign policy was treated with suspicion by the traditional actors of inter-
national policy, i.e. the nation states and their foreign policy services: it was
‘perforating sovereignty’, as Duchacek (1990) termed it, the key element of
the Westphalian state system. According to the so-called realist school,
which has dominated the study of international relations in academia as
well as in practice, states should speak as one in the international agenda.
The fear that secondary foreign policy activities would threaten the nation
state sprang from the assumption that the latter’s foreign policy should not
be challenged by constituent governments. Furthermore, the increasing
activities of US states in the 1980s, aggressively marketing themselves to
attract foreign investment and to promote their economic interests, were
seen as a potential impingement on federal responsibilities and treaty obli-
gations (Kincaid, 1990). Conflict and competition in foreign policy were there-
fore regarded as harmful, neglecting the fact that they are also central
elements of successful democratic governance. In Europe, the majority of
the EC’s member states were then still largely centralized and did not leave
space for major secondary foreign policy. Only the German Länder practised
the so-called Nebenaußenpolitik, among others through the frequent foreign
policy statements of the Bavarian prime minister from 1978 to 1988, Franz-
Josef Strauß.
In the late twentieth century, though, it became more and more apparent
that accelerating globalization and the rise of regional organizations such as
the EU or the North Atlantic Free Trade Area (NAFTA) had eroded the old dis-
tinction between domestic and International Affairs and caused regions and
cities to try and position themselves in the international economic
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 209

competition (Aldecoa and Keating, 1999). On the other hand, the free move-
ment of capital and the rise of multinational companies drastically reduced
the ability of states (and governments) to manage their national economies
on their own. In this competitive field, regions then went abroad seeking
investments and markets for their products and technology for innovation.
In consequence, foreign activities of regions, alongside with firms, trade
unions and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), were broadening
the universe of International Affairs, supplementing states as the hitherto only
legitimate actors (Keating, 1999). While the US constitution still prohibited
states to conclude treaties with a foreign power without the consent of Con-
gress, the Canadian provinces even defended their position that they have a
right to act internationally in their areas of constitutional jurisdiction (Ducha-
cek, 1990). The situation was also changing on the European continent.
Whereas the federal constitutions of Switzerland, Austria and Germany
already permitted NCGs to engage – under certain circumstances and for
specific issues related to their competences – in direct negotiations with
foreign states, ongoing decentralization movements since the 1980s (in
France, Italy, Belgium and Spain) now led other sub-state actors, for
example, British (Casson and Dardanelli, 2012) or French (Wassenberg, 2016:
1–2) local governments to engage in a wide range of secondary foreign
policy activities. Furthermore, with the ‘Europe of Regions’ paradigm which
was spreading from the beginning of the 1990s, regions felt encouraged to
play a stronger role in International Affairs; and regions with secessionist
agendas such as Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders successfully used this to
operate as proto-states, escaping the national framework (Keating, 1999,
2008).
In sum, since the 1980s, in the US, Canada and in Europe, NCG/NGAs have
increasingly become both a subject and an object of international relations:
they can be foreign policy actors pursuing regional policy goals outside
their national setting, they can act as channels through which other actors
can articulate their concerns and they can become targets of international
activity where their own policies affect the interest of other international
actors (Hocking, 1999: 25–28).
But can secondary foreign policy also contribute to peace-building and
reconciliation? Can it be used to establish good neighbourhood relations?
In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to focus on cross-border
cooperation and its role and functions for conflict resolution and reconcilia-
tion. In this respect, European border regions can be considered pioneers,
for they have been developing secondary foreign policy towards their neigh-
bours since the end of Second World War. However, the conditions and frame-
work of this secondary foreign policy in European border regions have so far
not been sufficiently explored by the scientific community.
210 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

Secondary foreign policy in European border regions

Research on secondary foreign policy has indeed not focused its attention on
cross-border cooperation. Without looking at the geographical position of the
territory concerned, it has rather examined the political and legal framework
of its actors involved. It has therefore hitherto either focused on the analysis of
NCGs in federal and quasi-federal states (Lecours, 2002; Bursens and Deforche,
2010; McMillan, 2010; Nganje, 2014) or on sub-state regions with a certain
degree of political autonomy (Blatter et al., 2008; Marks et al., 2008a,
2008b). On the other hand, research on cross-border cooperation has so far
more dealt with individual case studies of actors or activities in border
regions or on the political, legal, economic and social aspects of cross-
border relations than with the diplomatic or foreign policy function of
NCGs/NGAs (for a detailed historiography, see Wassenberg, 2013). The inter-
national relations dimension of cross-border cooperation has thus been
largely neglected (as demonstrated by Wassenberg, 2014: 67).
However, when looking at the reality of cross-border cooperation in
Europe, it has acquired certain legitimacy in the foreign policy sphere. Thus,
since the 1960s, European regional and local authorities have increasingly
lobbied in the Council of Europe for the opportunity to engage in cross-
border political engagements (Becker-Christensen, 1979) and this resulted
in the adoption of the Council of Europe’s Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation between Territorial Communities and Authorities (‘Madrid-Con-
vention’) in 1980, which provides a legal framework for cross-border
cooperation of NCGs. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have rati-
fied this convention and since then, 3 additional protocols have been elabo-
rated to further facilitate cross-border cooperation as a form of secondary
foreign policy. Furthermore, many European countries have signed bi- and tri-
lateral agreements regulating NCGs’ International Affairs (Gabbe et al., 2008).
The EU has also recognized secondary foreign policy in cross-border
regions. First, it has started to associate local and regional governments to
its decision-making process, mainly via the so-called multi-level governance
system. The latter was introduced by the subsidiarity principle in article 3B
of 1992 Maastricht Treaty encouraging a share of policy-making between
the regional, national at the EU level of governance (Hilz, 1998: 44). Second,
it has integrated cross-border cooperation in its European regional cohesion
policy from the 1990s onwards, especially by means of the Community initiat-
ive INTERREG which allowed for a direct implication of local and regional auth-
orities. Since then, the EU has largely supported the idea that NCG/NGAs in
border regions could contribute to the European integration process and
especially to the implementation of the Single European Market (Raich,
1995: 35–40). For this purpose, it also helped to further legitimize secondary
foreign policy in cross-border regions. Thus, in 2006, the European
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 211

Commission has even endowed cross-border local and regional actors with a
new legal instrument, the so-called European Grouping of Territorial
Cooperation (EGTC). This European instrument allows for setting up joint
cross-border governance structures with legal personality and by 2017,
already 64 EGTCs have been established throughout the EU (EGTC Platform,
2017).
The growing links between the European integration process and NCGs on
the one hand and the blurring distinction between domestic national and
European policies on the other hand almost naturally led to an increasing
involvement of local and regional authorities in European ‘foreign’ Affairs.
Thus, since the 1980s, more and more NCGs – regions and cities – have
opened representation offices in Brussels to influence European policy at
the EU level (Moore, 2008). Besides these individual lobbying activities at
the European governance level, local and regional authorities have also
been participating in multilateral regional associations such as the Assembly
of European Regions (AER), the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions
(CPRM) or the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) to organize
their international activities and form strategic alliances for the defence of
their interests in European policy-making (Keating, 1999: 8).
As far as cross-border secondary foreign policy is concerned, since the
1990s, there has been a multiplication of the so-called Euroregions which
have been established across virtually all European border regions. Theses
Euroregions vary in structure and size, but usually encompass several local
and regional administrative units and often also NGOs, spanning across one
or more national borders. They can be set up in an informal way, but also
via associative, private law structures, or, since 2006, as public law bodies
within the new EU law instrument EGTC. Euroregions practise secondary
foreign policy on a day-to-day basis, across national borders. They function
as instruments of cross-border governance, but their actual impact is dis-
cussed controversially in the academic community. Perkmann (2002, 2007)
highlights their role as policy entrepreneurs co-designing and implementing
EU regional policies. Dörry and Decoville (2016) as well as Walther and Reitel
(2013) have analysed the function (and importance) of social networks in
cross-border regional governance. Blatter (2004) focuses on how Euroregions
endeavour to navigate between attempts to govern territorially across
borders and necessities of functional governance of flows in border regions.
Andersen et al. (2012) have collected studies demonstrating the multiplicity
of cross-border interactions and the policies designed to govern them, Beck
and Wassenberg (2011) collected studies examining governance and prac-
tices across German borders, Liikanen (2008) reflects on the social construc-
tion of cross-border regional identity in cross-border policy-making, O’Dowd
(2010) points out the necessity to research history to explain failures of
cross-border governance and integration and trends of re-bordering. Klatt
212 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

and Hermann (2011), O’Dell (2003) and Löfgren (2008) as well as Terlouw
(2012) demonstrate that cross-border social practices are best explained by
individual, practical motives and often do not align with EU- and regional
cross-border policies of integration.
So, while secondary foreign policy activities of NCG/NGAs in Europe have
been widely recognized and developed since the 1990s, they have not
been in-depth evaluated, yet, on their potential to contribute to conflict res-
olution, peace-building and reconciliation, and if they could constitute a
model for other regions in the world in this respect.

Secondary foreign policy as a tool for peace-building and

reconciliation
Secondary foreign policy in border regions does not necessarily take place
with an objective of conflict resolution or peace-making. Indeed, the inter-
national situation of borders is complex and often characterized more by
border disputes than by efforts of cross-border cooperation (see for this the
three volumes of Brunet-Jailly, 2015). In many areas of the world, the defi-
nition and delimitation of national borders has been determined by the Euro-
pean powers during the period of colonization and was thus imposed on the
local population. These coincidental borders sketched out by the former colo-
nial powers do therefore not align with physical and social realities on the
ground, where local elites often directly subvert central governments’ strat-
egies of bordering and border control (Baud and van Schendel, 1997). At
the same time, from the twenty-first century, there are indications that infra-
structure development and state consolidation have created a re-bordering
with factual centralized control of the borders and thus a division of hitherto
functionally united cross-border zones. Nevertheless, since the 1990s, decen-
tralization has been promoted in many African, Asian and Latin American
countries (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2006), thus permitting the development
of secondary foreign policy activities. Nganje (2014, 2016) has already demon-
strated how provinces in South Africa successfully apply secondary foreign
policy activities with NCGs in Europe in development cooperation.
However, these activities are not necessarily pursued with a general aim of
conflict resolution or peace-building. In Europe, the reconciliation function of
cross-border cooperation is not always evident either. It can, in fact, be used as
an instrument of a foreign power channelling its interests through auton-
omous regions in another state, sometimes creating conflict rather than
solving it. This is evident in Moldova, where Turkey, the non-recognized
Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and Russia have developed close diplomatic
ties to the autonomous region of Gagauzia, not only to strengthen cultural ties
with the local, Turkish, pro-Russian population, but also out of geopolitical
interest to strengthen the country’s political faction opposing future EU
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 213

membership (Cantir, 2015). Russia’s clandestine support of the self-pro-

claimed ‘people’s republics’ in Eastern Ukraine as well as the secessionist
autonomous regions of Georgia is another example of how NCGs’ secondary
foreign policy may be (mis)used in order to trigger off more conflict in already
conflictual border regions.
Evidence that cross-border cooperation can contribute to a peace-building
process is acknowledged by Cornago (1999), who saw it as an instrument for
the reduction of trans-border ethnic conflict. Within the EU, peace-building
and reconciliation have always been aims as well as driving forces behind
the European integration process. They have, indeed, been the key motivation
for the founding fathers (Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer
and others) to engage in the EC ‘project’ and to delegate sovereignty to supra-
national institutions (Guisan, 2003: 25–39). From the end of the 1950s, they
have therefore led to a successful reconciliation process within the core, six
founding EC member state, not only on the intergovernmental, but also on
the local and regional level, mainly by involving the civil society. Especially,
the French-German case is here often mentioned as a best-practice
example of turning the centuries (or at least one century) old enmity (Erb-
feindschaft) into a successful story of friendship and cooperation, on the
national level, but also on the regional, local and civil society levels, as numer-
ous city-twinnings and youth exchanges demonstrate (Stefanova, 2011: 19–
49). Research has largely investigated this Franco-German case of reconcilia-
tion (for recent works, see Seidendorf, 2012 or Defrance and Pfeil, 2016),
but it has not examined the specific role of border regions in this context.
More generally, research on secondary foreign policy has not engaged
seriously with the role of NCGs/NGAs international activities in peace-
making and reconciliation at European borders.
This special issue therefore examines different cases of presently or histori-
cally conflictual border regions focusing on the role of NCGs/NGAs with
regard to reconciliation and cooperation under the framework of what we
call secondary foreign policy. By analysing national and regional policies of
cooperation, we will examine the interplay of bottom-up and top-down
policy processes of cross-border cooperation and assess whether and how
they contribute to conflict resolution, peace-making and reconciliation. Key
questions dealt with are: Is the type of political regime (federal, centralized,
decentralized) an essential factor, or is it rather the type of relations
between actors at the border? What are the driving forces behind cross-
border cooperation and how do they fit into a process of conflict resolution,
peace-building or reconciliation? What is the particular role of the European
integration process in this context? Is the combination of secondary foreign
policy and reconciliation a purely European approach, or are there other
cases demonstrating the opportunities and limitations of NCGs and NGAs in
resolving border-related conflicts?
214 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

The approach of this special issue as well as the cases chosen dates back to
a panel we organized for the Association for Borderlands Studies’ first World
Conference held in Joensuu, Finland and St. Petersburg in 2014. All cases
demonstrate the dilemma of state power and sovereignty versus regional
interests in border regions. They show the possibility of constructive dialogue,
but also the limits of regional commitment in face of national or global secur-
ity paradigms manifested at the borders. Nonetheless, they also illustrate how
the interplay between supranational, state and regional actors can improve
situations and appease conflicts in federal as well as in and non-federal
systems of secondary foreign policy.
The successive case studies follow a specific line of argumentation. First,
our aim is to show how secondary foreign policy functions as a tool for recon-
ciliation in European border regions. Birte Wassenberg introduces into this
topic from a historical perspective. We then focus on several border regions
in Europe to examine what are the necessary conditions, mechanisms and
means of reconciliation and how these are linked to the European integration
process. Examining the Danish-German border region, Martin Klatt questions
the role ascribed to national minorities as central bridge builders for peace
and reconciliation by Danish and German politicians, and by the minorities
themselves. He emphasizes the fact that all stakeholders at the border
agree on the successful implementation of reconciliation, but that in-depth
social interaction across the border apparently is still mostly limited to an
elite of transnational borderlanders, while most social practices across the
border are primarily undertaken for practical reasons (shopping and leisure),
and that there is widespread indifference among the borderlands’ population
towards each other. The minorities have been reconciled with the majorities
and the location of the border, but a larger scale German-Danish reconcilia-
tion never really became politicized neither at national nor regional level,
and is not deemed necessary either. Cathal McCall and Xabier Itçaina’s contri-
bution deals with the peace process of violent secession movements in North-
ern Ireland and the Basque country demonstrating that cross-border
cooperation by non-state third sector actors can serve reconciliation there,
but that the EU’s approach to this secondary foreign policy is far from cohe-
sive, with intensive involvement in the Irish case and negligence in the Basque
case. Elzbieta Opilowska as well as Hynek Böhm and Emil Drapela scrutinize
two cases in Central Europe. For the German-Polish case, ‘Europeanization’
has been the key strategy used since 1989 to prepare EU accession and to
achieve cooperation as well as reconciliation in this special borderland of his-
toric trauma, whilst Hynek Böhm and Emil Drapela illustrate how local actors
partially employ EU supported INTERREG projects in the Czech-Polish border
region to engage on reconciliation and peace-building, but also avoid the sen-
sitive issue to demonstrate superficial understanding.
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 215

Second, we test the model character of this European experience of sec-

ondary foreign policy used for reconciliation by means of a comparison
with border regions in other parts of the world. Is there a similar development
of bottom-up peace-building and can the European cases serve as ‘best-prac-
tice’ examples to learn from for these regions? Two case studies will be exam-
ined in detail for this purpose: North America and the Kashmir region. Bruno
Dupeyron demonstrates that in contrast to European border regions, narra-
tives of cooperation across the US-Canada and US-Mexico border have
never focused on peace-building and reconciliation. On the US-Canadian
border, the narrative of the ‘longest unguarded border of the world’ is on
the way to be deconstructed by the dominance of the post 9/11 security para-
digm. Dupeyron deals with the question whether regional actors have the
power to influence or reverse re-bordering processes and how far they threa-
ten the US-Canadian narrative of a peaceful border. He shows us the variety of
public and private cross-border governance existing in this region, but also
the limits of local policymakers to influence the overarching security paradigm
and the remilitarization of the border. Concerning the Kashmir region in Asia,
Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra analyses how regionalization as well as cross-
border practices can indeed be a way to open up the deadlock of conflict in
this region, but also how different this process is when compared to the Euro-
pean case studies. He indicates perspectives for reconciliation from below in a
borderless Kashmir, where the present line of control (separating the Indian
and Pakistani occupied areas of Kashmir) could be transformed into a line
of contact and commerce.
In sum, the collection of these cases demonstrates the multiple dimensions
of secondary foreign policy going beyond what has been termed para-diplo-
macy, including a wide range of NCG and NGAs interacting in cross-border
activities out of different motives and interests. It illuminates the opportu-
nities, but also the limits of secondary foreign policy in multi-level govern-
ance, their dependence on suitable institutional frameworks and
constructive forums of dialogue with central governments, who remain the
dominant agenda setters in foreign policy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Aldecoa, F. (1999), Towards plurinational diplomacy in the deeper and wider European
union (1985–2005), in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in Action. The
Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments, pp.82–94. London, Portland: Frank
Cass.
216 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

Aldecoa, F. and Keating, M. (1999), Introduction, in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating (eds),

Paradiplomacy in Action. The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments, pp.vii–
vix. London, Portland: Frank Cass.
Andersen, D. J., Klatt, M. and Sandberg, M. (eds) (2012), The Border Multiple. The
Practicing of Borders Between Public Policy and Everyday Life in a Re-Scaling Europe.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bardhan, P. and Mookerjee, D. (eds) (2006), Decentralization and Local Governance in
Developing Countries. A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baud, M. and Van Schendel, W. (1997), Toward a comparative history of borderlands,
Journal of World History, Vol.8, pp.211–242.
Beck, J. and Wassenberg, B. (eds) (2011), Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit leben
und erforschen (Band 2): Governance in deutschen Grenzregionen. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
Becker-Chrisensen, H. (1979), Europarådet og grænseregioner. Grænseoverskridende
regionalt og kommunalt Samarbejde. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning.
Blatter, J. (2004), From ‘spaces of place’ to ‘spaces of flow’? Territorial and functional
governance in cross-border regions in Europe and North America, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.28, No.3, pp.530–548.
Blatter, J., Kreutzer, M., Rentl, M., and Thiele, J. (2008), The foreign relations of
European regions: competences and strategies, West European Politics, Vol.31,
No.3, pp.464–490.
Brunet-Jailly, E. (ed.) (2015), Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia (3 Volumes).
Greenwood: ABC-Clio.
Bursens, P. and Deforche, J. (2010), Going beyond paradiplomacy? Adding historical
institutionalism to account for regional foreign policy competences, The Hague
Journal of Diplomacy, Vol.5, No.1–2, pp.151–171.
Cantir, C. (2015), Russian-backed paradiplomacy in the ‘near abroad’: Gagauzia,
Moldova and the rift over European integration, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,
Vol.10, No.3, pp.261–284.
Casson, R. and Dardanelli, P. (2012), Local government paradiplomacy in the UK: The
case of the Kent-Virginia project, Local Government Studies, Vol.38, No.5, pp.599–614.
Cornago, N. (1999), Diplomacy and paradiplomacy in the redefinition of international
security: dimensions of conflict and Co-operation, in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating
(eds), Paradiplomacy in Action. The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments,
pp.40–57. London, Portland: Frank Cass.
Defrance, C. and Pfeil, U. (eds) (2016), Verständigung und Versöhnung nach dem
“Zvilisationsbruch”?. Brussels: Peter Lang.
Dörry, S. and Decoville, A. (2016), Governance and transportation policy networks in
the cross-border metropolitan region of Luxembourg: A social network analysis,
European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol.23, No.1, pp.69–85.
Duchacek, I. D. (1988), Multicommunal and bicommunal politics and their international
relations, in I. D. Duchacek, D. Latouche and G. Stevenson (eds), Perforated
Sovereignties and International Relations: Trans-Sovereign Contacts of Subnational
Governments, pp.12–13. New York: Greenwood Press.
Duchacek, I. D. (1990), Perforated sovereignties: towards a typology of New actors in
international relations, in H. J. Michelmann and P. Soldatos (eds), Federalism and
International Relations. The Role of Subnational Units, pp.1–33. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
 REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 217

Duchacek, I. D., Latouche, D., Stevenson, G. (eds) (1988), Perforated Sovereignties and
International Relations. Trans-Sovereign Contacts of Subnational Governments.
New York: Greenwood Press.
EGTC Platform (2017), Full list of EGTCs. Available at https://portal.cor.europa.eu/egtc/
CoRActivities/Pages/egtc-list.aspx (accessed on 3 June 2017).
Gabbe, J., von Malchus, V., and Stumm, T. (2008), Cooperation Between European Border
Regions: Reviews and Perspectives. Baden Baden: Nomos.
Gusian, C. (2003), Un sens à l’Europe. Gagner, la paix (1950–2003). Paris: Odile Jacob.
Hilz, W. (1998), Subsidiarität und EU-Gemeinschaftsordnung. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit
am Beispiel des Maastricht-Prozesses. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Hocking, B. (1993), Managing foreign relations in federal states: linking central and non-
central international interests, in B. Hocking (ed), Foreign Relations and Federal States,
pp.68–89. London, New York: Leicester University Press.
Hocking, B. (1999), Patrolling the ‘frontier’: globalization, localization and the ‘actorness’
of non-central governments, in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in
Action. The Foreign Relations of Subnational Governments, pp.17–39. London,
Portland: Frank Cass.
Joenniemi, P. and Sergunin, A. (2014), Paradiplomacy as a capacity-building strategy,
Problems of Post-Communism, Vol.61, No.6, pp.18–33.
Keating, M. (1999), Regions and international affairs: motives, opportunities, strategies,
in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating (eds), Paradiplomacy in Action. The Foreign Relations of
Subnational Governments, pp.1–16. London, Oregon: Frank Cass.
Keating, M. (2008), A quarter century of the Europe of the regions, Regional & Federal
Studies, Vol.18, No.5, pp.629–635.
Kincaid, J. (1990), Constituent diplomacy in federal politics and the nation state: conflict
and cooperation, in H. J. Michelmann and P. Soldatos (eds), Federalism and
International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units, pp.54–75. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Klatt, M. and Herrmann, H. (2011), Half empty or half full? Over 30 years of regional
cross-border cooperation within the EU: experiences at the Dutch–German and
Danish–German border, Journal of Borderlands Studies, Vol.26, No.1, pp.65–87.
Lecours, A. (2002), Paradiplomacy: reflections on the foreign policy and international
relations of region, International Negotiation, Vol.7, No.1, pp.91–114.
Liikanen, I. (2008), New neighbourhood and cross-border region building: identity poli-
tics of CBC on the Finnish–Russian border, Journal of Borderlands Studies, Vol.23,
No.3, pp.19–38.
Löfgren, O. (2008), Regionauts: the transformation of cross-border regions in
Scandinavia, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol.15, No.3, pp.195–209.
Marks, G., Hooghe, L., and Schakel, A. H. (2008a), Measuring regional authority, Regional
& Federal Studies, Vol.18, No.2–3, pp.111–121.
Marks, G., Hooghe, L., and Schakel, A. H. (2008b), Patterns of regional authority, Regional
& Federal Studies, Vol.18, No.2–3, pp.167–181.
McHugh, J. T. (2015), Paradiplomacy, protodiplomacy and the foreign policy aspirations
of Quebec and other Canadian Provinces, Canadian Foreign Policy (CFP), Vol.21, No.3,
pp.238–256.
McMillan, S. L. (2010), American paradiplomacy: how do US states and governors
respond to economic crises?, Conference Papers – American Political Science
Association, pp.1–35.
218 M. KLATT AND B. WASSENBERG

Moore, C. (2008), A Europe of the regions vs. the regions in Europe: reflections
on regional engagement in Brussels, Regional & Federal Studies, Vol.18, No.5,
pp.517–535.
Nasse, K. O. (1986), Nebenaussenpolitik der Bundesländer, Europa-Archiv, Vol.21,
pp.619–628.
Nganje, F. (2014), The developmental paradiplomacy of South African provinces:
context, scope and the challenge of coordination, The Hague Journal of
Diplomacy, Vol.9, No.2, pp.119–149.
Nganje, F. (2016), Sub-state diplomacy and the foreign policy-development nexus in
South Africa, South African Journal of International Affairs, Vol.23, No.1, pp.1–20.
O’Dell, T. (2003), Øresund and the regionauts, European Studies: A Journal of European
Culture, History and Politics, Vol.19, pp.31–53.
O’Dowd, L. (2010). From a ‘borderless world’ to a ‘world of borders’: ‘bringing history
back in’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol.28, pp.1031–1050.
Perkmann, M. (2002), Euroregions: institutional entrepreneurship in the European
Union, in M. Perkmann and N.-L. Sum (eds), Globalization, Regionalization and
Cross-Border Regions, pp.103–124. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perkmann, M. (2007), Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: a compara-
tive study of European cross-border regions, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol.25, No.6, pp.861–879.
Raich, S. (1995). Grenzüberschreitende und interregionale Zusammenarbeit in einem
‘Europa der Regionen’. Dargestellt anhand der Fallbeispiele Grossregion Saar-Lor-Lux,
EUREGIO und ‘Vier Motoren für Europa’. Baden Baden: Nomos.
Seidenforf, S. (ed.) (2012) Deutsch-französische Beziehungen als Modellbaukasten? Zur
Übertragbarkeit von Aussöhnung und strukturierter Zusammenarbeit. Baden-Baden:
Nomos.
Soldatos, P. (1990), An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as
foreign-policy actors, in: H. J. Michelmann and P. Soldatos (eds), Federalism and
International Relations. The Role of Subnational Units, pp.34–53. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Stefanova, B. (2011), The Europeanisation of Conflict Resolution: Regional Integration and
Conflicts from the 1950s to the 21st Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Terlouw, K. (2012), Border surfers and Euroregions: unplanned cross-border behaviour
and planned territorial structures of cross-border governance, Planning Practice and
Research, Vol.27, No.3, pp.351–366.
Walther, O. and Reitel, B. (2013), Cross-border policy networks in the Basel region:
the effect of national borders and brokerage roles, Space & Polity, Vol.17, No.2,
pp.217–236.
Wassenberg, B. (2013), Historiographie de la coopération transfrontalière, in B.
Wassenberg (ed), L’approche pluridisciplinaire de la coopération transfrontalière. Les
jalons pour un travail de rechercher interdisciplinaire. Cahiers FARE n°5, pp.9–15.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Wassenberg, B. (2014), Cross-border cooperation in international relations, in L.
Dominguez and I. Pirès (eds), Cross-Border Cooperation Structures in Europe, pp.67–
81. Brussels: Peter Lang.
Wassenberg, B. (2016). La diplomatie territoriale. Collectivités locales et régionales dans
les relations internationales (xxe-xxie siècles). Encyclopédie pour une histoire nouvelle
de l’Europe. Available at http://ehne.fr/article/humanisme-europeen/pratiques-
diplomatiques/la-diplomatie-territoriale (accessed 23 June 2017).