الأهمية المتزايدة للدبلوماسيات الموازية في الأنظمة الفيدرالية
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the evolving relationship between paradiplomacy and federalism, analyzing the mechanisms through which subnational governments engage in international affairs and their implications for national sovereignty and governance. Federalism provides the institutional framework that allows subnational entities—such as states, provinces, and regions—to conduct international activities in various domains, including trade, climate policy, and cultural diplomacy. While some federal systems, like those of Canada and Belgium, facilitate subnational international engagement, others, such as the United States and Mexico, impose constitutional constraints that shape alternative strategies for subnational diplomacy. Through an examination of three case studies—California, Quebec, and Wallonia— this study highlights the diverse approaches to paradiplomacy in different federal contexts. The findings reveal that paradiplomacy enhances subnational agency in global governance while simultaneously challenging national foreign policy coherence. While some scholars view paradiplomacy as a strengthening force within federalism, allowing decentralized participation in global affairs, others warn of potential fragmentation and inconsistency in national diplomatic strategies. This study underscores the growing relevance of paradiplomacy in an era of multi-level governance, where global challenges—such as climate change, trade regulation, and technological governance—require flexible, decentralized, and multi-stakeholder solutions. Keywords: paradiplomacy, federalism, multi-level governance, subnational diplomacy, globalization
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.017 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".