No description available.

L'émancipation économique et politique d'un groupe restreint de pays, notamment la Chine, l'Inde et le Brésil, a stimulé un nouveau programme de recherche en Relations internationales et inspiré la notion de «puissances émergentes». Avec un malaise multilatéral, évident par un nombre significatif des blocages dans certaines négociations internationales, et l'émergence d'influentes coalitions Sud-Sud, les analyses concernant les effets de ces nouvelles voix sont devenues incontournables. Pour explorer les continuités et les transformations de la coopération multilatérale dans un contexte d'absence de leadership et d'une autorité souvent contestée, cette recherche part du cas du Brésil et du partenariat stratégique Brésil-UE. L'objectif est de saisir les réalités de la construction des normes multilatérales à partir de la perspective d'une puissance émergente et ses relations avec une puissance établie qui est très intéressée à la promotion d'un ordre international fondé sur des règles. Pour accomplir cette tâche, la présente thèse analyse la raison d'être de ce partenariat stratégique, ainsi que le comportement diplomatique du Brésil pendant l'ère du président Lula (2003-2010) dans trois domaines spécifiques: le commerce, le développement durable et la sécurité. Cette analyse se développe en perspective avec le point de vue de l'UE sur chacun des thèmes choisis. D'un point de vu empirique, je défends qu'il existe un modèle de comportement diplomatique UE-Brésil dans lequel la promotion du multilatéralisme comme une norme est en effet une réalité. Cependant, après avoir examiné un certain nombre d'études de cas, il est évident que cette convergence et cette préférence sont confrontées à des défis importants. Dans ce sens, la thèse conduit à la conclusion que le Brésil et l'UE sont des partenaires stratégiques sans une stratégie. Une raison centrale en est qu’il est devenu plus difficile pour les puissances traditionnelles de convaincre le Brésil qu'il doit suivre les règles de forme, forgées notamment par l'Union européenne et les États-Unis. A travers l'exemple de la montée en puissance du Brésil, cette recherche a le mérite de favoriser la connaissance des forces motrices d'interactions et d'interdépendances mondiales, à une époque de transition du pouvoir sur la scène internationale. / The economic and political empowerment of a select group of countries, notably China, India, and Brazil, stimulated a new agenda of research among International Relations scholars and inspired the notion of "rising powers." With a multilateral malaise, evident through a significant number of deadlocked international negotiations (i.e. trade, climate change), and the emergence of influential South-South coalitions, analyses that could understand the effects of these new voices became pressing. To explore the shifting conditions of multilateral cooperation under a scenario of blurred leadership and contested authority, this research departs from the case of Brazil and the Brazil-EU strategic partnership. The goal is to grasp the realities of multilateral norm building from the perspective of a rising power and through its relations with an established power that is highly interested in the promotion of a rule-based order. To accomplish this task, this thesis analyzes the rationale behind the strategic partnership, as well as Brazil's diplomatic negotiating behavior mostly during the era of President Lula (2003-2010) in three specific policy areas: trade, sustainable development and security. This analysis develops in perspective to the EU's viewpoint on each of the selected issues. From an empirical stance, I claim that there is a pattern in the Brazil-EU diplomatic behavior in which the promotion of multilateralism as a norm is indeed a reality. However, after looking at a number of case studies, it became clear that this convergence and preference has significant shortcomings. The thesis argues that Brazil and the EU are strategic partners without a strategy. One central reason for this is that it became harder and harder for the established powers to convince Brazil that it should follow the rules shaped notably by the EU and the US. This research has the merit to foster knowledge on the driving forces of global interactions and interdependencies in an era of power transition.

This dissertation looks at U.S. public diplomacy practices in a country that until twenty years ago was controlled by a hard-line Communist regime: Romania. The study investigates the relationship management approach to public diplomacy employed by U.S. diplomats in Romania and it is the first to empirically test the application of relationship management theory of public relations to public diplomacy. Through in-depth interviews with six former U.S. diplomats who served in Romania during 2001-2009, we learn how diplomats must find various ways to build and maintain relationships with the civil society to which they are assigned. The findings reveal that U.S. diplomats’ main role in Romania was to engage in direct relationships with members of the civil society and facilitate bilateral relationships between members of the two countries. In addition, this study found a new role of diplomats abroad, that of building communities of like-minded people in the society in which they operate. This study expands the theoretical framework in public diplomacy by proposing two new models for public diplomacy practice. First, under the relational paradigm, this study establishes the goal of public diplomacy as the management of long-lasting relationships between members of two countries, with the aim to create hubs of networks in the countries of interest. Under the relational paradigm, the newly proposed model for the relationship management process provides an in-depth understanding of how U.S. diplomats engage with members of the Romanian civil society in order to accomplish the public diplomacy goal. Second, to better understand the uniqueness of the relationship management process between any two countries in the world, this dissertation proposes a framework of public diplomacy built on seven relational dimensions identified here as image, reputation, trust, credibility, communication, dialogue, and relationships. Testing the relationships management theory in public diplomacy is an important undertaking, which could broaden the scope of public diplomacy and can provide a framework for a comparative line of research between public diplomacy and public relations.

This thesis studies how NATO has changed the way it brands itself to Russia, from a cooperative and humanitarian stance in 2002 toward a critical and confrontational posture between 2006 and 2008. The study is based on a discourse analysis of NATO’s publications. In the political climate following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s NRC established a cooperative relationship with the new Russian Federation, which included offers of humanitarian aid in food and medical care. This study shows that under the NRC, from 2002 to 2006, NATO’s image toward Russia continued to be one of “Strategic Partner.” Between 2006 and 2008, the image NATO portrayed toward Russia reverted to confrontational. The analysis of NATO’s change can be understood by considering the definition of brand image: a symbolic construct created within the minds of people and consists of all information and expectations associated with a product or service.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, we have seen a revival in American public diplomacy. I argue the U.S. continues to rely on similar rhetorical responses to crisis that are an essential part of American public diplomacy interconnected through history, from the birth of our country to the recent 2007 U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. Tracing this recurring rhetorical process from our founding to the Carter Administration illustrates our reliance on similar rhetoric despite changing contexts. I use Burke’s concept of identification and the interrelated use of ethos and enemy construction to demonstrate the rhetorical parallels between the Carter Administration’s 1979 Communication Plan with Muslim countries and the 2007 NSPDSC. This analysis not only contributes to the gap in public diplomacy research but provides insight into American public diplomacy since 9/11.

This study fills what has long been recognized as a major gap in the field of International Relations (IR): an account of when and how change occurs in the structure of the international system. Attempts to create social change, to create or to alter intersubjectivity, are relatively common; the crucial question is why some attempts succeed while most fail. I argue that social change is itself a rule-governed social activity, which I term institutional politics, and that attempts to create social change are more likely to succeed if they are pursued in a manner consistent with what H.L.A. Hart called secondary rules, or rules about rules. This central hypothesis is investigated in three cases: the emergence of great power management following the Napoleonic war, attempts to ban war as an instrument of state policy in the inter-war period,and the period of institutional contestation instigated by the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Available evidence in all three cases provides strong overall support for the central hypothesis and for the other core expectations of my theory. In addition to achieving important descriptive and explanatory advances with respect to the dynamics and morphology of the international system, the study makes significant contributions to the constructivist literature in IR; namely, it suggests a basis on which to improve conceptual consolidation and comparability, and it moves beyond a primary focus on norm promoters to include explicit theorization of the evaluative acts of their audiences. The most important policy implication of the study is the need for explicit renovation of the contemporary international system’s stock of secondary rules, to counter a decline in their legitimacy among a much more heterogenous set of members.

This study fills what has long been recognized as a major gap in the field of International Relations (IR): an account of when and how change occurs in the structure of the international system. Attempts to create social change, to create or to alter intersubjectivity, are relatively common; the crucial question is why some attempts succeed while most fail. I argue that social change is itself a rule-governed social activity, which I term institutional politics, and that attempts to create social change are more likely to succeed if they are pursued in a manner consistent with what H.L.A. Hart called secondary rules, or rules about rules. This central hypothesis is investigated in three cases: the emergence of great power management following the Napoleonic war, attempts to ban war as an instrument of state policy in the inter-war period,and the period of institutional contestation instigated by the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Available evidence in all three cases provides strong overall support for the central hypothesis and for the other core expectations of my theory. In addition to achieving important descriptive and explanatory advances with respect to the dynamics and morphology of the international system, the study makes significant contributions to the constructivist literature in IR; namely, it suggests a basis on which to improve conceptual consolidation and comparability, and it moves beyond a primary focus on norm promoters to include explicit theorization of the evaluative acts of their audiences. The most important policy implication of the study is the need for explicit renovation of the contemporary international system’s stock of secondary rules, to counter a decline in their legitimacy among a much more heterogenous set of members.

While discourse and rhetoric has always been a part of traditional diplomacy, rhetoric and communication theory has not enjoyed an active voice in the scholarship of foreign relations, and more specifically, public diplomacy. This project argues that a postmodern turn in public diplomacy was formalized in the State Department's 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) and that two specific directives laid out therein--to expand and strengthen relationships between individuals and steer the narrative--can find theoretical ground in communication scholarship. After examining the mid-to-late 20th century shift from specialized modern policy training to a rhetorical public diplomacy that views diplomats as generalists engaging members of varied, local publics, Pearce and Cronen's Coordinated Management of Meaning and the narrative work of Ricoeur, MacIntyre, Fisher, Arnett, and Arneson carve out a place for communication scholarship in the academic study of diplomacy and foreign relations. A case study of the State Department's community diplomacy initiatives in Northern Ireland are examined as a core tactic of what I call "public diplomacy 2.0"--postmodern public diplomacy attentive to rhetoric and communication. This work rests on the premise that philosophy of communication and rhetorical scholarship is central to good public diplomacy praxis in a postmodern world. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Communication and Rhetorical Studies / PhD; / Dissertation;

In China¡¦s view, it is necessary to get crude oil and oil pipeline. Under Russia and China strategic partnership, China tries to obtain ¡§long term promises¡¨ and ¡§Pipeline Corporation¡¨ from Russia in oil diplomacy. There are several findings in this article: 1. International oil prices are important to China¡¦s oil diplomacy with Russia. 2.China¡¦s oil diplomacy with Russia includes geop olitcs and diversification. 3. Due to economic development, China needs long term oil supply contract. Putin did not prove this contract. 4. Because of navel and air forces are not strong enough, China develops oil pipeline to protect oil security.

President Ronald Reagan participated in more U.S.-Soviet summits than any previous U.S. president, as he met with his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, on four occasions between November 1985 and June 1988. Prior to, during, and following each meeting with Gorbachev, Reagan often engaged in the rhetoric of public diplomacy, including speeches, statements, and media interviews. The four Reagan- Gorbachev summits accompanied significant changes in U.S.-Soviet relations, in the Cold War, and also within the Soviet Union. Many scholars attribute improved U.S.- Soviet relations to a change in Reagan’s Soviet rhetoric and policies, arguing that he abandoned the confrontation of his first term for conciliation during his second term. Other scholars argue that Reagan failed to abandon confrontation and, consequently, missed opportunities to support the liberalization of the Soviet system. Based upon close analysis of Reagan’s summit rhetoric, this dissertation contends that he did not abandon his confrontational policy objectives, but he did modify his rhetoric about the Soviets. Reagan reformulated the conventional Cold War rhetoric of rapprochement that emphasized nuclear arms controls as the path to world peace by emphasizing increased U.S.-Soviet trust as prerequisite to new arms treaties. Reagan’s summit rhetoric emphasized the need for the Soviets to make changes in non-nuclear arms areas as a means of reducing international mistrust and increasing the likelihood of new U.S.- Soviet arms treaties. Reagan advocated that the Soviets participate in increased bilateral people-to-people exchanges, demonstrate respect for human rights, and disengage from various regional conflicts, especially Afghanistan. Reagan adopted a dualistic strategy that combined confrontation and conciliation as he sought to promote those changes in Soviet policies and practices. During his second term as president, Reagan made his confrontational rhetoric less strident and also used more conciliatory discourse. At the same time, he subsumed his anti-Soviet objectives within his conciliatory rhetoric. This rhetorical strategy allowed Reagan to continue to advocate anti-Soviet objectives while at the same time seeking to promote improved relations and world peace. The findings of this dissertation suggest that existing scholarly views of Reagan’s summit rhetoric and his role in promoting the liberalization of the Soviet system should be reconsidered.