Institutionalizing Urban Diplomacy in Iran: A Comparative Analysis of the Institutional-Legal Gap in Light of the Experiences of France, South Korea, Turkey, and China

Despite the growing expansion of international interactions by Iranian metropolises—from participation in global city networks to the conclusion of city twinning agreements—the country’s legal system still lacks a codified framework for determining jurisdiction, oversight mechanisms, and financial transparency regarding such activities. Employing a Most Different Systems Design (MDSD) approach and comparative institutional analysis, this article examines Iran’s situation in light of the experiences of four countries with substantially different political systems—France, South Korea, Turkey, and China. The findings demonstrate that, regardless of the degree of political centralization or decentralization, all four countries have reached an explicit decision regarding the position of urban diplomacy, either through its normalization as a policy instrument or through its explicit securitization. In contrast, Iran remains absent from the axis of legal institutionalization. Drawing preliminarily on the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory, this article argues that this institutional gap should not be interpreted as a sign of the absence of political will; rather, it is the outcome of the political costs associated with explicit decision-making within a structure characterized by multiple and parallel centers of foreign policy authority. Under such conditions, “strategic ambiguity” becomes the default institutional option. Finally, based on the common institutional elements identified among the four comparative cases, the article proposes a conceptual model for institutionalizing urban diplomacy in Iran.

کلیدواژه ها:

Urban Diplomacy ، Paradiplomacy ، Institutional-Legal Gap ، Securitization Theory ، Comparative Analysis ، Iran