For a general literature on the role of constituent units of a
federal state in International relations see Hon. Paul Martin, Federalism and
International Relations (Ottawa, Queen's press, 1968); Daniel Elazar Ivo
Duchacek, and Earl Fry in I. Duchaek, D Latouche, and G. Stevenson, eds;
Perforated Sovereignties and International Relations: Trans Sovereign
Contacts and Sub National Governments (New York : Greenwood Press, 1988);
Hans J Michelmann and Panayotis Soldatos, eds; Federalism and International
Relations: The Role of Subnational Units (Oxford : Clarendon press,
1990); Brian Hocking, ed. Foreign Relations and Federal States
(London, New York : Leicester University Press, 1993 See also, Duchacek's The
Territorial Dimensions of Politics : Within Among and Across
Nations (Boulder : Westview Press, 1986, Chapters 8, 9 and 10; and his,
Towards a Typology of New Subnational Government Actors in International
Relations (Berkely : Institute of Governmental Studies, 1987). For a
broader perspective on the multiple roles of non-nation-state actors in the
international arena, see Rebert Kedhane and Joseph Nye, Transnational
Relations and World Politics (Cambridge : Harward University Press, 1972)
and their, “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organisations”,
World Politics (Princeton), vol. 27, No. 1, 1974, pp.
39–62.
2.
MahlerG, New Dimensions of Canadian Federalism
(Rutherford, NJ. : F. Dickinson
University Press, 1987), p. 5; and P.
Hogg, Constitutional law of Canada (Toronto : Carswell, 1985), p.
242.
3.
(1937) AC 326.
4.
MorinJ.Y., “La Conclusion d'Accords Internationseaux Par Les
Provinces Canadiennes a la Lumiere du Droit Compare”Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 3
(1967)
5.
Hogg, n. 2, pp. 254–55.
6.
KincaidJ, “Constituent Diplomacy in Federal Politics and the
Nation State : Conflict and Co-operation,”MichelmannH. and SoldatosP., eds; Federalism and International Relations: The Role of
Subnational Units (Oxford :
Claredon Press1990), p. 68.
7.
For an elaboration of these cases, see A. Appadurai,
Domestic Roots of India's Foreign Policy (Delhi : Oxford, 1981)
chapter VI; and N K Jha, “Domestic Compulsions in India's Foreign Policy”, Ph.D.
dissertation, JNU, New Delhi, 1990, Chapter II.
8.
See for details, Shelton U. Kodikara, Foreign Policy of Sri
Lanka : A Third World perspective (New Delhi: Chankaya 1982), pp. 39–45.
Also his, Indo-Ceylone Relations since Independence (Colombo,
1965).
9.
Madras Legislative Assembly, Debates, 25 October,
1948, p. 719.
10.
Ibid, p. 738. One member of the Madras State Assembly went so far
as to say in 1949 that “the fate of the Tamils of Ceylon must be decided by the
Madras Ministry and not by the Central Ministry”, cited in Appadurai, no. 7, p.
208.
11.
Madras Legislative Assembly, Debates, 25 October,
1955, p. 661.
12.
Ibid., vol. I, 12 May 1952, p. 246.
13.
For a detailed comparison of the Sri Lanka and Bangladeshi case,
see Nalini Kant Jha, “The Opposition to Indo-Sri Lanka Accord : Failure to Understand
a Complex Reality”, Third Concept (New Delhi), Vol. 2, no. 1, March
1988, pp. 19–20.
14.
See, for instance, Zaheer Ahmed Sayeed, “What do Jet-setting Chief
Ministers Accomplish?” The Hindu (Madras), 16 December,
1997.
15.
For an overview of the role of provinces in the making of Canada's
foreign policy, see Kim Nossal, The Politics of Canadian Foreign
Policy (Scarborough, Ont: Prentice Hall, 1997); Eliot J Feldman and Lily
Gardner Feldman, “The Impact of Federalism on the Organisation of Canadian Foreign
Policy” Publius Vol. 14, No. 4, 1984; P.R. Johannson, “Provincial
International Activities” International Journal (Toronto), Vol. 33,
No. 1 Winter 1977–78 pp. 128–49.
16.
Douglas M. Brown “The Evolving Role of the Provinces in Canada -
US Trade Relations in Douglas M Brown and Earl H Fry, eds, States and
Provinces in the International Economy (Berkeley, Calif, 1993), pp.
93–144.
17.
A comparision of the perspectives in the literature on the role of
federalism in Canadian foreign policy over the last 20 years shows the increasing
role of provinces in this regard. See. for example, Ronald G. Atkey, “The role of the
Provinces in International Affairs”, International Journal
(Toronto), Vol. 26, Winter 1970–71, pp. 249–73. Howard A. Leeson and Wilfried
Vanderelest, eds, External Affairs and Canadian Federalism: The History of a
Dilema (Toronto : Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1973); Johannson
“Provincial International Activities”, n. 22 (1977–8); the contributions on Canadian
provinces to Choix 14 (1982); Feldman and Feldman “The Impact of Federalism on the
Organisation of Canadian Foreign Policy”, n. 22 (1984); Hans J. Michelmann,
“Federalism and International Relations in Canada and the Federal Republic of
Germany”, International Journal, Vol. 41, Summer 1986, pp. 539–71; the contributions
on Canada in Duchacek, Latouche and Stevenson, eds; Perforated
Sovereignities and Inter national Relations, n. 1
(1988); Annemarie Jacomy-Millette, “Les activities International's does provinces
Canadiennes”, in Paul Painchaud, ed., De Mackenzie King a pierre Trudeau : Quarante
Ans de Diplomatic Canadienne (Quebec : Les Presses de L'universite Laval, 1989), pp.
81–104; and the Canadian selections in Michelmann and Soldatos, eds.
Federalism and International Relations n. 1
(1990).
18.
See, for details, Feldman and Feldman, “Impact of Federalism”, n.
22.
19.
Kim Richard Nossal, The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy
(Scarborough, Ont; Prentice Hall, 1977) pp. 293–314.
20.
Thomas Levy and Don Munton, “Federal-Provincial Dimensions of
State-Provincial Relations”, International Perspectives,
March-April, 1976, p. 24.
21.
Ibid; p. 25.
22.
Johanson, Provincial International Activities n. 22, pp.
363–64.
23.
See, for instance, Kim Richard Nossal, “Micro-diplomacy”, The Case
of Ontario and Economic Sanctions against South Africa”, in W. M. Chandler and C. W.
Zollner, eds; Challenges to Federalism: Policy Making in Canada and the
Federal Republic of Germany (Kingston : Queen's University, 1989), pp.
235–50.
24.
Kim Richard Nossal, “The Impact of Provincial Government in
Canadian Foreign Policy”, in Earl. H. Fry, eds., n. 23, p. 236.
25.
The term, “intermestic” is usually attributed to Beyless masming,
“The Congress, the Executive and Intermestic Affairs”, Foreign
Affairs (New York), Vol. 55, January 1977. For an overview of literature
on domestic politics and foreign policy linkages, see Jha, n. 7, chapter
I.
26.
Ibid, n. 31, pp. 234–35.
27.
Nossal, Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy, n. 26, p.
307.
28.
Michael Hart, Bill Dymond and Colin Robertson, Decision at
Midnight: Inside the Canada - US Free Trade Negotiations (Vancouver:
University of British Columbia, 1994), p. 139.
29.
Nossal n. 31, p. 238.
30.
The Politics of Quebec - Paris - Ottawa triangle show how the
contending conceptions of political community held by Canadians of all sorts can
generate deep controversy between levels of government. For details see J. L.
Granatstein and Robert Bothwell, Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian
Foreign Policy (Toronto : University of Toronto Press, 1990), Chapter
5.
31.
Despite Ottawa's opposition, Quebic maintains a tourist office in
Washington since 1978 and which has done more than merely dispensing tourist
information about Quebic. For details, see Gorden Mace, Louis Belanger, and Ivan
Bernier, “Canadian Foreign Policy and Quebec”, in Maxwell A. Cameron and Maureen
Appel Molot, eds; Canada Among Nations : Democracy and Foreign
Policy (Ottawa : Carleton University Press, 1995), p.
127.
