External relations of Wales and Northern Ireland (1998–2024)
https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2025-30-2-541-564
Abstract
Importance. Since the late 1990s, the autonomous parts of the unitary United Kingdom have begun to assert their own interests in the international arena. The foreign relations of Northern Ireland and Wales are interesting not only from the point of view of the theory of paradiplomacy; after the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, Northern Ireland turned out to be a border region, which led to an increase in its international contacts, as well as to changes in its selfrepresentation and London’s policy towards this autonomy. A comparative analysis of the international activities of the two autonomous parts of Great Britain is carried out. Due to the devolution process that has been taking place since the beginning of the 21st century, the authorities of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have gained some rights to manage their territories, and have also begun to develop their external relations. The similarities and differences between the approaches of Northern Ireland and Wales to their international activities are considered.
Materials and methods. The source base is provided by the websites of the Northern Ireland and Wales governments, policy documents concerning their external relations, press materials. The research methodology is based on comparative analysis and study of documents. Various theoretical concepts of paradiplomacy and A.S. Kuznetsov’s system of criteria for measuring the international activity of regions are used.
Results. It is shown that in their external relations Wales and Northern Ireland set different goals, use different approaches and cooperate with different partners. They also differ in their assessments of the activities of the national foreign policy agencies to protect the interests of the autonomous parts of the United Kingdom.
Conclusions. Northern Ireland and Wales share a similar set of competencies, similar interests and opportunities in developing their external relations and a similar set of governmental and nondepartmental instruments for their implementation. Wales' approach can be described as more modern, with its authorities emphasizing the promotion of the region on the world stage through the useof new technologies. At the same time, Wales is more inclined to diversify its international contacts, while Northern Ireland, for natural reasons, gravitates more towards its southern neighbor.
About the Authors
K. V. MinkovaRussian Federation
Kristina V. Minkova, Dr. Sci. (History), Professor of American Studies Department, Deputy Director of Canadian Studies Center
7/9, Universitetskaya embankment, St. Petersburg, 199034
Scopus Author ID: 56401887900
ResearcherID: M-6859-2016
R. E. Dulatov
Russian Federation
Ruslan E. Dulatov, Trainee of the Center for Canadian Studies
7/9, Universitetskaya embankment, St. Petersburg, 199034
References
1. Soldatos P. (1990). An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreign policy actors. Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 334 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198274919.003.0002
2. Lecours A. (2008). Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. The Hague, 22 p.
3. Sanalla M. (2014). The Phenomenon of paradiplomacy in the Czech Republic: representative difficulties in the concept of paradiplomacy in the subnational unit of the Znojmo Region. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 159-172. https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.73524
4. Criekemans D. (2010). Regional Sub-State Diplomacy Today. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 421 p. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004183575.i-210
5. Mohammed A.J. (2013). The politics of Iraqi Kurdistan: towards federalism or secession?: diss. … Doctor of Philosophy in Government at the University of Canberra. Australia, 153 p. https://doi.org/10.26191/n39b5819
6. Der Derian J. (1987). On Diplomacy: a Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford, 258 p.
7. Blagodatskikh V.G., Kerimov A.A. (2017). The concept of paradiplomacy in the political discourse: the nature and main directions of research. Sotsial’no-politicheskie nauki = Sociopolitical Sciences, no. 6, pp. 31-36. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ylcfof
8. Livanova I.V., Salamov R.R. (2019). Paradiplomacy of the regions of Brazil: authorities and areas of responsibility. Vlast’ = The Authority, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 256-262. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v27i1.6261, https://elibrary.ru/yzpvvj
9. Schiavon J.A. (2016). The International Relations of Sub-State Governments in Mexico: A Comparative Analysis with Ten Federal Systems: diss. … Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and International Affairs. San Diego, 425 p. https://elibrary.ru/vpnimp
10. Akimov Yu.G. (2016). Paradiplomacy as a way of promotion of regional identity of the subjects of federations. Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie = Administrative Consulting, no. 2 (86), pp. 25-33. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vpnimp
11. Jain P. (2005). Japan’s Subnational Governments in International Affairs. London, Routledge Publ., 240 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413906
12. Wolff S. (2007). Paradiplomacy: scope, opportunities and challenges. The Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs, vol.10, no. 1, pp. 141-150.
13. Povalyashko E.S. (2023). Genezis vneshnikh svyazei subnatsional'nykh regionov unitarnykh stran vnutri stran Evropeiskogo Soyuza kak chast’ evropeiskogo politicheskogo protsessa. Cand. Sci. (Politology) diss. St. Petersburg, 428 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tnrdnc
14. Paquin S. (2004). Paradiplomatie et Relations Internationales. Théories des Stratégies Internationales des Régions Face à la Mondialisation. Bruxelles, 196 p.
15. Akimov Yu.G. (2021). International activities of subnational actors and foreign policy of the nation state: models of interaction and interpretations. Sravnitel’naya politika = Comparative Politics Russia, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 33-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2021-10026, https://elibrary.ru/faqcwj
16. Kuznetsov A.S. (2015). Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy. Subnational Governments in International Affairs. London, New York, Routledge Publ., 174 p.
17. Kagrimanyan A.S. (2020). Mezhdunarodnaya deyatel’nost’ evropeiskikh etnonatsional’nykh regionov (Kataloniya, Flandriya i Shotlandiya) i sub’’ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Tatarstan, Moskva i SanktPeterburg): problemy i sravnitel'nyi analiz: Cand. Sci. (Politology) diss. St. Petersburg, 312 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/fitqph
18. Eremina N.V. (2023). International activities of Scotland: Scottish nationalists’ positions. Vestnik SanktPeterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 83-97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2023.105, https://elibrary.ru/rcjspu
19. Branitskii A.G., Chuprikov P.B. (2008). Main factors of the modern peace process in Northern Ireland. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo = Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, no. 4, pp. 178-183. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jzbmwz
20. Napalkova I.E. (2019). The irish problem in the context of “Brexit”. Magistra Vitae: elektronnyi zhurnal po istoricheskim naukam i arkheologii = Magistra Vitae: an Electronic Journal on Historical Sciences and Archeology, no. 1, pp. 70-79. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yvnfsw
21. Okhoshin O.V. (2021). Aftermath of Brexit for Wales. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN = Scientific and Analytical Herald of IE RAS, no. 6, pp. 104-111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran62021104111, https://elibrary.ru/rnsuiy
22. Minto R., Rowe C., Royles E. (2023). Sub-states in transition: changing patterns of EU paradiplomacy in Scotland and Wales, 1992–2021. Territory, Politics, Governance, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1542-1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2203176
23. Jones R.W., Royles E. (2012). Wales in the World: Intergovernmental Relations and Sub-State Diplomacy. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 250-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00502.x
24. Lagana G., Salazar D.S. (2024). Cross-border paradiplomacy in the Irish sea: A socio-spatial analysis. Irish studies in international affairs. Irish Studies in International Affairs, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1353/isia.2024.a917040, https://elibrary.ru/ycdfoz
25. Hunt J., Minto R. (2017). Between intergovernmental relations and paradiplomacy: Wales and the Brexit of the regions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 647-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117725027
26. Bew P., Meehan E. (1994). Regions and borders: Controversies in Northern Ireland about the European Union. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95-113.
27. Connolly E., Doyle J. (2019). Brexit and the changing international and domestic perspectives of sovereignty over Northern Ireland. Irish Studies in International Affairs, vol. 30, pp. 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1353/isia.2019.0005
28. Phinnemore D. (2020). Northern Ireland: A ‘Place Between’ in UK–EU Relations? European Foreign Affairs Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 631-650. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2020042, https://elibrary.ru/rvzorh
29. Dixon P. (2002). Northern Ireland and the international dimension: the end of the Cold War, the USA and European integration. Irish Studies in International Affairs, no. 13, pp. 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1353/isia.2002.a810549
30. Godovanyuk K.A. (2012). The UK foreign policy decision-making process. Obozrevatel’ = Observer, no. 2, pp. 81-91. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ophkqh
31. Godovanyuk K.A. (2015). Rossiya vo vneshnepoliticheskoi strategii Velikobritanii na sovremennom etape: Cand. Sci. (Politology) diss. Moscow, 258 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/cbjvsv
32. Murphy M.C. (2011). Regional representation in Brussels and multi-level governance: evidence from Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 551-566. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00446.x
33. Andreeva T.L., Talovskaya B.M. (2017). The impact of the language policy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the development of English, Welsh and Gaelic. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya = Tomsk State University Journal of History, no. 50, pp. 118-122. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19988613/50/18, https://elibrary.ru/zwdtcx
34. Semenova N., Shein S., Chupriyanova P., Koroleva L., Belous Yu. (2023). Devolution as a post-brexit factor of the British regions political actorness: the cases of Scotland and Wales. Analiz i prognoz. Zhurnal IMEMO RAN = Analysis and Forecasting. IMEMO Journal, no. 3, pp. 79-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2023-3-79-90, https://elibrary.ru/szqvqo
35. Duchacek I. (2001). Perforated Sovereignties: towards a Typology of New Actors in International Relations. Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-33.
Review
For citations:
Minkova K.V., Dulatov R.E. External relations of Wales and Northern Ireland (1998–2024). Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities. 2025;30(2):541-564. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2025-30-2-541-564