{"id":14301,"date":"2023-02-25T17:14:01","date_gmt":"2023-02-25T17:14:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/?p=14301"},"modified":"2023-03-01T18:38:35","modified_gmt":"2023-03-01T18:38:35","slug":"the-eu-and-its-southern-neighborhood-policy-resilience-in-the-era-of-science-diplomacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/volume-18-no-1-2023\/article-double-blind-peer-review-volume-18-no-1-2023\/the-eu-and-its-southern-neighborhood-policy-resilience-in-the-era-of-science-diplomacy\/","title":{"rendered":"The EU and Its Southern Neighborhood Policy: Resilience in the Era of Science Diplomacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\t
\n\n\t\t<\/i><\/span> <\/a>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n

A myriad of diplomacies has emerged through the recent scholarly output. With the European Science Diplomacy Agenda, the European Union (EU) leans towards interpreting science diplomacy as an intrinsic component of its existing repository of programs and instruments for European and international cooperation. This discussion paper explores how science diplomacy could be positioned amidst areal threads of diplomacy studies. This is a stock-taking exercise concerning some policy-relevant research debates to point toward some of the challenges and promising avenues identified so far in a research process revolving around the EU science diplomacy toward the European Southern Neighborhood (ESN).<\/p>\n

The ESN Policy, launched in 2004 and reviewed in 2011 and 2015, aims to provide a coherent framework for political dialogue and to strengthen relations between the EU and its southern neighbours, namely, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia. ESN is closely aligned with the EU values and its promoted political and economic reforms (Kwiecie\u0144 2016c, 2016b, 2016a; Ostrowska-Cha\u0142upa 2016; \u017bukrowska 2016b, 44, 2016a, 125-126; Stryjek 2016). Action Plan tailored for each neighbouring country is a typical European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) document that carves out steps for transforming these goals into reality (Czachor 2019, 4; Radelji\u0107 2014, 198). Issues related to the vast range of environment, climate, and sustainability are covered largely but not exclusively by the EU environment policy (Kurrer 2021; Mathis 2020). For instance, historically, the association agreements between the EU and Mediterranean Partner Countries have all had a section on the environment (Lesser 2009, 28). Industrial emissions, municipal waste, and urban wastewater have been among the prioritised environmental issues for the Mediterranean area (Lesser 2009, 33).<\/p>\n

Detecting the diverse terminology employed to study the diplomatic dimension of the issues covered by the environmental policy is helpful in an attempt to get to grips with the vast literature relevant to a comprehensive study of resilience-building in the ESN over the past years and why it matters for the EU science diplomacy. The aim is to capture a constellation of interlinks between structural diplomacy, science diplomacy, and resilience to form conducive conceptual grounds for studying the role the EU-funded collaborative research brings in addressing the challenges faced by the ESN. Among the persistent core issues marring the ESN are the risk of violent conflicts, civil wars, diverse security threats emanating from weak governance and public discontent, political tensions, and continuous evolution of authoritarian rule (Demmelhuber 2017, 177-178; Rivera Escartin 2020). Modeling a constellation between structural diplomacy, science diplomacy, and resilience based on a targeted and rapid literature review helps advance a broader research project to analyze the EU science diplomacy towards the ESN. Additionally, it is an exploratory process that identifies some nuances worth bringing to the attention of broader audiences.<\/p>\n

The first part of the article introduces science diplomacy. The second outlines the EU structural diplomacy and circulation of knowledge. The third part elaborates on the multiple meanings of resilience and the thematic shift in the overall study of the EU approach towards resilience from building capacities in the neighborhood and elsewhere in the world to turning towards internal capabilities to withstand various challenges. The fourth part captures a concise overview of the vast terminology employed to study research-intense topics tied to the environment, climate, and sustainability that engage with a diplomatic point of view. The concluding part defines considerations and a constellation for the future research pathway.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Science Diplomacy as a Study and Policy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Science diplomacy is the process by which states and groupings of states express themselves, make known their stances, and mediate their interests in the international arena with a pronounced component of advanced research, meaning the performance of scientific enquiry, application, and dissemination of findings (Turekian et al. 2014, 4). In the European context, science diplomacy involves policy and scholarly enquiry into various modalities and interlinks between science and diplomacy captured by the EU or EU-supported strategies, roadmaps, agendas, alliances, and flagships. The forthcoming European Science Diplomacy Agenda is envisaged to be anchored in the existing set-up of the EU-supported international research cooperation (Council of the European Union 2021, 13). It is part of the EU\u2019s global approach to research and innovation and is thus a promising component for the comprehensive study of EU structural diplomacy. Science diplomacy holds the potential to add more profundity to the ENP study by addressing specific dimensions of the role of collaborative research encounters that remain understudied.<\/p>\n

An international grouping of scholars develops \u2018New Diplomatic History\u2019 to study state and non-state actors and their diplomatic practices, methods, and work environments in a global, international and transnational historical context. Following the \u2018New Diplomatic History\u2019 approach (Schemper 2019, 248), representatives of the research sector are implicit providers of a significant contribution to the EU external action that deserves more scholarly attention (\u0160ime 2021c). Following the earlier calls for researchers to consider science diplomacy as their work (Leach 2014, 167), scientists are taken into account as a vast pool of potential tacit diplomats operating next to the classic diplomatic corps known in the science diplomacy literature as \u201cdithering dandies\u201d (Copeland 2014, 187).<\/p>\n

European science diplomacy towards ESN as an implicit practice and subject of scholarly enquiry benefits from a dense layer of collaborative partnerships maintained over decades (Ben Abdallah, Perez-Porro, and Gual Soler 2021). It includes recent EU funding measures, programmes, and projects that are recommended to be made continuously available in the future (F\u00e4gersten 2022, 14; Lannon 2019). The active use of multilateral frameworks, including the EU offered research-intense collaborative initiatives, is a characteristic that science diplomacy of the chosen geographic area shares with other parts of the world.<\/p>\n

Nationally anchored or jointly implemented science diplomacy initiatives under the auspices of international or regional forums provide diverse examples from, for instance, the Arctic (Berkman 2012; Berkman et al. 2017; Vylegzhanin, Young, and Berkman 2021, 8), Antarctic (Wilson 2014), Atlantic Ocean (Polejack, Gruber, and Wisz 2021), agriculture in New Zealand (Macindoe 2014; Goldson and Gluckman 2014), space exploration (Pozza 2014; Boutwell 2014, 210; Plamondon Emond 2019, C1), climate change (Milkoreit 2014). Furthermore, the list of science diplomacy topics includes oil and mining industries (Darby 2014), world health (Liu 2014), and colonial heritage institutions (Andersen, Clopot, and Ifversen 2020). Nuclear weapons are kept on the science diplomacy radar (Fihn, 2022). Last but not least, this thematic diversity of science diplomacy encompasses science and technology internationalisation aimed at tapping into brain circulation pursued by Portugal and Japan (Mourato Pinto 2022; Sunami, Hamachi, and Kitaba 2014; Davis and Patman 2014, 270), as well as bilateral support offered by the neighbouring countries to politically expelled students and researchers from Belarus (Panas and Go\u0142\u0119biowski 2021). The collaborative patterns and thematic partnerships are unique in each geographic area because scientific engagement follows context-specific needs and ambitions.<\/p>\n

The national priorities in science diplomacy confirm that while valuing a joint European framework, some EU member states, such as France, Portugal and Spain, keep their unique national goals. At the same time, they do not shy away from complementarities with the EU thematic course whenever thematic intersections occur. Thus, whatever the actual contours of the European Science Diplomacy Agenda will be, its performance as one of the expressions of \u2018more Europe\u2019 should be tailored to various parts of the world. The overarching message should remain the same (Van Rompuy 2021, 2). Still, its relevance will depend on the capacity of the European science diplomacy proponents to act and articulate this message in a context-relevant manner. A customised approach would prove that European science diplomacy is not only an inspiring vision but also a framework to deliver tangible progress in specific issue areas.<\/p>\n

Consequently, one aspect that deserves more attention is place-specific echoes of science diplomacy (\u0160ime 2021a, 2022, 53-54). Historians of science and innovation policy have shown interest in the circulation of knowledge (Frank and Paillette 2016; Griset and Bouvier 2012, 37; Kaldewey and Schwauz 2018, 111). Increased international mobility and interactions brought by globalisation and affordability of travel, as well as international research support incentives, have generated diverse pathways for intellectual encounters and the creation of unique combinations of expertise.<\/p>\n

This interest in the circulation of knowledge is a shared interest with historians of knowledge (Jacob 2017; \u00d6stling 2015; \u00d6stling, Olsen, and Heidenblad 2020; Ruud 2018).[1]<\/a> Following some of the findings crafted among the history of knowledge research circles, European science diplomacy should not be viewed as simply diffused across the EU, its Neighborhood, and internationally. Instead, the local research circles and place-specific research legacies capture a diverse background where the European Science Diplomacy Agenda could be accommodated in tune with unique national, regional, and local settings (for context-sensitive recent research examples consult Ol\u0161\u00e1kov\u00e1 2020; Gamito-Marques 2020). Specific geographic, socio-economic, and academic situations capture various factors that could shape the future echoes of the European Science Diplomacy Agenda. A study of local uptake of the vision launched in Brussels would be relevant for further exploring how science contributes to the projection of the EU structural diplomacy.<\/p>\n

The ENP sets conducive grounds for exploring EU structural diplomacy and its implicit science diplomacy dimension. It is a policy that, at the inception of the European External Action Service, was proposed by Germany as one of the potential portfolios to be shuffled from the European Commission to the newly created entity responsible for the foreign affairs of the Union (Morgenstern-Pomorski 2018, 112). Thus, it is a promising area to study the intersections of the Community policies, such as the research one, with pronounced integrationist logic and external action. The 2011 ENP stated among its key aims \u201cinclusive economic growth.\u201d Whereas \u201cstrengthening state and societal resilience\u201d is highlighted as the overarching goal in the EU Global Strategy (Kakachia and Lebanidze 2020, 3). This strategy serves as the key reference point for the 2015 ENP. The overall policy grounds of thematic complementarities between ENP and the EU Global Strategy set a good background for bringing into the analytical scope the existing body of literature on resilience and, along with it, the EU vulnerability (Fossum 2020, 37), as well as differentiated solidarity towards third countries (Michailidou and Trenz 2020, 138).<\/p>\n

Structural Diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Structural diplomacy adds a new layer to the rich European tradition of diplomacy and the analysis of its Southern European origins (Monod de Froideville and Verheul 2016; Mattingly 1937). Structural diplomacy is \u201ca process of dialogue and negotiation with third countries and other regions aimed at influencing or shaping in a sustainable way the political, legal, socio-economic, security and other structures in these countries or regions\u201d (Smith, Keukeleire, and Vanhoonacker 2015, 5-6). Traditional diplomacy is primarily dealing with establishing, negotiating, and maintaining relations. At the same time, a structural diplomacy is a form of engagement with the external environment that aims at shaping not only specific constellations of relationships but also the sustainable impact of such arrangements that would last well beyond the specific episode of interactions. Structural diplomacy is a valuable point of departure to explore both established and novel forms of the EU external action (\u0160ime 2021b). The European Science Diplomacy Agenda is brought into the picture as a new policy component but not an altogether novel practice. This agenda deserves scholarly attention in the context of the overall EU diplomatic toolbox and the value science diplomacy brings to it.<\/p>\n

The thinking of Susan Strange on structural power has sparked a myriad of ideas on how to adjust structural power for a contemporary study. This article focuses on the new generation of scholars who build on her research on structural power (for example, David and Meersohn Schmidt 2019; Guzzini 1993; Pustovitovskij 2016; Tooze 2000, 282). The term \u2018structural power\u2019 refers to the intentional or unintentional ability to define the context and make one\u2019s preference prevail over outcomes (Story 2001, 440; Van de Graaf 2013, 160; Yoshizawa 2012, 2, 16). The capacity to control structures is noted as decisive (Azmanova 2018, 70). Recent reflections have elaborated on the prevalence of the structural power of the United States compared to other notable actors in international relations, such as China and the EU (Kitchen and Cox, 2019; Liu and Tsai, 2021; Malkin, 2022; Winecoff 2020).<\/p>\n

In this article, the ultimate source of structural power is attributed to the key institutions of the EU. They are recognised in the literature as owning a hegemonic relationship with non-EU members and forming an internationally excelling centre of executive power (Egeberg and Trondal 2014, 174; Eriksen and Fossum 2014, 242; Fossum 2014, 162). Structural diplomacy is a means for sustained promotion of this power. EU-funded projects could be considered as one of the enabling forms to further structural power and diplomacy.<\/p>\n

Structures are the overall economic, social, and political forces, including their potential to shape both agents and institutions (Bell 2012, 668). The study of research-intensive projects as temporary institutions that engage non-EU entities (\u0160ime 2021c) benefits from a reinterpretation of a structure \u201cas a fluid, emergent network of interactions and relations of the actors involved\u201d (Pustovitovskij and Kremer 2011, 11). It brings multilateral considerations into the analytical horizon of what can constitute a structure and its implications in a network setting, as well as how that shapes the understanding of the much-debated degree of the EU\u2019s collective action (Eriksen 2014, 7), its multiple avenues.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Resilience<\/strong><\/p>\n

Generally, resilience refers to the mastery of recuperating after a challenging episode. In other words, resilience refers to \u201cthe ability to cope with stress or, more precisely, to return to some form of normal condition after a period of stress\u201d (Olsson et al. 2015, 1). It is a form of capacity to face a challenge or various challenges and recover after an encounter with endogenous or exogenous shock or shocks.<\/p>\n

The resilience emanates from studies of psychology, ecological and biological notions (Gaub and Popescu 2017, 7; Rhinard 2017, 25; van Veen 2017, 38; Olsson et al. 2015, 1). The focus on the ecological or biological system to withstand and overcome shocks translates in social sciences as the study of social systems amidst unprecedented circumstances. To point out a noteworthy combination of these disciplines, the inceptions of resilience were translated in a recent study of the collective human resilience expressed through intellectual novelties invented during historical periods of climate alterations (Zhang et al. 2020).<\/p>\n

Resilience has proved to be a catchy research topic internationally (Pospisil and K\u00fchn 2016) and across a wide range of disciplines (Berb\u00e9s-Bl\u00e1zquez et al. 2014; Corkery and Marshall 2018; Dou et al. 2020; Giske 2021; Weise et al. 2020). There have been attempts to quantify it, for example, with the Indicators of Resilience and Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (Nishi, Natori, and Dublin 2021, 2). Thus, the term has benefited from both qualitative and quantitative inquiry.<\/p>\n

The EU is considered a late adopter of the term \u2018resilience\u2019 (Juncos 2018, 654).[2]<\/a> Attention is paid to the EU institutions and the supranational level dynamics. In the EU context, resilience refers to \u201cthe ability of an individual, a household, a community, a country or a region to prepare for, to withstand, to adapt, and to quickly recover from stresses and shocks without compromising long-term development prospects\u201d (Carta 2021, 2). The EU approach is well-placed to take on board a comprehensive understanding of resilience. The EU Global Strategy emphasised resilience-building as a strategic priority of the EU\u2019s external action (Badarin and Schumacher 2020, 66; Ferraro 2020, 100). It would be an action that serves in two ways \u2013 to strengthen the internal capacities to withstand shocks across the Union, as well as to help non-EU entities to improve their response measures to diverse challenges. Following principled pragmatism, resilience requires local ownership (Giumelli 2020, 117) and long-term commitment from the EU (Tocci 2016, 5). Scholarship on the resilience of the European neighborhood, including various volatilities, benefits from an acknowledgment of the role of different EU instruments (Bargu\u00e9s et al. 2020, 8; Olsen 2020, 103). Research-intense or research-oriented initiatives would be one example of the vast EU instrumentarium.<\/p>\n

Policy-wise, resilience is a reference framework that is part of a broader sequence of shifts in the terminology used by consecutive Colleges of Commissioners (Bargu\u00e9s and Morillas 2021). An attempt to capture the multidimensionality of the EU foreign policy rests on the earlier aspirations to pursue a \u2018comprehensive approach\u2019 under the leadership of Baroness Catherine Ashton (Helwig 2014, 73; Koenig 2014, 164). Furthermore, the recent pivoting towards \u2018strategic autonomy\u2019 articulated by Josep Borrell is interpreted as an attempt to reenergize resilience (Bargu\u00e9s 2021, 10). It is well-placed to accommodate a more geo-strategic take that positions resilience as a capacity to safeguard sovereignty and independent decision-making against an excessive influence exerted by external power (Biscop 2021, 100). Thus, following this perspective on the policy evolution, the study of resilience should not capture only a specific episode and approach taken by one (former) High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, namely, Federica Mogherini. Instead, it may entail a continuity of efforts and aspirations spanning several terms and individuals who have coordinated the EU external action with shifting nuances that are adjusted depending on the geopolitical context and preferences for a specific policy terminology. Arguably, the academic study of resilience has a broader resonance that spans beyond the service of one high-ranking EU official.<\/p>\n

However, with the shift of the terminology that has certain connotations with resilience comes also a slightly different reading of the term and how it is attributed to the efforts of the EU. Resilience is associated not solely with the EU\u2019s aspirations to strengthen the capacity of its neighbors to withstand various challenges. There is more to it than the EU\u2019s self-interest in benefiting from a better governed and more adaptive neighborhood to the fast-paced landscape of contemporary challenges. In the most recent parlance, resilience is linked to the efforts of the EU itself to maintain a solid standing internationally and to articulate its interests beyond its borders. It acknowledges that interpolarity emerges with unique implications for the EU and its capacity to forge fruitful relations and partnerships internationally (Biscop 2021, 45).<\/p>\n

Researchers point toward the ESN suffering from a more pronounced lack of resilience than the East (Cadier, Capasso, and Eickhoff 2020, 27; Cusumano and Cooper 2020, 298) and to the Southern prioritization of socio-economic issues (Shikaki 2020). The prevalent focus has remained on the high-level statements and the interactions among the key EU institutions and prominent think tanks (Bargu\u00e9s-Pedreny 2019; Bauer 2015, 38; Cianciara 2020; Puglierin 2019, 8). However, interest in the long-term causes of insecurity not solely symptoms of local instability (Amadio Vicer\u00e9 and Frontini 2020, 261),[3]<\/a> has generated additional research threads that explore in greater nuance various challenges encountered by ESN countries in the post-Arab Spring setting (Bahri Korbi, Ben-Slimane, and Triki 2021; Boogaerts, Portela, and Drieskens 2016; Eltinay 2019; Gordner 2019, 17; Hill 2018) and challenges faced in the domain of migration governance (Ozcurumez 2021). In such a way, interlinks between long-term challenges and short-term risks \u201cwith a high spoiler potential in the short run\u201d are also brought into the picture (Kakachia and Lebanidze 2020, 6), including through a typology of tipping points (Magen and Richemond-Barak 2021). Since the ESN is expected to suffer from severe climate change implications (Gaub and Popescu 2017, 8), it is a thematically appropriate context for exploring the growing variety of diplomacy studies and their myriad of parlance.<\/p>\n

The EU assistance comes in various forms and measures to develop such a capacity. Projects funded by the Framework Programmes are a resourceful example of earlier noted but overall understudied means that convey the EU aspirations to strengthen the resilience and contribute to the development of local capacities in the neighborhood (Bargu\u00e9s-Pedreny et al. 2019, 13; Eickhoff and Stollenwerk 2018; Juncos 2017, 9; Kourtikakis and Turkina 2015; Wagner and Anholt 2016). The referenced literature includes publications of several projects, such as \u201cEurope’s External Action and the Dual Challenges of Limited Statehood and Contested Orders\u201d (EU-LISTCO) funded by Horizon 2020 to study resilience and the ENP, as well as articles that build on previous accomplishments of projects funded by the Framework Programmes (Huber and Woertz 2021, 1262-1263; Kakachia, Legucka, and Lebanidze 2021, 1339). However, a vast pool of other promising consortiums funded by the Framework Programmes has not only discussed resilience but also built tailored research-based capacities among European and ENP entities to withstand various challenges (\u0160ime 2021c).<\/p>\n

The overall complexity of the European resilience studies is brought by the fact that scholars and policymakers do not restrict the references to resilience to the ENP context alone. An inward-looking resilience approach has brought new considerations and topics addressed to strengthen the EU\u2019s own ability to withstand various challenges (Borrell Fontelles 2021; Juncos 2021, 7; Ozoli\u0146a 2016, 2). Resilience travels far and wide across diverse topics within the EU context. For example, economic resilience is studied across the urban-rural divide in the EU (Giannakis and Bruggeman 2020). The EU resilience is noted in the Brexit context (Huhe, Naurin, and Thomson 2020). Resilience is referred to as a capacity to develop new industrial specializations after the 2008 economic crisis (Xiao, Boschma, and Andersson 2018). The EU military capabilities are mentioned to address internal and external challenges to maintain resilience (Zandee, Stoetman, and Deen 2021, 49-50). The Recovery and Resilience Facility of the Next Generation EU is an obvious example (Juncos 2021, 7). Furthermore, the EU institutions themselves are described as resilient in obtaining the desired powers and interinstitutional constellations (Servent and Tacea 2021). There is a potential to develop the intellectual inquiry into the EU approach towards resilience following several thematic sub-strands. It would help to distinguish the unique traits of resilience parlance in the ENP context from the other subjects of interest incorporated into the EU resilience radar.<\/p>\n

The reviewed literature demonstrates that solutions requiring advanced research expertise to further European external action and diplomatic goals are not unique to the science diplomacy context. Resilience-building and literature on various dimensions of resilience prove that there is a vast repository of existing lessons upon which future European science diplomacy practices can build. There is a clear potential to foster complementarities between advanced research involved in building resilience in the ESN and future European science diplomacy routines intended to engage with the EU southern neighbours.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abundance of Diplomacies<\/strong><\/p>\n

Science diplomacy is praised for spurring more dynamic interactions between science policy and foreign policy. Nevertheless, the vast terminology employed in diplomacy studies proves that the study of this interlink is not without its challenges. Recognizing that boundaries between variously coined diplomacies are far from clear-cut, this article does not take up the Herculean task of suggesting a specific demarcation between science diplomacy and other types of diplomacies coined and used by the scholars when examining some topics related to the European context or the EU international engagement. Such intellectual exercise is not considered futile. However, a concise awareness-raising overview of the identified myriad of recently used diplomacies tied to environmental, climate, and sustainability considerations is a worthwhile attempt to outline the academic zest.<\/p>\n

Conceptually, science diplomacy shares a blurry and poorly-defined relationship with several other diplomacies. There is no clear demarcation between the \u2018innovation\u2019 (Griset, Paillette, and\u00a0 Agid 2021, 925; Leijten 2017), \u2018water\u2019 (Siekiera 2021a; Tomalov\u00e1 et al. 2020) or \u2018water-based public\u2019 (Farnum 2018), \u2018ocean\u2019, \u2018blue\u2019 and \u2018hydro-\u2019 (Gutu 2016) diplomacies. Further down the line \u2018green\u2019 (Torney and Davis Cross 2018), \u2018climate\u2019 (Biedenkopf and Petri 2019; Oberth\u00fcr and Dupont 2021; \u00d6zkarag\u00f6z Do\u011fan, Uygun, and Ak\u00e7omak 2021; Schunz 2021), \u2018climate change\u2019 (Siekiera 2020, 434), \u2018forest\u2019 and \u2018sustainable development\u2019 (Hoogeveen and Verkooijen 2010) diplomacies deserve mentioning. Moreover, \u2018ozone\u2019 (\u00d6z\u00e7elik 2021), as well as \u2018health\u2019 (Paillette 2021; Rasmussen 2016; D\u2019Abramo 2021) diplomacies might serve as good concluding examples for this concise list of the myriad of diplomacies. Irrespective of whether all these diplomacies are swept under the science diplomacy rug or not (Siekiera 2021b, 15), what many of these authors have in common is an interest to highlight that expert-level interactions and research-intense inputs from scientists have had specific implications on intergovernmental and multilateral deliberations. Not all these diplomacies have thoroughly elaborated frameworks. Not enough thought is allocated to considering approximate demarcations between various thematic diplomacies. It seems that the word \u2018diplomacy\u2019 is placed in the title of the main body of the scholarly output to mark that domain-specific issues have a connection to international relations and high-level deliberations.<\/p>\n

Focusing specifically on the ESN context, one of the latest policy frameworks has obtained its own diplomatic dimensions through the recently suggested \u2018Green Deal diplomacy\u2019 (Bennis 2021; Soler i Lecha and Huber 2021). This relatively recently coined diplomacy highlights the international dimension of the European Green Deal (Alcaro and Tocci 2021, 7). Engstr\u00f6m (2022) proves that analysts commenting on the European Green Deal like to juggle the mentioned variety of diplomacies. All in all, the undefined academic conceptual boundaries and the growing number of diplomacies do not offer more lucidity of the distinct interlinks between science and diplomacy and its projection from Europe towards other parts of the world. Following the core logic of structural diplomacy, this rich baggage of domain-specific diplomacies does not set a conducive context for assessing the sustainability of the EU efforts and permanency of achieved results either. On the contrary, there is a risk that the recent academic ardor to come up with an increasing number of diplomacies creates more confusion than clarity. Perhaps these diplomacies circulate so freely and land in various research outputs because most of them do not have an elaborate framework and specific conceptual anchor. It makes them easily applicable to diverse contexts, issues, and science domains.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Future of European Science Diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Science diplomacy adds some additional dimensions to the study of EU structural diplomacy. Science diplomacy brings valuable considerations about the permanency of the dialogue and multilateral interactions process that spans well beyond the processes curated by the representatives of the traditional diplomatic corps. It allows bringing EU-funded projects into perspective and paying attention to the under-researched aspects and implicit diplomatic dimensions of these temporary encounters.<\/p>\n

The dynamics explored by the circulation of knowledge bring place-specific aspects into the science diplomacy debate and fully appreciate the non-linearity of the present and future dissemination and echoes of the European Science Diplomacy Agenda. The richness of terminology associated with diplomacy studies provides especially promising avenues for the contemporary circulation of knowledge. This article captures a concise attempt to grasp its noteworthy dimensions. Whether this scholarly zeal for using an increasing array of terms associated with various thematic domains of diplomacy serves the goals and aspirations of a coherent European external action and the European Science Diplomacy Agenda more specifically is an altogether other matter. The density of terminology employed in the studies of diplomacy tied to the environmental, climate, and sustainability considerations shows the challenge of delineating science diplomacy from a list of other diplomacies. What both domain-specific diplomacies and resilience studies bring to the ongoing policy-related thinking on the future of European science diplomacy is that there are vast repositories of existing findings on the European track record in employing science-informed and research-intense solutions to tackle various challenges relevant to the external action context.<\/p>\n

When placed in the structural diplomacy and resilience context, it is evident that the European Science Diplomacy Agenda does not start from a clean slate. The existing and continuously growing body of literature on European science diplomacy already elaborates on some accomplishments from various angles and covers diverse periods. The EU science diplomacy approach is well anchored in the existing set-up of the EU programs and instruments. Thus, the history of science diplomacy and its implicit forms captured by the contemporary governance and implementation structures are already actively examined and provide reasonable grounds for future research avenues.<\/p>\n

Resilience is a promising research companion to science diplomacy not only because of its prominence in the ENP setting. Resilience shares with science diplomacy an inward-looking dimension of promoting cohesiveness and attention paid to the EU\u2019s ability to withstand various externally emanating challenges through research-intense and technologically advanced means. Currently, both terms are actively discussed across several European and international scholarly circles. Bringing resilience-oriented findings into science diplomacy considerations helps to highlight the multifaceted role of scientific expertise and research intensity in tailoring responses to contemporary challenges. Among near-term topicalities would be climate change, demographic and international mobility dynamics, well-tailored life-long learning to keep the European and neighbouring economies competitive and well-equipped for the tertiary sector\u2019s future technological developments, and efficient and sustainable management of the industry.<\/p>\n

To conclude, this article outlined how a study focusing on the EU science diplomacy toward the ESN could take advantage of some compartments of diplomacy studies and literature on resilience. It identified some avenues for building on earlier accomplishments and avoiding duplication of efforts. While not being free from the buzzword trap of an overextended meaning, diplomacy studies covering environmental policy domains and diverse resilience studies warn science diplomacy scholarship about the challenge to strike the right balance between attempting to demarcate a field of enquiry and leaving it sufficiently comprehensive and receptive to fresh influences.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Among them are the demarcation enthusiasts who reflect on the more nuanced relationship between the history of knowledge and the history of science (Daston 2017; Verburgt 2020) and other domains of relevant research enquiry (De Sio and Fangerau 2019; Dupr\u00e9 and Somsen 2019), as well as analysts of past crises that have affected the way the history of knowledge advances in Northern Europe (\u00d6sth Gustafsson 2020).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> A clear distinction should be made between the national and EU level. National-level initiatives (examples: Bressan and Bergmaier 2021; Kr\u00fcger 2019) are left outside of the scope of this article.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Analysis of the Arab Spring brings more local dynamics of the neighbourhood into the overall discussion (Kamel and Huber 2015; Salamey 2015), including variations of the terminology, such as \u2018Jasmine Revolution\u2019 (Pinfari 2012), \u2018Awakened Youth\u2019, \u2018Arab Bitterness\u2019, \u2018Arab Awakening\u2019, \u2018Arab Winter\u2019, \u2018Islamist Winter\u2019 to highlight diverse sentiments that accompanied the wave of protests (Hashas, 2019; Huber and Kamel, 2015; Stetter, 2015, 72). Equally, Arab Spring is a helpful guidepost to distinguish an examination of the post-volatile phase of a neighbouring area from studies of regionalisation, regionalism and inter-regionalism in the Northern African context (Bojinovi\u0107 Fenko 2012), as well as comparative studies of regions (Holm\u00e9n 2020). Khouri (2020) draws attention to the public discontent spanning well beyond the seasonality captured by the reference to the spring. All these strands of literature serve as a helpful background to grasp the multiple layers of the central topic addressed in this article.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alcaro, Riccardo, and Nathalie Tocci. 2021. \u201cNavigating a Covid World: The European Union\u2019s Internal Rebirth and External Quest.\u201d The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs<\/em> 56 (2): 1\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03932729.2021.1911128.<\/p>\n

Amadio Vicer\u00e9, Maria Giulia, and Andrea Frontini. 2020. \u201cPaths to Resilience: Examining EU and NATO Responses to the Tunisian and Egyptian Political Transitions.\u201d In Projecting Resilience Across the Mediterranean<\/em>, edited by Eugenio Cusumano and Stefan Hofmaier, 247\u201368. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-23641-0.<\/p>\n

Andersen, Casper, Cristina Clopot, and Jan Ifversen. 2020. \u201cHeritage and Interculturality in EU Science Diplomacy.\u201d Humanities and Social Sciences Communications<\/em> 7 (175): 1\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/s41599-020-00668-8.<\/p>\n

Azmanova, Albena. 2018. \u201cRelational, Structural and Systemic Forms of Power: The \u2018Right to Justification\u2019 Confronting Three Types of Domination.\u201d Journal of Political Power<\/em> 11 (1): 68\u201378. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/2158379X.2018.1433757.<\/p>\n

Badarin, Emile, and Tobias Schumacher. 2020. \u201cThe EU, Resilience and the Southern Neighbourhood After the Arab Uprisings.\u201d In Projecting Resilience Across the Mediterranean<\/em>, edited by Eugenio Cusumano and Stefan Hofaier, 63\u201386. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-23641-0.<\/p>\n

Bahri Korbi, Fadia, Karim Ben-Slimane, and Dora Triki. 2021. \u201cHow Do International Joint Ventures Build Resilience to Navigate Institutional Crisis? The Case of a Tunisian-French IJV During the Arab-Spring.\u201d Journal of Business Research<\/em> 129: 157\u201368. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jbusres.2021.02.059.<\/p>\n

Bargu\u00e9s-Pedreny, Pol. 2019. \u201cMogherini, the Queen of Resilience Reaches the End of Her Mandate.\u201d 604. CIDOB Opinion. Barcelona: Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB).\u00a0 https:\/\/www.cidob.org\/en\/publications\/publication_series\/opinion\/europa\/mogherini_the_queen_of_resilience_reaches_the_end_of_her_mandate.<\/p>\n

Bargu\u00e9s-Pedreny, Pol, Aurora Bergmaier, Federica Bicchi, Amelie Buchwald, Karoline Eickhoff, Pol Morillas, Gabriella Sanchez, and Anna Schmauder. 2019. \u201cDoes Resilience Permeate Foreign Policy? A Review of the Instruments of the EU, Germany, France, and Italy.\u201d EU-LISTCO Working Paper No. 4<\/em>. https:\/\/www.eu-listco.net\/publications\/does-resilience-permeate-foreign-policy.<\/p>\n

Bargu\u00e9s, Pol. 2021. \u201cFrom \u2018Resilience\u2019 To Strategic Autonomy: A Shift In The Implementation Of The Global Strategy?\u201d EU-LISTCO Policy Papers Series No. 09<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.4548133.<\/p>\n

Bargu\u00e9s, Pol, David Cadier, Lidia Gibad\u0142o, Pol Morillas, Luigi Narbone, Nicoletta Pirozzi, and Marcin Terlikowski. 2020. \u201cResilience and The EU\u2019s External Action Instruments: Towards Multiple, Sustained, and Indirect Actions.\u201d EU-LISTCO Working Paper No. 7<\/em>. https:\/\/www.eu-listco.net\/publications\/resilience-and-the-eus-external-action-instruments.<\/p>\n

Bargu\u00e9s, Pol, and Pol Morillas. 2021. \u201cFrom Democratization to Fostering Resilience: EU Intervention and the Challenges of Building Institutions, Social Trust, and Legitimacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1319\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1900120.<\/p>\n

Bauer, Patricia. 2015. \u201cThe European Mediterranean Policy after the Arab Spring: Beyond Values and Interests.\u201d Middle East Critique<\/em>.\u00a0 https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19436149.2014.998922.<\/p>\n

Bell, Stephen. 2012. \u201cThe Power of Ideas: The Ideational Shaping of the Structural Power of Business.\u201d International Studies Quarterly<\/em> 56 (4): 661\u201373. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1468-2478.2012.00743.x.<\/p>\n

Ben Abdallah, Itaf, Alicia Perez-Porro, and Marga Gual Soler. 2021. \u201cScience and Innovation Diplomacy in the Mediterranean.\u201d Take Away Ideas Report<\/em>. Barcelona: Union for the Mediterranean. https:\/\/ufmsecretariat.org\/publication-speech\/take-away-ideas-report\/.<\/p>\n

Bennis, Amine. 2021. \u201cPower Surge: How the European Green Deal Can Succeed in Morocco and Tunisia.\u201d Policy Brief. https:\/\/ecfr.eu\/publication\/power-surge-how-the-european-green-deal-can-succeed-in-morocco-and-tunisia\/.<\/p>\n

Berb\u00e9s-Bl\u00e1zquez, Marta, Jordan Sky Oestreicher, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Mertens, and Johanne Saint-Charles. 2014. \u201cEcohealth and Resilience Thinking: A Dialog from Experiences in Research and Practice.\u201d Ecology and Society<\/em> 19 (2). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5751\/ES-06264-190224.<\/p>\n

Berkman, Paul Arthur. 2012. \u201cOur Common Future in the Arctic Ocean.\u201d The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs<\/em> 101 (2): 123\u201335. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00358533.2012.661527.<\/p>\n

Berkman, Paul Arthur, Lars Kullerud, Allen Pope, Alexander N. Vylegzhanin, and Oran R. Young. 2017. \u201cThe Arctic Science Agreement Propels Science Diplomacy.\u201d Science<\/em> 358 (6363): 596\u201398. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.aaq0890.<\/p>\n

Biedenkopf, Katja, and Franziska Petri. 2019. \u201cEU Delegations in European Union Climate Diplomacy: The Role of Links to Brussels, Individuals and Country Contexts.\u201d Journal of European Integration<\/em> 41 (1): 47\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07036337.2018.1551389.<\/p>\n

Biscop, Sven. 2021. Grand Strategy in 10 Words: A Guide to Great Power Politics in the 21st Century<\/em>. Bristol: Bristol University Press.<\/p>\n

Bojinovi\u0107 Fenko, Ana. 2012. \u201cCompatibility of Regionalizing Actors\u2019 Activities in the Mediterranean Region; What Kind of Opportunity for the European Union?\u201d Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea<\/em> 12 (3): 407\u201329. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14683857.2012.710487.<\/p>\n

Boogaerts, Andreas, Clara Portela, and Edith Drieskens. 2016. \u201cOne Swallow Does Not Make Spring: A Critical Juncture Perspective on the EU Sanctions in Response to the Arab Spring.\u201d Mediterranean Politics<\/em> 21 (2): 205\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13629395.2015.1125285.<\/p>\n

Borrell Fontelles, Josep. 2021. European Foreign Policy in Times of COVID-19<\/em>. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:\/\/eeas.europa.eu\/headquarters\/headquarters-homepage\/95376\/book-european-foreign-policy-times-covid-19_en.<\/p>\n

Boutwell, Jeffrey. 2014. \u201cTriangulating Science, Security and Society: Science Cooperation and International Security.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 201\u201317. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Bressan, Sarah, and Aurora Bergmaier. 2021. \u201cFrom Conflict Early Warning to Fostering Resilience? Chasing Convergence in EU Foreign Policy.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1357\u201374. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1918108.<\/p>\n

Cadier, David, Matteo Capasso, and Karoline Eickhoff. 2020. \u201cResearching Resilience: Implications for Case Studies in Europe\u2019s Neighbourhoods.\u201d EU-LISTCO Working Paper No. 5<\/em>. https:\/\/www.eu-listco.net\/publications\/researching-resilience.<\/p>\n

Carta, Caterina. 2021. \u201cIntroduction: Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between the Domestic and the International.\u201d In Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between the Domestic and the International<\/em>, edited by Caterina Carta and Richard Higgott, 1\u201316. Palgrave Macmillan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-21544-6.<\/p>\n

Cianciara, Agnieszka Katarzyna. 2020. The Politics of the European Neighbourhood Policy<\/em>. Routledge Studies in European Foreign Policy<\/em>. London; New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Copeland, Daryl. 2014. \u201cScience, Technology and WikiLeaks \u2018Cablegate\u2019: Implications for Diplomacy and International Relations.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 171\u201398. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Corkery, Linda, and Nancy Marshall. 2018. \u201cUrban Parks and Open Space: Underpinning A City\u2019s Future Resilience.\u201d In 8th State of Australian Cities National Conference<\/em>, 1\u20139. Adelaide: Analysis & Policy Observatory. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4225\/50\/5b2f28d76eecd.<\/p>\n

Council of the European Union. 2021. Global Approach to Research and Innovation \u2013 Europe\u2019s Strategy for International Cooperation in a Changing World – Council Conclusions (Adopted on 28 September 2021)<\/em>. Vol. 12301\/21. Brussels: Council of the European Union. https:\/\/www.consilium.europa.eu\/en\/press\/press-releases\/2021\/09\/28\/council-agrees-on-a-global-approach-to-research-and-innovation\/.<\/p>\n

Cusumano, Eugenio, and Nathan Cooper. 2020. \u201cConclusions.\u201d In Projecting Resilience Across the Mediterranean<\/em>, edited by Eugenio Cusumano and Stefan Hofmaier, 295\u2013314. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-23641-0.<\/p>\n

Czachor, Rafal. 2019. \u201cThe European Neighbourhood Policy – A Critical Overview of Current Results.\u201d Eastern Mediterranean Policy Note No. 39<\/em>. Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs, University of Nicosia. https:\/\/depot.ceon.pl\/handle\/123456789\/17032?show=full.<\/p>\n

D\u2019Abramo, Flavio. 2021. \u201cThe Past and Present of Pandemic Management: Health Diplomacy, International Epidemiological Surveillance, and COVID-19.\u201d History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences<\/em> 43 (2): 1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40656-021-00416-4.<\/p>\n

Darby, Sefton. 2014. \u201cThe Emperor\u2019s New Clothes: A Failure of Diplomacy in the Oil and Mining Sectors.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 133\u201353. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Daston, Lorraine. 2017. \u201cThe History of Science and the History of Knowledge.\u201d KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge<\/em> 1 (1): 131\u201354. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/691678.<\/p>\n

David, Matthew, and Cynthia Meersohn Schmidt. 2019. \u201cPower and Counter-Power: Knowledge Structure and the Limits of Control.\u201d Sociological Research Online<\/em> 24 (1): 21\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1360780418797717.<\/p>\n

Davis, Lloyd S., and Robert G. Patman. 2014. \u201cNew Day or False Dawn?\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 261\u201375. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Demmelhuber, Thomas. 2017. \u201cThe Challenges of a Changing Southern Neighbourhood.\u201d In The Routledge Handbook on the European Neighbourhood Policy<\/em>, edited by Tobias Schumacher, Andreas Marchetti, and Thomas Demmelhuber, 177\u201385. London: Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315691244.<\/p>\n

De Sio, Fabio, and Heiner Fangerau. 2019. \u201cThe Obvious in a Nutshell: Science, Medicine, Knowledge, and History.\u201d Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte<\/em> 42: 167\u201385. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bewi.201900001.<\/p>\n

Dou, Yue, Peter J. Deadman, Marta Berb\u00e9s-Bl\u00e1zquez, Nathan D. Vogt, and Oriana Almeida. 2020. \u201cPathways out of Poverty through the Lens of Development Resilience: An Agent-Based Simulation.\u201d Ecology and Society<\/em> 25 (4). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5751\/ES-11842-250403.<\/p>\n

Dupr\u00e9, Sven, and Geert Somsen. 2019. \u201cThe History of Knowledge and the Future of Knowledge Societies.\u201d Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte<\/em> 42: 186\u201399. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bewi.201900006.<\/p>\n

Egeberg, Morten, and Jarle Trondal. 2014. \u201cNational Administrative Sovereignity.\u201d In The European Union\u2019s Non-Members: Independence under Hegemony?<\/em>, edited by Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum, 173\u201388. London: Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315751030.<\/p>\n

Eickhoff, Karoline, and Eric Stollenwerk. 2018. \u201cStrengthening Resilience in the EU\u2019s Neighbourhood.\u201d 01. EU-LISTCO Policy Papers Series No. 1<\/em>. https:\/\/www.eu-listco.net\/publications\/strengthening-resilience.<\/p>\n

Eltinay, Nuha. 2019. \u201cCity-to-City Exchange: Redefining \u2018Resilience\u2019 in the Arab Region.\u201d International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment<\/em> 10 (4): 222\u201338. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/IJDRBE-05-2019-0028.<\/p>\n

Engstr\u00f6m, Mats. 2022. \u201cA Green Deal, Open to the World.\u201d European Policy Analysis 10epa<\/em>. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (Sieps). https:\/\/sieps.se\/en\/publications\/2022\/a-green-deal-open-to-the-world\/.<\/p>\n

Eriksen, Erik O. 2014. \u201cRegional Cosmopolitanism: The EU in Search of Its Legitimation.\u201d European Journal of Futures Research<\/em> 2 (1): 1\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40309-014-0051-8.<\/p>\n

Eriksen, Erik O., and John Erik Fossum. 2014. \u201cHegemony by Association.\u201d In The European Union\u2019s Non-Members: Independence under Hegemony?<\/em>, edited by Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum, 230\u201342. London: Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315751030.<\/p>\n

F\u00e4gersten, Bj\u00f6rn. 2022. \u201cLeveraging Science Diplomacy in an Era of Geo-Economic Rivalry: Towards a European Strategy.\u201d UI Report 1\/2022. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI). https:\/\/www.ui.se\/globalassets\/ui.se-eng\/publications\/ui-publications\/2022\/ui-report-no.-1-2022.pdf.<\/p>\n

Farnum, Rebecca L. 2018. \u201cDrops of Diplomacy\u202f: Questioning the Scale of Hydro-Diplomacy Through Fog-Harvesting.\u201d Journal of Hydrology<\/em> 562: 446\u201354. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jhydrol.2018.05.012.<\/p>\n

Ferraro, Giulia. 2020. \u201cAfter the Crisis: The Role of Resilience in Coming Back Stronger.\u201d Connections: The Quarterly Journal<\/em> 19 (4): 97\u2013107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.11610\/connections.19.4.07.<\/p>\n

Fihn, Beatrice. 2022. \u201cForeword: How Science and Diplomacy Can Save the World.\u201d In Colloquia on Science Diplomacy<\/em>, edited by Roberto Antonelli, Giorgio Parisi, and Wolfgango Plastino, XV\u2013XXI. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani S.p.A. https:\/\/colloquia.treccani.it\/<\/p>\n

Fossum, John Erik. 2014. \u201cRepresentation under Hegemony?\u201d In The European Union\u2019s Non-Members: Independence under Hegemony?<\/em>, edited by Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum, 153\u201372. London: Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315751030.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2020. \u201cThe Institutional Make-up of Europe\u2019s Segmented Political Order.\u201d In Towards a Segmented European Political Order: The European Union\u2019s Post-Crises Conundrum<\/em>, edited by Josef B\u00e1tora and John Erik Fossum, 22\u201346. London: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Frank, Robert, and C\u00e9line Paillette. 2016. \u201c\u00c9ditorial.\u201d Bulletin de l\u2019Institut Pierre Renouvin<\/em> 2 (44): 11\u201320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3917\/bipr1.044.0011.<\/p>\n

Gamito-Marques, Daniel. 2020. \u201cScience for Competition among Powers: Geographical Knowledge, Colonial-Diplomatic Networks, and the Scramble for Africa.\u201d Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte<\/em> 43 (4): 473\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bewi.202000016.<\/p>\n

Gaub, Florence, and Nicu Popescu. 2017. \u201cIntroduction.\u201d In After the EU Global Strategy: Building Resilience<\/em>, edited by Florence Gaub and Nicu Popescu, 7\u20139. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2815\/231619.<\/p>\n

Giannakis, Elias, and Adriana Bruggeman. 2020. \u201cRegional Disparities in Economic Resilience in the European Union Across the Urban\u2013Rural Divide.\u201d Regional Studies<\/em> 54 (9): 1200\u20131213. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00343404.2019.1698720.<\/p>\n

Giske, Mathilde Tomine Eriksdatter. 2021. \u201cResilience in the Age of Crises.\u201d NUPI Research Paper – 2\/2021<\/em>. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI). https:\/\/www.nupi.no\/nupi_eng\/Publications\/CRIStin-Pub\/Resilience-in-the-age-of-crises.<\/p>\n

Giumelli, Francesco. 2020. \u201cSanctions as a Regional Security Instrument: EU Restrictive Measures Examined.\u201d In Projecting Resilience Across the Mediterranean<\/em>, edited by Eugenio Cusumano and Stefan Hofmaier, 103\u201324. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-23641-0.<\/p>\n

Goldson, Stephen L., and Peter D. Gluckman. 2014. \u201cScience, Diplomacy and Trade: A View from a Small OECD Agricultural Economy.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 231\u201342. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Gordner, Matt. 2019. \u201cYouth Politics in Tunisia: Comparing Land\/Labor, Leftist Movements, and NGO-Ized Elites.\u201d In Youth Politics in the Middle East and North Africa<\/em>, 14\u201319. POMEPS Studies 36<\/em>. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science. https:\/\/pomeps.org\/pomeps-studies-36-youth-politics-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa.<\/p>\n

Griset, Pascal, and Yves Bouvier. 2012. \u201cDe l\u2019histoire Des Techniques \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de l\u2019innovation. Tendances de La Recherche Fran\u00e7aise En Histoire Contemporaine.\u201d Histoire, \u00c9conomie & Soci\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em> 31e ann\u00e9e (2): 29\u201343. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3917\/hes.122.0029.<\/p>\n

Griset, Pascal, C\u00e9line Paillette, and Yves Agid. 2021. \u201cLa Gen\u00e8se Des Neurosciences: Entre Technosciences et Diplomatie de l\u2019innovation, Des Ann\u00e9es 1940 Aux Ann\u00e9es 1970.\u201d M.S. M\u00e9decine Sciences<\/em> 37: 920\u201326. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1051\/medsci\/2021139.<\/p>\n

Gutu, Ioana. 2016. \u201cThe Transatlantic Blue Diplomacy.\u201d CES Working Papers<\/em> 8 (4): 666\u201380. https:\/\/www.econstor.eu\/bitstream\/10419\/198485\/1\/ceswp-v08-i4-p666-680.pdf.<\/p>\n

Guzzini, Stefano. 1993. \u201cStructural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis.\u201d International Organization<\/em> 47 (3): 443\u201378. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0020818300028022.<\/p>\n

Hashas, Mohammed. 2019. \u201cThe Arab Right to Difference: Taha Abderrahmane\u2019s Concept of the Awakened Youth and the Formation of Modern Arab Nationhood.\u201d In Islam in International Relations: Politics and Paradigms<\/em>, edited by Nassef Manabilang Adiong, Raffaele Mauriello, and Deina Abdelkader, 39\u201361. Abingdon: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Helwig, Niklas. 2014. \u201cLegitimacy of the EEAS.\u201d In The EU\u2019s External Action Service: Potentials for a One Voice Foreign Policy<\/em>, edited by Doris Dialer, Heinrich Neisser, and Anja Opitz, 67\u201378. Innsbruck University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.26530\/OAPEN_466610.<\/p>\n

Hill, Jonathan N.C. 2018. \u201cAuthoritarian Resilience in Morocco After the Arab Spring: A Critical Assessment of Educational Exchanges in Soft Power.\u201d Journal of North African Studies<\/em> 23 (3): 399\u2013417. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13629387.2017.1391946.<\/p>\n

Holm\u00e9n, Janne. 2020. \u201cPerception of the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Regions Among Secondary School Students.\u201d Journal of Baltic Studies<\/em> 51 (4): 513\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01629778.2020.1810723.<\/p>\n

Hoogeveen, Hans, and Patrick Verkooijen. 2010. Transforming Sustainable Development Diplomacy: Lessons Learned from Global Forest Governance<\/em>. Wageningen: Wageningen University. https:\/\/library.wur.nl\/WebQuery\/wurpubs\/fulltext\/16407.<\/p>\n

Huber, Daniela, and Lorenzo Kamel. 2015. \u201cArab Spring: The Role of the Peripheries.\u201d Mediterranean Politics<\/em> 20 (2): 127\u201341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13629395.2015.1033905.<\/p>\n

Huber, Daniela, and Eckart Woertz. 2021. \u201cResilience, Conflict and Areas of Limited Statehood in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1261\u201379. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1940967.<\/p>\n

Huhe, Narisong, Daniel Naurin, and Robert Thomson. 2020. \u201cDon\u2019t Cry For Me Britannia: The Resilience of the European Union to Brexit.\u201d European Union Politics<\/em> 21 (1): 152\u201372. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1465116519882096.<\/p>\n

Jacob, Christian. 2017. \u201cLieux de Savoir: Places and Spaces in the History of Knowledge.\u201d KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge<\/em> 1 (1): 85\u2013102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/692293.<\/p>\n

Juncos, Ana E. 2017. \u201cResilience as the New EU Foreign Policy Paradigm: A Pragmatist Turn?\u201d European Security<\/em> 26 (1): 1\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09662839.2016.1247809.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2021. \u201cThe EU Global Strategy and Diplomacy: Five Years On.\u201d LEGOF Policy Brief 4\/2021<\/em>. ARENA Centre for European Studies. https:\/\/www.sv.uio.no\/arena\/english\/research\/publications\/arena-policy-briefs\/2021\/legof-policy-brief-4-2021-v2.pdf.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. E. 2018. \u201cResilience in Peacebuilding: Contesting Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity.\u201d Contemporary Security Policy<\/em> 39 (4): 559\u201374. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13523260.2018.1491742.<\/p>\n

Kakachia, Kornely, and Bidzina Lebanidze. 2020. \u201cResponses to Global and Diffuse Risks.\u201d EU-LISTCO Policy Papers Series No. 05. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.3695259.<\/p>\n

Kakachia, Kornely, Agnieszka Legucka, and Bidzina Lebanidze. 2021. \u201cCan the EU\u2019s New Global Strategy Make a Difference? Strengthening Resilience in the Eastern Partnership Countries.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1338\u201356. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1918110.<\/p>\n

Kaldewey, David, and D\u00e9sir\u00e9e Schwauz. 2018. \u201cTransforming Pure Science Into Basic Research: The Language of Science Policy in the United States.\u201d In Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century<\/em>, edited by David Kaldewey and D\u00e9sir\u00e9e Schwauz, 104\u201340. Oxford, New York: Berghahn Books. https:\/\/www.berghahnbooks.com\/title\/KaldeweyBasic.<\/p>\n

Kamel, Lorenzo, and Daniela Huber. 2015. \u201cArab Spring: A Decentring Research Agenda.\u201d Mediterranean Politics<\/em> 20 (2): 273\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13629395.2015.1033901.<\/p>\n

Khouri, Rami G. 2020. \u201cComprehensive, Contentious, Convulsive, and Continuing Some Observations on the 2010 \u2013 2020 Arab Uprisings.\u201d Journal of Middle East Politics and Policy<\/em> Spring: 8\u201314. https:\/\/jmepp.hkspublications.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/17\/2020\/03\/Khouri.pdf.<\/p>\n

Kitchen, Nicholas, and Michael Cox. 2019. \u201cPower, Structural Power, and American Decline.\u201d Cambridge Review of International Affairs<\/em> 32 (6): 734\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09557571.2019.1606158.<\/p>\n

Koenig, Nicole. 2014. \u201cLibya and the Challenges of Post-Lisbon Crisis Coordination.\u201d In The EU\u2019s External Action Service: Potentials for a One Voice Foreign Policy<\/em>, edited by Doris Dialer, Heinrich Neisser, and Anja Opitz, 163\u201374. Innsbruck University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.26530\/OAPEN_466610.<\/p>\n

Kourtikakis, Kostas, and Ekaterina Turkina. 2015. \u201cCivil Society Organizations in European Union External Relations: A Study of Interorganizational Networks in the Eastern Partnership and the Mediterranean.\u201d Journal of European Integration<\/em> 37 (5): 587\u2013609. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/07036337.2015.1034275.<\/p>\n

Kr\u00fcger, Marco. 2019. \u201cBuilding Instead of Imposing Resilience: Revisiting the Relationship Between Resilience and the State.\u201d International Political Sociology<\/em> 13 (1): 53\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ips\/oly025.<\/p>\n

Kurrer, Christian. 2021. \u201cEnvironment Policy: General Principles and Basic Framework.\u201d Fact Sheet on the European Union<\/em>. https:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/factsheets\/en\/sheet\/71\/environment-policy-general-principles-and-basic-framework.<\/p>\n

Kwiecie\u0144, Joanna. 2016a. \u201cENP in the Context of the EU\u2019s External Policy Framework: A Critical Examination of the ENP\u2019s Outcomes and Prospects.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 147\u201363. https:\/\/www.ceeol.com\/search\/article-detail?id=579556.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2016b. \u201cProcesses of Deliberation and Negotiation in the Revamped ENP: Divergent Modes of Governance That Emerge at the Intersection of EaP\/SoP and the EU and Its Member States.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 183\u201397. http:\/\/bazekon.icm.edu.pl\/bazekon\/element\/bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171504721.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2016c. \u201cThe Idea of the Southern Mediterranean and Its Role in Shaping the Logic behind the Southern Dimension of the ENP.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 87\u2013105. https:\/\/www.ceeol.com\/search\/article-detail?id=579547.<\/p>\n

Lannon, Erwan. 2019. \u201cLa Coop\u00e9ration En Mati\u00e8re d\u2019\u00e9ducation, d\u2019enseignement Sup\u00e9rieur et de Recherche et Le D\u00e9veloppement d\u2019un Diplomatie Scientifique et Technologique Euro-M\u00e9diterran\u00e9enne.\u201d In 10\u00e8 Rencontre de Cyb\u00e8le\u202f: \u201cEn Amont Du Sommet Des Deux Rives, Forum de La M\u00e9diterran\u00e9e\u202f: Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Civile et Relance Euro-M\u00e9diterran\u00e9enne,\u201d<\/em> 46\u201357. Association Euromed. https:\/\/biblio.ugent.be\/publication\/8651370.<\/p>\n

Leach, Joan. 2014. \u201cThe Role of Science Communication in International Diplomacy.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 155\u201369. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Leijten, Jos. 2017. \u201cExploring the Future of Innovation Diplomacy.\u201d European Journal of Futures Research<\/em> 5 (20): 1\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40309-017-0122-8.<\/p>\n

Lesser, Pamela. 2009. \u201cGreening the Mediterranean: Europe\u2019s Environmental Policy toward Mediterranean Neighbors.\u201d Mediterranean Quarterly<\/em> 20 (2): 26\u201339. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/315035.<\/p>\n

Liu, Edison T. 2014. \u201cGlobal Health Research Diplomacy.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 219\u201329. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Liu, Mingtang, and Kellee S. Tsai. 2021. \u201cStructural Power, Hegemony, and State Capitalism: Limits to China\u2019s Global Economic Power.\u201d Politics and Society<\/em> 49 (2): 235\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0032329220950234.<\/p>\n

Macindoe, Sarah. 2014. \u201cManaging Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: International Efforts and Lessons from the New Zealand Experience.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 45\u201367. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Magen, Amichai, and Daphn\u00e9 Richemond-Barak. 2021. \u201cAnticipating Global and Diffuse Risks to Prevent Conflict and Governance Breakdown: Lessons from the EU\u2019s Southern Neighbourhood.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1239\u201360. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1940968.<\/p>\n

Malkin, Anton. 2022. \u201cThe Made in China Challenge to US Structural Power: Industrial Policy, Intellectual Property and Multinational Corporations.\u201d Review of International Political Economy<\/em> 29 (2): 538\u201370. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09692290.2020.1824930.<\/p>\n

Mathis, Charles-Fran\u00e7ois. 2020. \u201cEuropean Environmental Policy.\u201d Encyclop\u00e9die d\u2019histoire Num\u00e9rique de l\u2019Europe<\/em>. https:\/\/ehne.fr\/en\/node\/12434.<\/p>\n

Mattingly, Garrett. 1937. \u201cThe First Resident Embassies\u202f: Mediaeval Italian Origins of Modern Diplomacy.\u201d Speculum<\/em> 12 (4): 423\u201339. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/2849298.<\/p>\n

Michailidou, Asimina, and Hans-J\u00f6rg Trenz. 2020. \u201cEuropean Solidarity in Times of Crisis: Towards Differentiated Integration.\u201d In Towards a Segmented European Political Order: The European Union\u2019s Post-Crises Conundrum<\/em>, edited by Josef B\u00e1tora and John Erik Fossum, 132\u201351. London: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Milkoreit, Manjana. 2014. \u201cScience and Climate Change Diplomacy: Cognitive Limits and the Need to Reinvent Science Communication.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 109\u201331. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Monod de Froideville, Gilbert, and Mark Verheul. 2016. An Experts\u2019 Guide to International Protocol: Best Practices in Diplomatic and Corporate Relations<\/em>. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5117\/9789463727167.<\/p>\n

Morgenstern-Pomorski, Jost Henrik. 2018. The Contested Diplomacy of the European External Action Service: Inception, Establishment and Consolidation<\/em>. Routledge\/UACES Contemporary European Studies<\/em>. Abingdon: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Mourato Pinto, Jo\u00e3o. 2022. \u201cPortuguese Science Diplomacy and the Networks of Portuguese Professionals, Researchers and Graduate Students Abroad: From The Escape to The Circulation of Brains.\u201d OBSERVARE – JANUS.NET e-Journal of International Relations<\/em> 13 (1): 98\u2013116. https:\/\/repositorio.ual.pt\/handle\/11144\/5421.<\/p>\n

Nishi, Maiko, Yoji Natori, and Devon R Dublin. 2021. \u201cResilience in Landscapes & Seascapes: Building Back Better from COVID-19.\u201d UNU-IAS Policy Brief No. 26<\/em>. Tokyo: United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). https:\/\/ias.unu.edu\/en\/news\/news\/policy-brief-highlights-resilience-in-landscapes-seascapes-to-build-back-better.html.<\/p>\n

Oberth\u00fcr, Sebastian, and Claire Dupont. 2021. \u201cThe European Union\u2019s International Climate Leadership: Towards a Grand Climate Strategy?\u201d Journal of European Public Policy<\/em> 28 (7): 1095\u20131114. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13501763.2021.1918218.<\/p>\n

Ol\u0161\u00e1kov\u00e1, Doubravka. 2020. \u201cA Matter of Courtesy: The Role of Soviet Diplomacy and Soviet \u2018System Safeguards\u2019 in Maintaining Soviet Influence on Czechoslovak Science before and after 1968.\u201d Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte<\/em> 43: 542\u201359. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bewi.202000023.<\/p>\n

Olsen, Espen D.H. 2020. \u201cWhat Kind of Crisis and How to Deal with It? The Segmented Border Logic in the European Migration Crisis.\u201d In Towards a Segmented European Political Order: The European Union\u2019s Post-Crises Conundrum<\/em>, edited by Josef B\u00e1tora and John Erik Fossum, 93\u2013111. London: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Olsson, Lennart, Anne Jerneck, Henrik Thoren, Johannes Persson, and David O\u2019Byrne. 2015. \u201cWhy Resilience Is Unappealing to Social Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations of the Scientific Use of Resilience.\u201d Science Advances<\/em> 1 (4): 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/sciadv.1400217.<\/p>\n

\u00d6sth Gustafsson, Hampus. 2020. \u201cMobilising the Outsider: Crises and Histories of the Humanities in the 1970s Scandinavian Welfare States.\u201d In Histories of Knowledge in Postwar Scandinavia<\/em>, edited by Johan \u00d6stling, Niklas Olsen, and David Larsson Heidenblad, 208\u201324. New York: Routledge. https:\/\/www.taylorfrancis.com\/books\/e\/9781003019275.<\/p>\n

\u00d6stling, Johan. 2015. \u201cVad \u00c4r Kunskapshistoria?\u201d Historisk Tidskrift<\/em> 135 (1): 109\u201319. http:\/\/www.historisktidskrift.se\/fulltext\/2015-1\/HT_2015_1_109-119_ostling.htm.<\/p>\n

\u00d6stling, Johan, Niklas Olsen, and David Larsson Heidenblad. 2020. \u201cIntroduction.\u201d In Histories of Knowledge in Postwar Scandinavia: Actors, Arenas, and Aspirations<\/em>, edited by Johan \u00d6stling, Niklas Olsen, and David Larsson Heidenblad, 1\u201317. London: Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781003019275.<\/p>\n

Ostrowska-Cha\u0142upa, Marta. 2016. \u201cENP after EEAS: Impact, Changes, Implications for Its Delivery.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 165\u201382. https:\/\/ies.lublin.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/riesw_1732-1395_14-6-302.pdf.<\/p>\n

\u00d6z\u00e7elik, Sezai. 2021. \u201cOzone Diplomacy, Ozone Regime Negotiations, and the Arctic.\u201d International Journal of Politics and Security<\/em> 3 (1): 74\u201398. https:\/\/dergipark.org.tr\/en\/download\/article-file\/1465304.<\/p>\n

Ozcurumez, Saime. 2021. \u201cThe EU\u2019s Effectiveness in the Eastern Mediterranean Migration Quandary: Challenges to Building Societal Resilience.\u201d Democratization<\/em> 28 (7): 1302\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13510347.2021.1918109.<\/p>\n

\u00d6zkarag\u00f6z Do\u011fan, Elif, Zafer Uygun, and \u0130brahim Semih Ak\u00e7omak. 2021. \u201cCan Science Diplomacy Address the Global Climate Change Challenge?\u201d Environmental Policy and Governance<\/em> 31: 31\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/eet.1911.<\/p>\n

Ozoli\u0146a, \u017daneta. 2016. \u201cEU Global Strategy: Expert Opinion.\u201d EU Global Strategy: Expert Opinion No. 33<\/em>. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). https:\/\/www.iss.europa.eu\/content\/eu-global-strategy-expert-opinion-no33-\u2013-\u017eaneta-ozoli\u0146a.<\/p>\n

Paillette, C\u00e9line. 2021. \u201cL\u2019action Sanitaire Ext\u00e9rieure de La France, 1949-1954. La Nostalgie de l\u2019influence, Le Pragmatisme Multilat\u00e9ral et Les Europe(s) de La Sant\u00e9.\u201d Bulletin de l\u2019Institut Pierre Renouvin<\/em> 1 (52): 37\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3917\/bipr1.052.0037.<\/p>\n

Panas, Ewelina, and Marcin Go\u0142\u0119biowski. 2021. \u201cEducational and Scientific Programmes for the Citizens of Belarus as an Example of Science Diplomacy \u2013 a Political and Legal Analysis.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 19 (4): 243\u201364. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.36874\/riesw.2021.4.12.<\/p>\n

Pinfari, Marco. 2012. \u201cA Changing Mediterranean: Regional Organisations and North Africa during the Arab Spring.\u201d International Spectator<\/em> 47 (1): 134\u201350. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03932729.2012.655014.<\/p>\n

Plamondon Emond, \u00c9tienne. 2019. \u201cUn Concept Encore Largement M\u00e9connu.\u201d Le Devoir<\/em>, C1\u20132. https:\/\/www.ledevoir.com\/societe\/science\/565954\/un-concept-encore-largement-meconnu-une-notion-negligee.<\/p>\n

Polejack, Andrei, Sigi Gruber, and Mary S. Wisz. 2021. \u201cAtlantic Ocean Science Diplomacy in Action: The Pole-to-Pole All Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance.\u201d Humanities and Social Sciences Communications<\/em> 8 (52): 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/s41599-021-00729-6.<\/p>\n

Pospisil, Jan, and Florian P. K\u00fchn. 2016. \u201cThe Resilient State: New Regulatory Modes in International Approaches to State Building?\u201d Third World Quarterly<\/em> 37 (1): 1\u201316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01436597.2015.1086637.<\/p>\n

Pozza, Maria. 2014. \u201cDiplomacy for Science: The SKA Project.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 87\u2013106. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Puglierin, Jana. 2019. \u201cPriorities for the EU\u2019s New Foreign Policy Agenda up to 2024.\u201d DGAP Analysis No. 1<\/em>. Berlin: German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). https:\/\/dgap.org\/sites\/default\/files\/article_pdfs\/dgap_analysis_nr1-nov2019_web_0.pdf.<\/p>\n

Pustovitovskij, Andrej. 2016. \u201cReconceptualising Structural Power: A New Concept Made Out of Sterling Parts.\u201d E-International Relations. https:\/\/www.e-ir.info\/2016\/12\/18\/reconceptualising-structural-power-a-new-concept-made-out-of-sterling-parts\/.<\/p>\n

Pustovitovskij, Andrej, and Jan-Frederik Kremer. 2011. \u201cStructural Power and International Relations Analysis: \u2018Fill Your Basket, Get Your Preferences.\u2019\u201d IEE Working Paper Volume 191<\/em>. Bochum: Ruhr-Universit\u00e4t Bochum. https:\/\/www.econstor.eu\/bitstream\/10419\/183545\/1\/wp-191.pdf.<\/p>\n

Radelji\u0107, Branislav. 2014. \u201cThe European Neighborhood Policy and Its Capacity to Manage Mobility and Migration.\u201d In Territoriality and Migration in the E.U. Neighbourhood: Spilling over the Wall<\/em>, edited by Margaret Walton-Roberts and Jenna Hennebry, 1\u2013254. Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-94-007-6745-4.<\/p>\n

Rasmussen, Anne. 2016. \u201cDocumenter La Sant\u00e9 En Guerre\u00a0: L\u2019Internationale Sanitaire Interalli\u00e9e, 1915-1919.\u201d Bulletin de l\u2019Institut Pierre Renouvin<\/em> N\u00b0 44 (2): 103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3917\/bipr1.044.0103.<\/p>\n

Rhinard, Mark. 2017. \u201cMark Rhinard.\u201d In After the EU Global Strategy: Building Resilience<\/em>, edited by Florence Gaub and Nicu Popescu, 25\u201327. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2815\/231619.<\/p>\n

Rivera Escartin, Adri\u00e0. 2020. \u201cPopulist Challenges to EU Foreign Policy in the Southern Neighbourhood: An Informal and Illiberal Europeanisation?\u201d Journal of European Public Policy<\/em> 27 (8): 1195\u20131214. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13501763.2020.1712459.<\/p>\n

Ruud, Camilla. 2018. \u201cMaterializing Circulation: A Gigantic Skeleton and a Danish Eighteen-Century Naturalist.\u201d In Circulation of Knowledge: Explorations in the History of Knowledge<\/em>, edited by Johan O\u0308stling, Erling Sandmo, David Larsson Heidenblad, Anna Nilsson Hammar, and Kari Nordberg, 197\u2013218. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. https:\/\/portal.research.lu.se\/portal\/en\/publications\/circulation-of-knowledge(a7665a5e-d60f-43f2-8bd0-8a7779717a55).html.<\/p>\n

Salamey, Imad. 2015. \u201cPost-Arab Spring: Changes and Challenges.\u201d Third World Quarterly<\/em> 36 (1): 111\u201329. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01436597.2015.976025.<\/p>\n

Schemper, Lukas. 2019. \u201cScience Diplomacy and the Making of the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.\u201d Diplomatica<\/em> 1: 243\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/25891774-00102006.<\/p>\n

Schunz, Simon. 2021. \u201cThe European Union\u2019s Strategic Turn in Climate Diplomacy: \u2018Multiple Bilateralism\u2019 with Major Emitters.\u201d EU Diplomacy Paper No. 4. Bruges: College of Europe. https:\/\/www.coleurope.eu\/news\/eu-diplomacy-paper-4\/2021.<\/p>\n

Servent, Ariadna Ripoll, and Angela Tacea. 2021. \u201cResilient Institutions: The Impact of Rule Change on Policy Outputs in European Union Decision\u2010making Processes.\u201d Politics and Governance<\/em> 9 (3): 1\u20134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17645\/pag.v9i3.4710.<\/p>\n

Shikaki, Khalil. 2020. \u201cStability vs. Democracy in the Post Arab-Spring: What Choice for the EU?\u201d EU-LISTCO Policy Papers Series No. 04<\/em>. https:\/\/www.eu-listco.net\/publications\/stability-vs-democracy-in-the-post-arab-spring.<\/p>\n

Siekiera, Joanna. 2020. \u201cRegional Integration in the South Pacific: Challenges for Public Governance.\u201d Brazilian Journal of International Law<\/em> 17 (1): 433\u201342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5102\/RDI.V17I1.6641.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2021a. \u201cOcean Diplomacy as a Promising Solution to Climate Change.\u201d Science Diplomacy: India\u2019s Global Digest of Multidisciplinary Science<\/em> 4 (4): 8\u201310. http:\/\/niscair.res.in\/includes\/images\/sciencediplomacy\/Science-Diplomacy-April-June-2021.pdf.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2021b. \u201cWater Diplomacy: Science Diplomacy for Seeking Legal Solutions to Ocean Change.\u201d Science Diplomacy Review<\/em> 3 (2): 15\u201323. https:\/\/www.ris.org.in\/sites\/default\/files\/SDR9.pdf.<\/p>\n

\u0160ime, Zane. 2021a. \u201cCirculation of Science Diplomacy: Exploring the Motion of Ideas.\u201d Science Diplomacy Review<\/em> 3 (1): 35\u201341. https:\/\/www.ris.org.in\/index.php\/en\/journals-n-newsletters\/Science-Diplomacy-Review.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2021b. \u201cEU-India Relations in the Multi-Vector Matrix of Science Diplomacy and Asia-Europe Meeting.\u201d Research in Globalization<\/em> 3: 1\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.resglo.2021.100057.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2021c. \u201cEuropean Union Science Diplomacy in the Southern Neighbourhood: Mapping the Field and Plurality of Resilience-Builders.\u201d 8. EU Diplomacy Paper. Bruges: College of Europe. https:\/\/www.coleurope.eu\/study\/eu-international-relations-and-diplomacy-studies\/research-publications\/eu-diplomacy-papers.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2022. \u201cEarth System Governance and Science Diplomacy: Commonalities of Emerging Shapers of Institutions.\u201d Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies<\/em> 14 (1): 49\u201367. https:\/\/openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au\/index.php\/ANZJES.<\/p>\n

Smith, Michael, Stephan Keukeleire, and Sophie Vanhoonacker. 2015. \u201cIntroduction.\u201d In The Diplomatic System of the European Union: Evolution, Change and Challenges<\/em>, edited by Michael Smith, Stephan Keukeleire, and Sophie Vanhoonacker, 1\u20138. London: Taylor & Francis Group. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315726342.<\/p>\n

Soler i Lecha, Eduard, and Daniela Huber. 2021. \u201cThe EU\u2019s New Agenda for Its Southern Neighbourhood: The Case for a Green and Inclusive Review.\u201d EU-LISTCO Working Paper no 11<\/em>.\u00a0 https:\/\/www.cidob.org\/en\/publications\/publication_series\/project_papers\/eu_listco\/the_eu_s_new_agenda_for_its_southern_neighbourhood_the_case_for_a_green_and_inclusive_review.<\/p>\n

Stetter, Stephan. 2015. \u201c\u20182011\u2019: Middle East (R)Evolutions.\u201d In International Relations Theory and a Changing Middle East<\/em>, 71\u201372. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science. https:\/\/pomeps.org\/international-relations-theory-and-a-new-middle-east.<\/p>\n

Story, Christophe Jaquet. 2001. \u201cLe Syst\u00e8me Mondial de Susan Strange.\u201d Politique \u00c9trang\u00e8re<\/em> 66 (2): 433\u201347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3406\/polit.2001.5082.<\/p>\n

Stryjek, Joanna. 2016. \u201cThe European Neighbourhood Policy and FDI: The Southern Dimension.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 49\u201368. https:\/\/www.ceeol.com\/search\/article-detail?id=579536.<\/p>\n

Sunami, Atsushi, Tomoko Hamachi, and Shigeru Kitaba. 2014. \u201cJapan\u2019s Science and Technology Diplomacy.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 243\u201358. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Tocci, Nathalie. 2016. \u201cInterview with Nathalie Tocci on the Global Strategy for the European Union\u2019s Foreign and Security Policy.\u201d International Spectator<\/em> 51 (3): 1\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03932729.2016.1216744.<\/p>\n

Tomalov\u00e1, Eli\u0161ka, Eli\u0161ka \u010cernovsk\u00e1, Ewert Aukes, Jasper Montana, and Elke Dall. 2020. \u201cWater Diplomacy and Its Future in the National, Regional, European and Global Environments.\u201d Science Diplomacy in the Making: Case-Based Insights from the S4D4C Project (S4D4C)<\/em>. https:\/\/www.s4d4c.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/D3.2_2_Water_final.pdf.<\/p>\n

Tooze, Roger. 2000. \u201cSusan Strange, Academic International Relations and the Study of International Political Economy.\u201d New Political Economy<\/em> 5 (2): 280\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/713687770.<\/p>\n

Torney, Diarmuid, and Mai\u2019a K. Davis Cross. 2018. \u201cEnvironmental and Climate Diplomacy: Building Coalitions Through Persuation.\u201d In European Union External Environmental Policy: Rules, Regulation and Governance Beyond Borders<\/em>, edited by Camilla Adelle, Katja Biedenkopf, and Diarmuid Torney, 39\u201358. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n

Turekian, Vaughan, Sarah Macindoe, Daryl Copeland, Lloyd S. Davis, Robert G. Patman, and Maria Pozza. 2014. \u201cThe Emergence of Science Diplomacy.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S Davis and Robert G. Patman, 3\u201324. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Van de Graaf, Thijs. 2013. \u201cThe \u2018Oil Weapon\u2019 Reversed? Sanctions Against Iran and U.S.-EU Structural Power.\u201d Middle East Policy<\/em> 20 (3): 145\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/mepo.12040.<\/p>\n

Van Rompuy, Herman. 2021. \u201cValues Matter in the EU and in the World.\u201d CIFE Policy Paper No 122<\/em>. Nice: Centre international de formation europ\u00e9enne. https:\/\/www.cife.eu\/Ressources\/FCK\/files\/publications\/policy paper\/2021\/CIFE_Herman_Van_Rompuy_November2021.pdf.<\/p>\n

van Veen, Erwin. 2017. \u201cErwin van Veen.\u201d In After the EU Global Strategy: Building Resilience<\/em>, edited by Florence Gaub and Nicu Popescu, 37\u201339. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2815\/231619.<\/p>\n

Verburgt, Lukas M. 2020. \u201cThe History of Knowledge and the Future History of Ignorance.\u201d KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge<\/em> 4 (1): 1\u201324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/708341.<\/p>\n

Vylegzhanin, Alexander N., Oran R. Young, and Paul Arthur Berkman. 2021. \u201cRussia in the Arctic Chair: Adapting the Arctic Governance System to Conditions Prevailing in the 2020s.\u201d Polar Record<\/em> 57 (e37): 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0032247421000553.<\/p>\n

Wagner, Wolfgang, and Rosanne Anholt. 2016. \u201cResilience as the EU Global Strategy\u2019s New Leitmotif: Pragmatic, Problematic or Promising?\u201d Contemporary Security Policy<\/em> 37 (3): 414\u201330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13523260.2016.1228034.<\/p>\n

Weise, Hanna, Harald Auge, Cornelia Baessler, Ilona B\u00e4rlund, Elena M Bennett, Uta Berger, Friedrich Bohn, et al. 2020. \u201cResilience Trinity: Safeguarding Ecosystem Functioning and Services across Three Different Time Horizons and Decision Contexts.\u201d Oikos<\/em>, 445\u201356. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/oik.07213.<\/p>\n

Wilson, Gary. 2014. \u201cAntarctic Science: A Case for Extending Diplomacy for Science.\u201d In Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?<\/em>, edited by Lloyd S. Davis and Robert G. Patman, 69\u201385. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1142\/8658.<\/p>\n

Winecoff, William Kindred. 2020. \u201c\u2018The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,\u2019 Revisited: Structural Power as a Complex Network Phenomenon.\u201d European Journal of International Relations<\/em> 26 (S1): 209\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1354066120952876.<\/p>\n

Xiao, Jing, Ron Boschma, and Martin Andersson. 2018. \u201cResilience in the European Union: The Effect of the 2008 Crisis on the Ability of Regions in Europe to Develop New Industrial Specializations.\u201d Industrial and Corporate Change<\/em> 27 (1): 15\u201347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/icc\/dtx023.<\/p>\n

Yoshizawa, Hikaru. 2012. \u201cThe Relational and Structural Power of the EU in Competition Policy: Addressing Asymmetry.\u201d GR:EEN – GEM Doctoral Working Paper Series No. 28. https:\/\/cris.unu.edu\/relational-and-structural-power-eu-competition-policy-addressing-asymmetry.<\/p>\n

Zandee, Dick, Ad\u00e1ja Stoetman, and Bob Deen. 2021. \u201cThe EU\u2019s Strategic Compass for Security and Defence: Squaring Ambition with Reality.\u201d Clingendael Report<\/em>. The Hague Clingendael – Netherlands Institute of\u00a0 International Relations. https:\/\/www.clingendael.org\/publication\/eus-strategic-compass-security-and-defence.<\/p>\n

Zhang, David D., Qing Pei, Harry F. Lee, C. Y. Jim, Guodong Li, Mandy Zhang, Jinbao Li, et al. 2020. \u201cClimate Change Fostered Cultural Dynamics of Human Resilience in Europe in the Past 2500 Years.\u201d Science of the Total Environment<\/em> 744 (140842): 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.scitotenv.2020.140842.<\/p>\n

\u017bukrowska, Katarzyna. 2016a. \u201cIdeas in the ENP. Conflicting Visions and Interests of the ENP between the EU Member States and Institutions?\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 121\u201345. https:\/\/ies.lublin.pl\/en\/rocznik\/yearbook-14-2016\/issue-6\/ideas-in-the-enp-conflicting-visions-and-interests-of-the-enp-between-the-eu-member-states-and-institutions-en-translation\/.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2016b. \u201cTesting the CEES\u2019 Model of Transformation in the ENP Framework: Challenges and Opportunities: The Southern Dimension.\u201d Rocznik Instytutu Europy \u015arodkowo – Wschodniej<\/em> 14 (6): 27\u201347. https:\/\/www.ceeol.com\/search\/article-detail?id=579532.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The European Union science diplomacy toward the Southern Neighbourhood could take advantage of some compartments of diplomacy studies and literature on resilience to build on earlier scholarly accomplishments and avoid duplication of efforts. Structural diplomacy is the selected framework for dwelling on the intricacies and challenging aspects of the overall topic. Conceptually and policy-wise, complexities revolving around multifaceted meanings of resilience and the polyphony of terminology employed in the diplomacy studies represent contemporary legacies and a densely layered context for the launch of the European Science Diplomacy Agenda.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":657,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2132],"tags":[2298,2295,2115,2296,2297],"coauthors":[2294],"class_list":["post-14301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-double-blind-peer-review-volume-18-no-1-2023","tag-diplomacy-studies","tag-european-southern-neighbourhood","tag-resilience","tag-science-diplomacy","tag-structural-diplomacy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/657"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14301"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14301\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19830,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14301\/revisions\/19830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14301"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=14301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}