ABSTRACT

This article argues that middle power theories can be tested by looking at the practice of negotiating multilateral treaties on conventional weapons. Three recent treaties are noteworthy, regulating landmines, cluster munitions and the arms trade. They are noteworthy because they were negotiated through multilateral diplomacy by coalitions of countries often identified as middle powers, and resulted in humanitarian, effects-based regulations. Canada and Australia actively participated in all three and are regularly cited as exemplars of middle powers. On landmines and the arms trade, both behaved as middle power theories would anticipate, embracing multilateralism and seeking a principled outcome. On cluster munitions, neither country conformed to expectations and instead unsuccessfully sought an incremental approach in line with their US ally. These cases therefore offer promising terrain to test claims around middle powers, multilateralism, and principled approaches to world affairs. This article sheds light on these inconsistencies by identifying the contextual changes behind these differing postures through a ‘contexts of diplomacy’ framework. This article also highlights the strategies and tactics of Canada and Australia. This serves two purposes. First, it helps address some of the issues raised in middle power theories. Second, it helps identify modes of middle power diplomacy.

摘要

本文认为，可以通过研究常规武器多边条约谈判的实践来检验中等实力理论。最近的三项条约值得注意，它们对地雷、集束弹药和武器贸易进行了规范。它们值得注意，因为它们是由通常被认为是中等大国的国家联盟通过多边外交谈判达成的，并产生了人道主义、基于效果的法规。加拿大和澳大利亚积极参与了这三个活动，并经常被引用为中等强国的典范。在地雷和武器贸易上，两者都表现得像中等强国理论所预期的那样，拥抱多边主义并寻求有原则的结果。在集束弹药方面，这两个国家都没有达到预期，而是未能成功地寻求与美国盟友一致的渐进方法。因此，这些案例为检验中等强国、多边主义和处理世界事务的原则方法的主张提供了广阔的前景。本文通过“外交背景”框架确定这些不同姿态背后的背景变化，从而阐明这些不一致之处。本文还重点介绍了加拿大和澳大利亚的战略和战术。这有两个目的。首先，它有助于解决中等权力理论中提出的一些问题。其次，它有助于确定中等大国外交的模式。本文还重点介绍了加拿大和澳大利亚的战略和战术。这有两个目的。首先，它有助于解决中等权力理论中提出的一些问题。其次，它有助于确定中等大国外交的模式。本文还重点介绍了加拿大和澳大利亚的战略和战术。这有两个目的。首先，它有助于解决中等权力理论中提出的一些问题。其次，它有助于确定中等大国外交的模式。