This thesis examines how the Amazigh diaspora, networked in France's Amazigh cultural associations, village committees and political movements, constructs an imaginative geography of North Africa, which they call Tamazgha, and the implications this has for this emergent and diverse group. It sets out to theorise and understand the political geographies of this diasporic social movement in the contemporary moment. It does so by approaching the Amazigh diaspora as its primary object of research within a relational, multiscalar analysis of its geopolitics. This thesis contributes to the subdiscipline of political geography as well as Amazigh studies. Drawing on ethnographic and documentary methods, including an experimental methodology for the digital sphere, it outlines the major themes of the diasporic Amazigh movement's relationship to space and place; making the diaspora, articulating indigeneity, negotiating citizenship and accommodating nativism. It analyses facets of Amazigh diaspora politics at times as a nation, at others as a social movement, finding a productive interaction between these two concepts. It is both an imagined community of people who claim to share a common language and culture and a political movement entraining activists, members and political parties in the pursuit of political change. As an Indigenous people, it is both a transnational social movement calling on the states where they live to uphold the rights of their Amazigh populations, and also a nation with a flag, asserting its claim to sovereignty, however limited. The diaspora associations frame themselves as a social movement championing diverse citizenship and integration in French society, whilst homeland-oriented citizenship is mostly expressed in nationalistic terms. This thesis charts how the politics of this diasporic Amazigh movement contest and produce spatial imaginations in the contemporary context of Mediterranean integration, new nationalisms and populisms, and the fear of Islamist terrorism in French society. With its focus on the political and imaginative geographies of the diasporic Amazigh movement, the thesis is organised topically, elaborating on different facets of political subjectivities in four substantive chapters that focus on the core themes of diaspora, indigeneity, citizenship and nativism. Chapter 2 provides an historical and sociological context for the study, and Chapter 3 details its methodology. Chapter 4 examines diaspora as a geopolitical concept, understood on the one hand as like a social movement and on the other as like a nation. It presents an understanding of diaspora 'as process' or 'assemblage' that constantly reworks the boundaries of nation, state, community and identity, within an imaginative geography of 'home'. Chapter 5 picks up from here to focus on how indigeneity is articulated as a political positioning in the diasporic Amazigh movement. Drawing on Stuart Hall's terminology to theorise the politics of indigeneity in relation to place, it outlines several Indigenous articulations made in the discourse and practices of the leaders and members of diasporic Amazigh associations. Chapter 6 focuses on the discourses and practices of citizenship, which in the diaspora intersect, overlap and produce transnational spaces. Drawing out an empirical distinction between 'diaspora-oriented' and 'homeland-oriented' citizenships, the chapter details how citizenship practices in relation to French state and society can be understood as 'ordinary' whilst those in relation to North African state(s) and society are characterised more as performative 'Acts'. Finally, chapter 7 homes in on Amazigh politics in the current context of increasingly influential nativist-populism in France and across Europe.

Diplomacy has been changing and evolving for some time now. Diplomacy has gone public and new types of diplomacy and diplomatic tools have emerged. The number of actors has pluralised. The emergence of new technologies, like social media, also offers a new addition on how diplomacy is being conducted. However, a far less discussed diplomatic tool is diaspora. The diaspora of a country can also be used to conduct diplomacy. “Both ‘diaspora’ and ‘diplomacy’ are concepts that have undergone considerable expansion in recent years, marking a shift away from understanding diaspora as a descriptive category and diplomacy as the practice of state officials respectively” (Ho & McConnell, 2017, p. 15). The study aims to gain a better understanding of how the diaspora of a country can be used as a diplomatic tool in the world of ‘New Diplomacy’. The theoretical framework builds upon the notions of New Diplomacy, Diaspora Studies and the existing pre-understanding of Diaspora Diplomacy. The study pursues a qualitative research approach by means of a Comparative Case Study conducted with the method of Most-Similar Case Comparison. The two cases analysed are those of Greece and Ireland, in which the former is identified as the case facing challenges in relation to modern-day diaspora diplomacy, while the latter is identified as a successful case. The research uses both primary and secondary data. The secondary data was collected by means of the empirical research method of Participant Observation. The researcher identified four independent variables in order to explain the dependent variable which is ‘Successful Diaspora Diplomacy’. Three independent variables, ‘Nature of their diaspora’, ‘Recent socio-economic developments’ and ‘Structure of ministry of foreign affairs & the position of the diaspora unit within it’ were concluded to be too similar among the two countries in order to explain the difference in successfulness of their diaspora diplomacy. The analysis conducted indicated that the fourth independent variable ‘New Diplomacy-Culture’, however, was significantly different among the two cases and leads to an explanation of the difference in the outcome. The findings of this research indicated that a ‘New Diplomacy-Culture’ should incorporate the following characteristics and initiatives: a concrete diaspora strategy; individual initiatives all need to be linked to the strategy, but at the same time be tailor-made for the different types of diaspora members; all actions need to be monitored and evaluated; and technology needs to be utilised. Furthermore, governments should adopt a facilitating role instead of an implementing role. Knowledge sharing and access to networks constitute two of the main benefits that a country can achieve through Diaspora Diplomacy. In general, new diplomacy initiatives are not sufficient for achieving successful diaspora diplomacy if foreign ministries do not adopt a new diplomacy mentality as a whole. Countries should focus on communication, cooperation and a culture of openness, flexibility and transparency. In New Diplomacy the notion that citizens play a more prominent role than they used to in the past, is central. This idea can be expanded to include diasporas as well. Furthermore, not only should New Diplomacy include diaspora, but also the other way around; in order for Diaspora Diplomacy to be successful, it should include New Diplomacy in its practices. This brings us to the conceptualisation of a new subfield of New Diplomacy and Diaspora Diplomacy, that of New Diaspora Diplomacy. New Diaspora Diplomacy is Diaspora Diplomacy that incorporates a high degree of elements of 21st century’s New Diplomacy, in order to successfully achieve diaspora engagement on contemporary issues of strategical importance.

多年來，日本、中國大陸與台灣為加勒比海共同體，透過提供獎學金與合作交流等策略，來加強人力資本的開發。儘管如此，這些雙方的國際合作，並未在亞太地區獲得足夠的重視。尤其對於各方有利的僑民外交，更需要建構足夠的機制與制度，來建構彼此的僑民交流成效。有鑑於此，本研究擬重新檢視並探討僑民外交中，台、加雙方如何建立一個以加勒比海共同體為主的合作交流機制，及其對於雙方之可能影響。研究方法採用文件分析、訪談與問卷等方式，進行資料蒐集。研究結果發現，如何妥善運用在台的加勒比海共同體的僑民，尤其是來台的留學生等人力資源，以加強上述地區民眾的僑民外交能力養成，將有助於雙方未來進一步的交流與合作。論文最後並提出若干加強台、加兩地僑民外交的具體建議，也進一步呼籲未來學界投入相關研究之必要性。。 / Through the availability of educational scholarships and cooperation exchanges offered by Japan, China and Taiwan to CARICOM nationals, a resource of human capital is present in the Asia-Pacific that has not been utilized. This diaspora is of mutual benefit to both regions in several ways, and is in need of specific mechanisms and structures to ensure effective diaspora mobilization. The thesis aims to re-introduce the topic of diaspora diplomacy and present its potential towards the creation of a collective CARICOM-specific initiative in Taiwan. These recommendations take into consideration the limitations and specificity of this case. Through the inclusion of document analyses, relevant supplementary studies, interviews and surveys, recommendations for a collective diaspora engagement strategy have been proposed. Thus, the research findings reiterated the potential of the diaspora in Taiwan, their willingness to be involved and emphasized the need for further engagement and diaspora mobilization to take place. This thesis, in its novelty serves as an impetus for additional research and much needed discussion with regards to diaspora engagement.

公眾外交在世界各地逐漸受到重視，本文試圖藉由研究以色列這個強敵環伺下的國家對其盟國美國的公眾外交政策，觀察這兩個同盟國家之間的軟實力外交關係。 本文從以色列對美國公眾外交的歷史實踐中證明，美國對以色列友好的原因除了硬實力外，公眾外交等軟實力因素也有重要影響力。其次，本文認為影響以色列對美國之外交策略的內外要素主要包含衝突、宗教、民主和政府態度等要素。最後，本文介紹納坦雅胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）政府時期，以色列對美國的兩大公共外交利基：「新媒體」和「族裔外交」，分別以「點對點外交」及「美國以色列公眾事務委員會」（the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC）的機會與阻礙作為主軸。 / Public Diplomacy’s value is gradually increasing around the world. This thesis focuses on Israel and its Public Diplomacy policy toward its ally, the United States of America, in order to observe the soft power diplomatic relationship between the two. This thesis proves that besides Hard Power, Soft Power is also a crucial factor that improves the relations between Israel and the U.S. Also, this thesis states that “conflicts,” “religion,” “democracy,” and “the attitude of domestic leaderships” are the main factors that influence Israel’s diplomatic strategy toward the U.S. Finally, by describing “the Peer-to Peer Diplomacy,” and “the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),” this thesis introduces the two main “Niches” in Israel’s Public Diplomacy Policy towards the U.S.: “New Media,” and “Diaspora Diplomacy.”