Opening the windows on diplomacy: A comparison of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy in Canada and Australia

Ellen Huijgh, Caitlin Byrne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Summary Public diplomacy's scholarship and practice are evolving and seeking to adapt to the expanding interests, expectations, connectivity and mobility of the publics that have come to define the field in an organic fashion. The characteristic distinction between international and domestic publics as the key to defining the practice of public diplomacy is increasingly challenged by public audiences that are no longer constrained by such traditional delineations. The attention on the involvement of domestic publics in public diplomacy, or its domestic dimension, has to be understood within this context. This article aims to cast further light on public diplomacy's domestic dimension, with Canada and Australia - two countries that have much in common - as the launch pads for discussion. The article's first section investigates the approach and development of public diplomacy's domestic dimension in both countries and draws out the similarities and differences. The second section identifies the opportunities, challenges and tendencies in its practice as well as the conceptual implications. The article finds that while differences in approach remain, Canada and Australia have more in common than not when it comes to involving domestic audiences in international policy, especially in recent years. Their practice of public diplomacy's domestic dimension appears to be resilient and adaptive in nature, although it has been subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the political climate, leadership styles and governmental preferences, and resource availability. Additionally, reconceptualizing public diplomacy with a domestic dimension and constructivist underpinnings opens the window on norms that are taken for granted in diplomacy and offers the potential for a more inclusive view and practice - a better fit for its time.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)395-420
Number of pages26
JournalThe Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Volume7
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

diplomacy
Canada
fluctuation
climate
leadership
resources

Cite this

@article{b6238a85eb6f49e4beb67520b9b121ce,
title = "Opening the windows on diplomacy: A comparison of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy in Canada and Australia",
abstract = "Summary Public diplomacy's scholarship and practice are evolving and seeking to adapt to the expanding interests, expectations, connectivity and mobility of the publics that have come to define the field in an organic fashion. The characteristic distinction between international and domestic publics as the key to defining the practice of public diplomacy is increasingly challenged by public audiences that are no longer constrained by such traditional delineations. The attention on the involvement of domestic publics in public diplomacy, or its domestic dimension, has to be understood within this context. This article aims to cast further light on public diplomacy's domestic dimension, with Canada and Australia - two countries that have much in common - as the launch pads for discussion. The article's first section investigates the approach and development of public diplomacy's domestic dimension in both countries and draws out the similarities and differences. The second section identifies the opportunities, challenges and tendencies in its practice as well as the conceptual implications. The article finds that while differences in approach remain, Canada and Australia have more in common than not when it comes to involving domestic audiences in international policy, especially in recent years. Their practice of public diplomacy's domestic dimension appears to be resilient and adaptive in nature, although it has been subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the political climate, leadership styles and governmental preferences, and resource availability. Additionally, reconceptualizing public diplomacy with a domestic dimension and constructivist underpinnings opens the window on norms that are taken for granted in diplomacy and offers the potential for a more inclusive view and practice - a better fit for its time.",
author = "Ellen Huijgh and Caitlin Byrne",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1163/1871191X-12341239",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "395--420",
journal = "The Hague Journal of Diplomacy",
issn = "1871-1901",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",
number = "4",

}

Opening the windows on diplomacy : A comparison of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy in Canada and Australia. / Huijgh, Ellen; Byrne, Caitlin.

In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2012, p. 395-420.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Opening the windows on diplomacy

T2 - A comparison of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy in Canada and Australia

AU - Huijgh, Ellen

AU - Byrne, Caitlin

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Summary Public diplomacy's scholarship and practice are evolving and seeking to adapt to the expanding interests, expectations, connectivity and mobility of the publics that have come to define the field in an organic fashion. The characteristic distinction between international and domestic publics as the key to defining the practice of public diplomacy is increasingly challenged by public audiences that are no longer constrained by such traditional delineations. The attention on the involvement of domestic publics in public diplomacy, or its domestic dimension, has to be understood within this context. This article aims to cast further light on public diplomacy's domestic dimension, with Canada and Australia - two countries that have much in common - as the launch pads for discussion. The article's first section investigates the approach and development of public diplomacy's domestic dimension in both countries and draws out the similarities and differences. The second section identifies the opportunities, challenges and tendencies in its practice as well as the conceptual implications. The article finds that while differences in approach remain, Canada and Australia have more in common than not when it comes to involving domestic audiences in international policy, especially in recent years. Their practice of public diplomacy's domestic dimension appears to be resilient and adaptive in nature, although it has been subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the political climate, leadership styles and governmental preferences, and resource availability. Additionally, reconceptualizing public diplomacy with a domestic dimension and constructivist underpinnings opens the window on norms that are taken for granted in diplomacy and offers the potential for a more inclusive view and practice - a better fit for its time.

AB - Summary Public diplomacy's scholarship and practice are evolving and seeking to adapt to the expanding interests, expectations, connectivity and mobility of the publics that have come to define the field in an organic fashion. The characteristic distinction between international and domestic publics as the key to defining the practice of public diplomacy is increasingly challenged by public audiences that are no longer constrained by such traditional delineations. The attention on the involvement of domestic publics in public diplomacy, or its domestic dimension, has to be understood within this context. This article aims to cast further light on public diplomacy's domestic dimension, with Canada and Australia - two countries that have much in common - as the launch pads for discussion. The article's first section investigates the approach and development of public diplomacy's domestic dimension in both countries and draws out the similarities and differences. The second section identifies the opportunities, challenges and tendencies in its practice as well as the conceptual implications. The article finds that while differences in approach remain, Canada and Australia have more in common than not when it comes to involving domestic audiences in international policy, especially in recent years. Their practice of public diplomacy's domestic dimension appears to be resilient and adaptive in nature, although it has been subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the political climate, leadership styles and governmental preferences, and resource availability. Additionally, reconceptualizing public diplomacy with a domestic dimension and constructivist underpinnings opens the window on norms that are taken for granted in diplomacy and offers the potential for a more inclusive view and practice - a better fit for its time.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870309402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/1871191X-12341239

DO - 10.1163/1871191X-12341239

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 395

EP - 420

JO - The Hague Journal of Diplomacy

JF - The Hague Journal of Diplomacy

SN - 1871-1901

IS - 4

ER -