雖然公共外交已行之有年，但隨著科技的革新和非國家行為者的崛起等國際社會的改變，公共外交的策略與手段勢必面對一番調整與改變。對於受制於傳統政治、地理位置、權力等中小型國家，這番外交的變革所帶來的並不僅僅是挑戰，更是機會與創新。這些國家藉由這些變革，發展出獨特的外交策略並拓展其在國際領域上的影響力。而藉由提供援助和救濟、致力於維護人類福祉的人道外交，是中小型國家採取的外交手段之一。為了有進一步的探討，本研究聚焦於挪威、土耳其、和台灣做為比較案例，並分析其人道外交背景、策略、和手段。 / Public diplomacy is not a new phenomenon in the history, yet with the changing features in the 21st century, such as the rise of the non-state actors and the technology advancement, the strategies and practices of public diplomacy have also been adjusted and modified. For small and middle size states that are constrained by power, politics, or geographic location, the changing environment has brought them both challenges and opportunities. They are able to develop diplomatic strategies beyond these hindrances through concentrating resources in specific areas that best able to increase the influence and visibility on the global stage. In this regard, humanitarian diplomacy is one of the niches that small and middle size states adopt to carry out their foreign policy goals, while generating awareness and providing assistance for areas suffering from severe humanitarian conditions and political conflicts. To further the study and to shed light on how small and middle size countries adopt humanitarian diplomacy as their diplomatic niches, the three cases, Norway, Turkey, and Taiwan, are selected and compared in terms of background, strategies, and practices. The comparison indicates that different countries develop their diplomatic strategies and practices based on state’s characteristics and existing resources. However, under the notion of public diplomacy, there are still several essential requirements needs to be examined in order to “make each punch above its weight.”

The study examines SA‟s human rights diplomacy in Africa and the selected countries, namely Libya, Nigeria, the Sudan and Zimbabwe during the presidencies of Presidents Mandela and Mbeki. When SA decided to follow an ethics based foreign policy, especially in the area of human rights, it joined a number of countries who had adopted a similar approach such the United States of America, the Netherlands and Australia. These countries have an established history of human rights diplomacy which is supported by institutional and policy frameworks. The study argues that although both presidents were committed to a human rights oriented foreign policy, due to constraints that they faced in the continent human rights issues were not consistently and concertedly pursued by them, especially following SA‟s 1995 engagement with Nigeria during the term of the Sani Abacha government. These constraints led to a major shift in SA‟s human rights diplomacy. This shift entailed a move away from unilateral action to reliance on multilateral forums to deal with human rights challenges; the development of continental norms and standards, as well as strengthening continental structures; and conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction and development in Africa. This shift became evident in the content of Departmental strategic plans, and reporting both internally and externally to oversight structures such as Parliament. Hardly any proactive plans were developed to address human rights issues in any of the individual countries. Reporting to Parliament also focused on developments at a multilateral level both at the UN and AU with little coverage of human rights issues in individual countries. The use of multilateral bodies such as the SADC to address human rights issues became more pronounced, the Zimbabwean crisis being the case in point. Despite the merits of the collective approach, its value is diminished if it is undertaken to the exclusion of bilateral engagements by South African diplomats in specific countries or if gross human rights violations are not raised in multilateral bodies. Similarly, the significance of the normative framework and requisite structures cannot be doubted, but because the results of these initiatives are only realisable in the medium to long term, this approach needs to be buttressed by bilateral diplomatic engagements. During the period from 1994 to 2008, SA also engaged in a number of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction and development initiatives. These interventions averted human rights violations by securing peace as well as facilitating the development of constitutional and related frameworks to ensure the protection of human rights in the affected states. In conclusion, with the exception of Nigeria, SA hardly intervened on its own to intercede on behalf of victims of civil and political rights violations in any of the four states covered by the study. Its approach undermined its commitment to promote and protect human rights in the African continent. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2015 / Political Sciences / MA / Unrestricted