https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 2, 2025
435
PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Otabek Nayimov
PhD in Political Science
Alfraganus University Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article aims to cover the rising importance of parliamentary diplomacy in
realizing foreign policy and international agendas of national states. In so doing, the author
attempts to explain the specifics of parliaments as actors of foreign policy, their unique
approaches to addressing major issues as well as the impact of parliamentary diplomacy as the
alternative form of diplomacy. Author also touched upon the growing parliamentary dimension
of international relations and the spread of the ideals of parliamentarism over the recent decades.
Key words:
Parliamentary diplomacy, foreign policy, parliamentarism, political dialogue,
parliamentary assemblies, international organizations.
Among major hallmarks of contemporary international relations one can certainly add the
growing involvement of parliaments in foreign policy and international affairs. Apart from their
traditional responsibilities, modern parliaments are closely participating in addressing so called
“democratic gap” in international politics thus trying to create more representative, transparent
and democratic global governance. It is therefore the parliamentary factor is more visible in the
works of international and regional organizations. These organizations are keenly aware of the
rising parliamentary impact and acknowledge the global parliamentary balances and checks of
their activities. Considering the phenomenal rise of parliament as an international actor some
scholars even referred to 20
th
century as a period of ‘parliamentarization of international
relations
’.
Currently, we cannot imagine any single area of national or international politics without
parliamentary participation. The parliament formed through free and fair elections is not only
vital for the representation of peoples’ interests domestically but also a key asset in promoting
national interests abroad thus improving international image of the country. Growing
parliamentary dialogue has significantly enhancing the dynamics of modern international affairs,
its forms and substance. Moreover, professional contacts between parliamentarians can
potentially be instrumental in mitigating conflict situations and building more favorable
environment for mutual cooperation. These contacts will further support parliamentary
diplomacy and help to build trust as well as bridge differences in positions.
Nowadays, the expansion of parliamentary authorities over foreign and international affairs led
to the creation of an entirely new field called
‘parliamentary diplomacy’
. Given the fact that
parliament has traditionally been an internal political actor with essentially legislative and
representative authorities, the respectively new role of parliament as a foreign policy instrument
is yet to be properly analyzed. A clear-cut definition of what exactly consists of parliamentary
diplomacy is also missing. That’s why we do not have a universally accepted definition properly
explaining ever-increasing tendency of foreign parliamentary activities.
1
Sabic Zlatko, Building Democratic and Responsible Global Governance: The Role of International Parliamentary
Institutions//Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 61 №2. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 260.
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 2, 2025
436
Nevertheless, the academic interest to the phenomenon of parliamentary diplomacy is growing
over the last years. For example, as for Dutch legislative scholars, the term of parliamentary
diplomacy is used ‘to describe the wide range of international activities undertaken by members
of parliament in order to increase mutual understanding between countries, to better conduct
government scrutiny, to democratically represent their people abroad and to increase the
democratic legitimacy of inter-governmental institutions
’. On the other hand, the Portal for
Parliamentary Development defines parliamentary diplomacy as ‘the means by which two or
more parliaments conduct an ongoing dialogue with regard to key international issues through
institutionally or individually
’. While accepting the elusiveness of a standard definition, R.
Cutler argues that ‘parliamentary diplomacy represents an important middle ground between the
traditional level of interstate diplomacy and the new level of transnational co-operation amongst
grassroots non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
’. By summarizing many of its imperfect
definitions G. Hamilton laconically referred to parliamentary diplomacy as‘
diplomacy with a
democratic mandate
’.
However, we can argue that the existing definitional confusions will disappear over time once
the role of parliament as a foreign and international actor becomes more evident. Arguably, this
problem can also be attributed to distinctively evolving features of parliamentary diplomacy as a
new field of political discipline as well as its vague authorities.
Regarded as a world organization of parliaments, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) is at the
forefront of global efforts to promote representative democracy and parliamentary diplomacy,
and thus challenging democratic deficit in global decision making by questioning executive
dominance in world politics. Likewise, parliamentary involvement is also deepening in such
untraditional areas like sustainable development, trade, tackling climate change and
demographical issues. In order to stimulate the rising parliamentary contribution to international
development in general, and the role of the IPU in particular, the United Nations has granted a
permanent observer status to the IPU (2002) and even honored it as a ‘unique parliamentary
counterpart of the United Nations
’.
In contemporary international system characterized with diverse state and non-state actors, the
parliament’s profile as an embodiment of democracy will continue to expand. Even now,
parliaments are exercising significant influence over global decision making through national,
regional and international parliamentary institutions. According to George Noulas, three major
factors are important for a parliament to play a wider role in foreign affairs. They are the
‘historical origins’ of the country, its ‘political system’ and the overall ‘position in the
international arena
’. In a deeply-connected, globalised world, we can expect further expansion
of parliamentary powers, civil society institutions, and other non-state entities in creating, as they
wish, a more representative, accountable and democratically-governed international order.
Critiques of parliamentary diplomacy
2
Weisglas W. Frans, Boer de Gonnie, Parliamentary Diplomacy. //The Hague Journal of Diplomacy №2, 2007, 93-
99-pp.
3
Parliamentary diplomacy, Portal for Parliamentary Development. Available at:
4
Cutler Robert. The OSCE’s Parliamentary Diplomacy in Central Asia and the South Caucasus in Comparative
Perspective.// Studia Diplomatica, No.2, 2006.
5
Hamilton G. J. Secretary-General of the Senate of the Kingdom of Netherlands. Parliamentary diplomacy:
diplomacy with a democratic mandate. The speech was given at the conference of the Association of Secretaries-
General of Parliaments, Quebec, 2012.
6
For more information please refer to the Declaration of the Second World Conference of Speakers of Parliaments
organized by the IPU, held in New-York in August-September, 2000. Available at:
7
George Noulas. The Role of Parliamentary Diplomacy in Foreign Policy.// Foreign Policy Journal, October , 2011.
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 2, 2025
437
It is worth noting that the end of the Cold War sparked somewhat euphoric feelings about the
formation of a new world order with the international institutions in alliance with global civil
society at its core. Unfortunately, these hopes have later waned as the world encountered
different kinds of problems and challenges. The President of the New America Foundation, A.
Slaughter was right when she famously quipped that ‘the new world order led by the United
Nations guaranteeing international peace and security is a chimera
’. Her criticism is not an
isolated one. Several scholars
have traditionally been very skeptical of the role of international
institutions and have often questioned the actual impact of parliaments in international politics.
For example, a distinguished American political theorist J. Mearsheimer claims that
‘international organizations (institutions) have minimal influence on state behavior and thus hold
little promise for promoting stability in the post-Cold War world
’.
Those who critically examine the role of parliamentarians as foreign policy actors point to such
major flaws as the institutional deficiencies of parliamentary assemblies, implementation
capabilities and also the reluctance of states to endow parliaments with substantial powers (Sabic
2007). The critiques of parliament also refer to some common weaknesses of legislatures such as,
the lack of coherent diplomatic agenda and institutional consistence, the lack of resources and
power. But more importantly, they are highly skeptical of parliaments’ real influence over
international policy decisions. It is therefore, we sometimes witness such sarcastic comments
calling parliamentary diplomacy as ‘nothing more than parliamentary tourism’.
Conclusion
It is fair to say that the rise of parliament as an international actor has undoubtedly changed the
nature of international relations over the last years. Parliamentary dimension is becoming more
visible in the works of many international organizations and not surprisingly, these organizations
are aware of the growing legislative scrutiny directed at their world-wide activities. The times
when states acted solely and hence international affairs were perceived to be their exclusive
prerogative have long gone to history. With significant public support for being a major source
of legitimacy, parliamentary diplomacy is more vigorously pursuing its ambitious goals of
building more open, transparent and responsive world order. The future endeavors of
international parliamentarians will be a test for parliament’s vitality as a force for good and a
better response to its critics. For the broader global community the rise of parliamentary
diplomacy will only be a desired outcome creating more congenial environment to change the
conflict stricken world.
REFERENCE
1.
Cutler, R. (2006), The OSCE’s Parliamentary Diplomacy in Central Asia and the South
Caucasus in Comparative Perspective.// Studia Diplomatica, No.2, 2006.
2.
Malamud A., Stavridis S. (2011), Parliaments and parliamentarians as International
Actors. Ashgate Research Companion. 2011.
3.
Mearsheimer J. John (1995), The False Promise of International Institutions.
//International Security.
4.
Noulas, G. (2011), The Role of Parliamentary Diplomacy in Foreign Policy.// Foreign
Policy Journal, October, 2011.
8
Slaughter Anne-Maria, The Real New World Order.// Foreign Affairs Magazine, October, 1997.
9
The representatives of Political Realism are often critical of parliament’s foreign policy role. Political realists do
not believe in a world order ruled by international organizations or parliamentarians. They firmly hold a view that
executives (states) are the only important actors in international politics.
10
Mearsheimer J. John, The False Promise of International Institutions. //International Security, 1994/95, Vol. 19,
No3, pp. 7-8.
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 2, 2025
438
5.
Sabic Z. (2008) Building Democratic and Responsible Global Governance: The Role of
International Parliamentary Institutions//Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 61 №2. Oxford University
Press, 2008.
6.
Slaughter Anne-Maria. The Real New World Order.// Foreign Affairs Magazine, October,
1997.
7.
Weisglas W. Frans, Boer de Gonnie (2007), Parliamentary Diplomacy. //The Hague
Journal of Diplomacy №2, 2007.
