Role of Sub-national Actors in North American Security

  • Paweł Frankowski


This chapter examines the nature and potential concerns and challenges of still unexplored phenomenon of sub-national actors’ activity in the world politics, especially in the North America. The chapter finds that American non-central governments, even have clear agenda in foreign affairs, are more limited by structured ideas and through structured institutions, than through interests on the states’ level. The chapter also argues that to deal with the rise of states’ activity in foreign affairs, more attention should be given to the question of change and continuity in relations between central and non-central governments, but also between sub-national governments in the North America.


United states Canada Sub-national governments Environment Cooperation 


  1. Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, François Rocher, and Radha Jhappan. 2007. Politics in North America: Redefining Continental Relations. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Google Scholar
  2. Adelman, David, and Kirsten H. Engel. 2008. Adaptive Federalism: The Case Against Reallocating Environmental Regulatory Authority. Minnesota Law Review 92 (6): 1796–1850.Google Scholar
  3. Bache, Ian, and Matthew Flinders (eds.). 2004. Multi-level Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benz, Arthur. 2012. Yardstick Competition and Policy Learning in Multi-level Systems. Regional & Federal Studies 22 (3): 251–267. Scholar
  5. Bilder, Richard. 1989. The Role of States and Cities in Foreign Relations. American Journal of International Law 83 (4): 821–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blatter, Joachim. 2001. Debordering the World of States. European Journal of International Relations 7 (2): 175–209. Scholar
  7. Cornago, Noé. 2010. On the Normalization of Sub-state Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5 (1–2): 11–36. Scholar
  8. Domínguez, Jorge I., and Rafael Fernández de Castro. 2001. The United States and Mexico: Between Partnership and Conflict. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Duchacek, Ivo D. 1990. Perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Typology of New Actors in International Relations. In Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units, ed. Hans J. Michelmann and Panayotis Soldatos, 1–33. Oxford: Clarednon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eatmon, Thomas D. 2009. Paradiplomacy and Climate Change: American States as Actors in Global Climate Governance. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1 (2): 153–165. Scholar
  11. Elazar, Daniel. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States, 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  12. Engel, Kirsten H. 2009. Whither Subnational Climate Change Initiatives in the Wake of Federal Climate Legislation? Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39 (3): 432–454.
  13. Fry, Earl H. 1990. State and Local Governments in the International Arena. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509 (1): 118–127. Scholar
  14. Gardner Edwin I., Jr., Robert S. Montjoy, and Douglas J. Watson. 2001. Moving into Global Competition: A Case Study of Alabama’s Recruitment of Mercedes‐Benz. Review of Policy Research 18 (3): 80–93.
  15. Gress, Franz. 1996. Interstate Cooperation and Territorial Representation in Intermestic Politics. Publius 26 (1): 53–71. Scholar
  16. Halberstam, Daniel. 2001. Foreign Affairs of Federal Systems: A National Perspective on the Benefits of State Participation. The Villanova Law Review 46 (5): 1015–1068.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, A., J. Madison, and J. Jay. 2007. The Federalist Papers. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Henkin, Louis. 1996. Foreign Affairs and the Constitution, 2nd ed. New York and London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Hollis, Duncan B. 2010. Unpacking the Compact Clause. Texas Law Review 88 (4): 741–806.Google Scholar
  20. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2003. Unraveling the Central State, but How?: Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–243.Google Scholar
  21. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2013. Beyond Federalism: Estimating and Explaining the Territorial Structure of Government. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43 (2): 179–204.
  22. Howard, Peter. 2004. The Growing Role of States in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the State Partnership Program. International Studies Perspectives 5 (2): 179–196. Scholar
  23. Kazazis, Alexander. 2012. Western Climate Initiative: The Fate of an Experiment in Subnational Cross-Border Environmental Collaboration. The Brooklyn Journal of International Law 37 (3): 1177–1214.Google Scholar
  24. Kincaid, John. 2011. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Unique Artifact of a Bygone Era. Public Administration Review 71 (2): 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ku, Julian G. 2003. The State of New York Does Exist: How the States Control Complicance with International Law. North Carolina Law Review 82: 457–529.Google Scholar
  26. LaCroix, Alison L. 2010. The Ideological Origins of American Federalism. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Maunula, Marko. 2010. Guten Tag, Y’all: Globalization and the South Carolina Piedmont, 1950–2000. Athens and London: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  28. McAllister, Lesley K. 2009. Regional Climate Regulation: From State Competition to State Collaboration. San Diego Journal of Climate & Energy Law 1: 81–102.Google Scholar
  29. Pacheco, Marc R. 2008. Going Global. Commonwealth Magazine, 87–89.Google Scholar
  30. Paquin, Stéphane, and Annie Chaloux. 2012. Green Paradiplomacy in North America: Successes and Limits of the NEG-ECP. In Sustainable Development and Subnational Governments: Policy-Making and Multi-level Interactions, ed. Hans Bruyninckx, Sander Happaerts, and Karoline van den Brande, 217–236. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2004. Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? In Multi-level Governance, ed. Ian Bache and Matthew V. Flinders, 75–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rabe, Barry. 2011. Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 41 (3): 494–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rakove, Jack N. 2007. James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic, 3rd ed. New York: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Resnik, Judith. 2009. What’s Federalism for? In The Consitution in 2020, ed. Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, 269–284. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sackinger, R. Bruce. 2005. Paradiplomatic Maneuvers on the Longest Undefended Border: National and Subnational Fire Protection Agreements between Canada and the United States. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution 13 (2): 319–350.Google Scholar
  36. Sharp, Paul. 2009. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spiro, Peter J. 1999. Foreign Relations Federalism. University of Colorado Law Review 70: 1223–1276.Google Scholar
  38. Stumberg, Robert, and Matthew C. Porterfield. 2001. Who Preempted the Massachusetts Burma Law? Federalism and Political Accountability Under Global Trade Rules. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31 (3): 173–204.Google Scholar
  39. Swaine, Edward T. 2000. Crosby as Foreign Relations Law. Virginia Journal of International Law 41 (2): 481–508.Google Scholar
  40. Trachtman, J.P. 1998. Nonactor States in US Foreign Relations: The Massachusetts Burma Law. American Society of International Law Proceedings 92: 350–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verney, Douglas V. 1995. Federalism, Federative Systems, and Federations: The United States, Canada, and India. Publius 25 (2): 81–97.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, Leanne M. 2007. The Fate of the Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause after Garamendi and Crosby. Columbia Law Review 107 (3): 746–789.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations