The Evolution of UNESCO Associate Membership (1983-2017). From a Colonial to a Post-Colonial Paradigm?

In a globalized world in which the dividing lines between international and domestic affairs are blurred, sub-state entities with different names and legal entitlements (regions, federated states, Non-Self-Governing Territories, Self-Governing Countries, Integrated Jurisdictions) conduct their external policies (paradiplomacy) to defend and promote their economic, cultural and political interests internationally. Associated Membership (AM) of UNESCO -a United Nations Specialized Agency- offers substate entities a way to participate in international affairs in the sphere of their internal competences. The current 11 Associate Member --- Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten(formerly the Netherlands Antilles), Anguilla, British Virgen Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Tokelau, Faroe Islands, New Caledonia-- testify to the significant changes that this status has undergone between 1983 – 2017. The flexibility of these arrangements allows to respond and accommodate possible demands of substate entities in the future. Although there is no legal requirement for AM to be a colony, the vast majority follow, in practice and policy-wise, a logic based upon de jure and de facto features, coined in colonial times. UNESCO provides however for the evolution and change in the application and adaptation of norms, in accordance with emerging needs. Illustrating a three-stage “life-circle” of norms, Tokelau, Macao, and Faroe illustrate these shift in norms: the emergence of new norms (such as participation in the same UNESCO Region as the parent state, territorial contiguity instead of overseas, and the fact that Faroe is a substate entity without any colonial past); the cascade of shifting norm to other cases, illustrated by the fact that Macao’s and Tokelau’s participation in the same UNESCO region also applies to Faroe Islands; and the norm internalization by UNESCO, Member States and AM. These new norms not only pave the way to admit other AM that respond to these criteria, but also indicate that new norms can always been created to accommodate new situations. Whereas not having responsibility for the conduct of their international relations is pre-requisite for UNESCO AM, Associate Membership represents an important external policy tool/instrument for these members. This lack of final responsibility of international relations is not obstacle for Associate Members to develop a paradiplomacy towards UNESCO in the field of their competences. The strength of paradiplomacy is directly related to the existence of a broader policy towards other UN agencies as well as with AM’s political nature. As remnants of traditional colonialism, a first category of AM -Non-Self-governing Territories- do not have broad competences in external affairs and their paradiplomacy towards UNESCO is rather weak; a second category -Autonomous Countries that have been partially or fully decolonized, and enjoy substantial self-rule- have developed rudimentary forms of paradiplomacy which is particularly active towards UNESCO. In the last, post-colonial, case of the Faroe -where self-rule is strongest-, paradiplomacy towards UNESCO is embedded in a broader paradiplomacy strategy to make its voice heart and build its international subjectivity. Consensus between the AM, its parent state presenting the application request and UNESCO characterizes Associated Membership. The right to voice without vote represents an inclusive formula that does not alter nor threaten power relations inside UNESCO. The conflict-preventive potential of Associate Membership is an additional way to open the range of options to exercise the right to self-determination, which characterizes the cases of all AM.