Geopolitics Quarterly

Geopolitics Quarterly

A Critical Analysis of Dominant Theoretical Approaches to Science Diplomacy in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Hasan Jabbarinasir 1
Leila Khadem Makhsous Hosseini 2
1 Assistant Professor of Politics and International Relations, Institute of Cultural and Social Studies, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Postdoctoral Student, Moscow State University of International Relations, Russia. Researcher, University of Religions and Sects, Qom, Iran.
10.22034/igq.2026.564839.2139
Abstract
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Science diplomacy has increasingly become a pivotal domain at the intersection of international relations, scientific advancement, and global governance. The emergence of complex geopolitical transformations—including strategic competition among major powers, the securitization of emerging technologies, and the rise of new scientific actors—has fundamentally reshaped the environment in which science diplomacy operates. Early frameworks, most notably the 2010 Royal Society–AAAS tripartite model, conceptualized science diplomacy as a cooperative, universal, and largely apolitical arena. This model framed the field around three functions: Science in Diplomacy, Diplomacy for Science, and Science for Diplomacy, each emphasizing the potential of science to foster trust, enable collaboration, and support peaceful international engagement.
A second influential framework, developed by Gluckman et al. (2017), introduced a more pragmatic and interest-oriented understanding of science diplomacy. Their approach highlighted the role of science as a strategic asset for national interests, while simultaneously acknowledging its potential to generate collective transnational benefits. While these frameworks played an essential role in establishing the conceptual foundations of the field, they were formulated before the onset of profound geopolitical changes now shaping global scientific interactions.
The accelerating rise of AI-driven geopolitics, quantum technology competition, biotechnology rivalries, and data governance disputes challenges existing theoretical models. Moreover, the increased influence of non-state actors—such as multinational technology firms, transnational scientific networks, and indigenous knowledge communities—reveals a need for theoretical refinement. This study offers a critical analysis of the dominant theoretical approaches, identifies their limitations in the contemporary geopolitical context, and outlines conceptual directions for a more comprehensive analytical model.
2. Methodology
This research employs a directed qualitative content analysis, a method well-suited for examining theoretical adequacy against evolving geopolitical realities. The approach allows for a structured interrogation of the assumptions, internal coherence, and empirical applicability of dominant frameworks in science diplomacy.

2.1. Primary Sources and Analytical Corpus
the Royal Society–AAAS and Gluckman et al approaches to science diplomacy are the two foundational theoretical sources which serve as the basis of our analysis:
(1) the Royal Society–AAAS (2010) report, representing the normative-holistic framework;
(2) Gluckman et al. (2017), representing the pragmatic-interest-based framework.
These works are supplemented by recent literature (2020–2024) in science–technology studies, geopolitical risk, global scientific collaboration, and emerging technology governance.
2.2. Coding Strategy
Analytical coding is focused on three dimensions:

Ontological assumptions (conceptualization of science, diplomacy, and power);
Functional mechanisms (how science diplomacy is theorized to operate);
Limitations and contradictions (normative biases, empirical validity, geopolitical blind spots).

2.3. Comparative Evaluation
The frameworks were examined in relation to contemporary geopolitical developments, including:

rising technological powers in the Global South,
securitization of AI, quantum, and biotechnology,
technological decoupling and new blocs,
multi-level and multi-actor governance systems,
disruptions in global knowledge infrastructures.

2.4. Conceptual Synthesis
Insights were integrated into a multi-level model connecting geopolitical structures, policy mechanisms, and knowledge infrastructures. This synthesis highlights conceptual gaps and informs potential revisions to science diplomacy theory.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Limitations of the 2010 Royal Society–AAAS Framework
The tripartite model remains foundational but insufficient for contemporary analysis. The study identifies several challenges:

Conceptual Ambiguity

The boundaries between the three categories lack analytical clarity and often overlap in practice, complicating empirical application.

Normative and Idealistic Orientation

The framework assumes scientific neutrality, universality, and cooperation, overlooking the deeply political and competitive nature of scientific activity in global affairs.

Limited Attention to Power Asymmetries

It does not adequately account for geopolitical inequalities or the role of science in advancing strategic national interests.

Incompatibility with Technological Geopolitics

The framework predates the AI–quantum–biotech revolution, global data regimes, and the rise of private tech giants—now central forces in shaping science diplomacy.
As a result, the 2010 model functions more as an inspirational or normative narrative than a robust analytical tool.
3.2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gluckman et al. (2017) Framework
The 2017 framework offers an important corrective by positioning science diplomacy within the domain of national interests and geopolitical strategy. It acknowledges:

the strategic use of science for national advantage;
the role of multi-sector actors;
the tension between national priorities and global challenges.

Yet, limitations remain:

Static Interpretation of National Interest

In a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment—marked by tech competition, sanctions, and supply chain disruption—national interests are fluid and contingent.

Underrepresentation of Non-State Power Actors

While more inclusive than earlier models, it still fails to fully integrate multinational tech corporations, global scientific platforms, and data-driven governance structures.

Insufficient Treatment of Security Dimensions

The model does not fully account for the securitization of scientific domains, particularly AI, biotech, and cyber.

Lack of Adaptation to Geopolitical Fragmentation

Emerging technological blocs (e.g., U.S.–EU vs. China), South–South scientific alliances, and regional science diplomacy architectures require a more dynamic theoretical lens.
Despite these shortcomings, the model marks an essential transition from idealism to pragmatism.
3.3. Emerging Context: Science Diplomacy in the Age of Techno-political Rivalry
This study demonstrates that science diplomacy now functions within a radically changed landscape shaped by:

Technological Power Politics:
AI, quantum, biotech, and cloud infrastructures act as strategic assets and tools of geopolitical competition.
Multi-Actor Networks:
Scientific collaboration increasingly involves universities, NGOs, private tech firms, indigenous communities, and transnational research alliances.
Redefinition of Interests:
Access to critical technologies, data sovereignty, standard-setting power, and resilience capacities now shape national and transnational priorities.

These transformations render classical frameworks analytically insufficient.
4. Conclusion
This critical analysis concludes that dominant theoretical approaches in science diplomacy—both the normative 2010 model and the pragmatic 2017 model—lack the conceptual capacity to explain the dynamics of the current geopolitical–technoscientific environment. Science diplomacy has evolved into a hybrid ecosystem of power, knowledge, and technology, where cooperation and competition co-exist and where emerging technologies reshape notions of national and global interest.
The study underscores the need for a new conceptual framework that captures:

the interplay between geopolitical structures and scientific infrastructures,
the role of multi-actor and multi-level governance,
the implications of transformative technologies,
fluid national–transnational interest alignments.

Such a framework will enhance theoretical precision and policy relevance for analyzing science diplomacy in an era defined by technological rivalry and geopolitical fragmentation.
Keywords
Science Diplomacy
Geopolitics
Critical Analysis
Emerging Powers of the South
Data-Driven Global Order
Subjects
1.       AAAS (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy Navigating the changing balance of power. URL: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/ New_ Frontiers.pdf.
2.       Adamson, M; Lalli, R. (2021). Global perspectives on science diplomacy: Exploring the diplomacy-knowledge nexus in contemporary histories of science. Centaurus, 63(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12369.
3.       Ajuzieogu, U.C. (2025). The African Union AI Continental Strategy and the Development-Governance Paradox. African Institute for Artificial Intelligence Policyو University of Nigeria. Online. doi:10.13140/ RG. 2.2. 12640.34565.
4.       Arnaldi, S. (2023). The science diplomacy discourse and science policy.  In: Simone Arnaldi(ed). Science diplomacy Foundations and practice.  EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste Press, pp.51-68.
5.       Awan, A.T; Bettini, H.F; Ferreira, G.G; Onuki, J; De Oliveira, A.J. (2025). Building International Science and Innovation Diplomacy Networks for The Advancement of Science in The Global South. Science and Public Policy, scaf053. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaf053.
6.       Barrett, G; Homei, A. (2024). Decentring histories of science diplomacy: cases from Asia. The British Journal for the History of Science, 57(2),165-173. doi:10.1017/S0007087424000578.
7.       Beltran, M; Tjahjono, B; Suoneto, T.N; Tanjung, R; Julião, J. (2023). Rethinking Marine Plastics Pollution: Science Diplomacy and Multi-Level Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(1), 237-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231183909.
8.       Bertelsen, R.G. (2024). Social theory and science diplomacy. version 1; peer review: 2 approved. Open Res Europe, 4,10 URL: https://doi.org/10.12688/ openreseurope.15020.1.
9.       Bertelsen, R.G; et al. (2025). A European Framework for Science Diplomacy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. pp. 22-24 doi:10.2777/9235330.
10.   Buyuktanir Karacan, D. (2021). Science diplomacy as a foreign policy tool for Turkey and the ramifications of collaboration with the EU. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-12 doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00722-z.
11.   Caldeira, M; Sekinairai, A.T; Vierros, M. (2025). Weaving science and traditional knowledge: Toward sustainable solutions for ocean management. Marine Policy, 174, 106591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106591
12.   Colglazier, E.W; Montgomery, K. (2022). Opportunities and Challenges for Science Diplomacy.  Science & Diplomacy.  https://doi.org/10.1126/ scidip. pdf7733.
13.   Csurgai, G. (2022). The main components of geopolitical analysis. Geopolitics and international relations, 13-61. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 978900 443 2086 _ 003.
14.   Dahiya, K. (2024). Global power shifts: Understanding the changing world order. Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(5), 1564-1569 doi:10.29121/ shodhkosh.v5.i5.2024.3453.
15.   Dehghani Firouzabadi, S; Chehrazad, S (2024). Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence; Theoretical Roadmap for Algorithmic Competitions of World Actors. Geopolitics Quarterly, 20(3), 270-313. doi:10.22034/igq.2024. 143237. [In Persian]
16.   Dorji, T; Rinchen, K; Morrison-Saunders, A; Blake, D; Banham, V; Pelden, S. (2024). Understanding How Indigenous Knowledge Contributes to Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. Environmental Management, 74(6), 1101-1123.
17.   Echeverria, L.F; Aquino Valle, K.E; Widmaier Muller, C.N. (2020). Science Diplomacy and South-South Cooperation for Emergency Response: The Case of COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America. Sospol, 6(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.22219/sospol.v6i2.11647.
18.   Epping, E. (2020). Lifting The Smokescreen of Science Diplomacy: Comparing the Political Instrumentation of Science and Innovation Centres. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 7, 111. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00599-4.
19.   Flink, T. (2020). The Sensationalist Discourse of Science Diplomacy: A Critical Reflection. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10032.
20.   Garcia, E. V. (2025). Technology for whom and for what? A Global South View of tech Diplomacy. Global Policy. Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1758-5899.70024.
21.   Garrido-Rebolledo, V. (2025). Impact of The Artificial Intelligence on International Relations: Towards a Global Algorithms Governance. Unisci Journal, 23(67), 9-51. doi:10.31439/unisci-219.
22.   Gluckman, P.D.  (2022). Scientists and Scientific Organizations Need to Play a Greater Role in Science Diplomacy. PLoS Biol, 20(11), e3001848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001848.
23.   Gluckman, P.D; Turekian, V.C; Grimes, R.W; Kishi, T. (2017) Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4),1–13. URL: www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/pragmatic-perspe-  ctive.
24.   Gordon, G. (2024). Digital Sovereignty, Digital Infrastructures, and Quantum Horizons. AI & Soc, 39, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01729-7.
25.   Goveas, J; Sinha, S. (2024). Alternative Science Diplomacy: Giving Indigenous Voices a Seat at the Table. Science & Diplomacy. Online. https://doi.org/10.1126/scidip.adt9883.
26.   Griffths, M. (2016). Report on Conficts, Human Rights and Peacebuilding by Escola de Cultura de Pau. Barcelona: Icaria. http://reliefweb.int/ sites/ reliefweb.int/fles/resources/alerta16i.pdf.
27.   Hill, R. (2023). Anticipatory Co-Governance for Human Rights to Sciences Across Knowledge Systems. The International Journal of Human Rights, 28(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2023.2273290.
28.   Hu, W; Shan, Y; Deng, Y; Fu, N; Duan, J; Jiang, H; Zhang, J. (2023). Geopolitical Risk Evolution and Obstacle Factors of Countries along the Belt and Road and Its Types Classification. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1618. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph20021618.
29.   Idrees, F. (2024). The Influence of Non-State Actors on Global Policy-Making. Journal of Religion and Society, 2(4), 159-172.
30.   Ittekot, V; Bandopadhyay, A. (Eds.). (2023). STI diplomacy and developing countries: Current issues and challenges. Springer.
31.   Jabbari-Nasir, H. (2024). A Theoretical Explanation of The "Soft Power of Higher Education" In International Relations Theories; Potentials and Functions. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 16(2), 101-132. doi: 10.22035/isih.2024.5213.4972.
32.   Jacobsen, L; Olšáková, D. (2020). Diplomats in Science Diplomacy: Promoting Scientific and Technological Collaboration in International Relations. Science and Humanities, 43(4), 465-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bewi.202080402.
33.   Jacques Pitteloud, J. (2024). Not Lost in Translation: Science Diplomacy in a Brave New World. Science & Diplomacy. Online. https://doi.org/10.1126/ scidip.adt9917.
34.   Jagadish, C; Frances Separovic, F. (2024). Science Diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific: An Australian Perspective. Science & Diplomacy. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scidip.adt9906.
35.   Jarrín, M.T. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Diplomacy: Techplomacy (pp. 18-35). In: Clarems Endara (ed.) IA and Diplomacy: International Relations in The Era of Disruptive Technologies. Pub. Yeimy Ramírez Ávila.
36.   Johansson, M; Callaghan, T. V. (2025). The Rise and Fall of Science Diplomacy in The Arctic: The “INTERACT” Experience. Polar Record, 61, e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247425000014.
37.   Kaltofen, C; Acuto, M. (2018). Science Diplomacy: Introduction to a Boundary Problem. Global Policy, 9(3),8–14.
38.   Karacan, D.B; Ruffini, P.B. (2023). Science diplomacy in the Global South—an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 50(4), 742–748. https://doi. org/10.1093/scipol/scad028.
39.   Koolaee, E; Hosseini Taghiabad, S.M. (2019). Science Diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the South Caucasus. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15, 4(60), 99-131.
40.   Kukutai, T. (2023). Indigenous Data Sovereignty – A New Take on an Old Theme. Science, 382 (6674), eadl4664. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science. adl4664.
41.   Kunkel, S. (2021). Science Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: Introduction. Journal of Contemporary History, 56(3), 473-484. https://doi. org/10.1177/00220094211006762.
42.   Legrand, T; Stone, D. (2018). Science Diplomacy and Transnational Governance Impact. Br Politics, 13(3),392-408. doi: 10.1057/s41293-018-0082-z.
43.   Leshner, A. (2014). The Partnership of Scientists and Diplomats. Science & Diplomacy, 3(4), Onlin. URL: https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/ default/files/the_partnership_of_scientists_and_diplomats_science__diplomacy.pdf.
44.   Lima-Toivanen, M; Kulju, M; Sanchez Nieminen, G; Martins, J. T; Moraes Dos Santos, A. (2025). Science Diplomacy in the European and Latin American and Caribbean Research Infrastructure Collaboration. Science and Public Policy, 52(1), 1-15.
45.   Liu, W; Li, J; Xiao, G; Song, Z; Qu, J; Wang, Y; Chen, F. (2023). Research on Science and Technology Cooperation Pattern of the Belt and Road Initiative. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version), 38(9), 1246-1255.
46.   Lord, K.M; Turekian, V.C. (2007). Science and Society. Time for a New Era of Science Diplomacy. Science, 9 (315), 769-70. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1139880.
47.   Mafu, M; Senekane, M. (2023). Quantum technology for development framework as a tool for science diplomacy. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 8, 1279376. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1279376.
48.   Mahenge, N. (2025). Cooperative AI and Science Diplomacy in Africa: Building Inclusive and Safe Futures. Medium. Online. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.5491026.
49.   Mahroogh, F; Mozdkhah, E. (2025). Geopolitical Transformation in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Step Toward Redefining Power in the Era of Geodata. Geopolitics Quarterly, 21(3), 144-176. doi: 10.22034/igq. 2025.482767.1960. [In Persian]
50.   Masters, L. (2024). A Diplomatic Conduit: The Role of Science Diplomacy in Africa (pp. 121-136). In: Key Issues in African Diplomacy. Bristol University Press.
51.   Melchor, L; Rungius, C. (2025). The ‘Matters’ of Science Diplomacy: Individuals. S4D4. URL: https://www.s4d4c.eu/the-matters-of-science-diplomacy-individuals/.
52.   Mohankumar, N.M; Jain, M; Wan, H; Ganguli, S; Wilson, K.D; Anderson, D.M. (2024). Principal Component Regression to Study the Impact of Economic Factors on Disadvantaged Communities. Journal of Social Computing, 5(4), 329-343.
53.   Morgenthau, H.J; Thompson, K.W. (2005). Politics Among Nations. Published by McGraw-Hill Educatio.
54.   Moro-Martín, A. (2017). How Dare You Call Us Diplomats. Nature News, 543(7645), 289.
55.   Mosalnejad, A. (2025). Artificial Intelligence Policymaking and the Power Equation Priorities. Geopolitics Quarterly, 21(3), 13-42. doi: 10.22034/igq. 2025.511096.2023. [In Persian]
56.   Mousai, A; Yazdani, E; Basiri, M. (2024). The Importance of Ukraine and its Role in the Competition and Confrontation between Russia and the West. Geopolitics Quarterly, 19(3), 299-329. [In Persian]
57.   Olšáková, D. (2023). A Review of Science Diplomacy: Theoretical Evolution to a Post-Naïve Approach and Its Relevance for the Czech Republic. Czech Journal of International Relations, Online. URL: https://doi.org/10. 32422/ cjir.430.
58.   Paár-Jákli, G. (2020). Building Bridges through Science Diplomacy: Accelerating progress toward sustainable development. United Nations Headquarters, Conference,  https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/action-days-side-event.
59.   Papastergiadis, N. (2017). The end of the Global South and the cultures of the South. Thesis Eleven, 142(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513 617712790.
60.   Polejack, A; Goveas, J; Robinson, S; Flink, T; Ferreira, G. (2020). Where is the Global South in the Science Diplomacy Narrative? Online. URL:  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4278557 .
61.   Polejack, A; Gruber, S; Wisz, M.S. (2021). Atlantic Ocean Science Diplomacy in Action: The Pole-To-Pole All Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00729-6.
62.   Raev, A; Minkman, E. (2020). Emotional Policies: Introducing Branding as A Tool for Science Diplomacy. Humanities and social sciences communications, 7, 126. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00617-5.
63.   Raghav, P; Rai, T. (2025). A Phenomenological Perspective of Science Diplomacy of India and Assessing STI Policies. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2426260.
64.   Rashidi, Y; Abolhassani, A. (2026). Virtual Geography vs Political Geography of Cyberspace in Iranian Academia. Geopolitics Quarterly, 21(4), 58-76. doi: 10.22034/igq.2025.465070.1923.
65.   Rees, G; Buntgen, U. (2024) Russian Dilemma for Global Arctic Science. Ambio, 53, 1246–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02038-z.
66.   Robinson, S; Adamson, M; Barrett, G; Jacobsen, L.L; Turchetti, S; Homei, A; Marton, P; Aronowsky, L; Choudry, I; Gärdebo, J. (2023). The Globalization of Science Diplomacy in The Early 1970s: A Historical Exploration. Science and Public Policy, 50(4), 749–758. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/scipol/scad026.
67.   Ronda-Pupo, G.A (2025). Dynamics of the Evolution of Science Diplomacy Research (1999– 2024). Bibliotecas. Anales de Investigacion, 21(2), 1-24.
68.   Ruffini, P.B. (2017). Science Diplomacy is Gaining “Soft Power”. Framework of the HSE Univercity ISSEK Master's Programme "Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation. URL: https://lsts.hse. ru/en/news/203686890.html .
69.   Ruffini, P.B. (2020). Conceptualizing Science Diplomacy in the Practitioner-Driven Literature: A Critical Review. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun, 7, 124. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020- 00609-5.
70.   Ruffini, P.B. (2023). Science Diplomacy. On Several Basic Notions and Key Questions. (pp.15-34) In: Simone Arnaldi(ed). Science diplomacy Foundations and practice.  EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste Press.
71.   Rüland, A. (2023). The Effectiveness of Science Diplomacy between Adversarial States: Insights from US–Cuban and US–Iranian Science Collaborations. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 18(4), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10147.
72.   Rungius, C. (2020). SESAME a Synchrotron Light Source in The Middle East: An International Research Infrastructure in The Making. In: Young, M., Flink T., Dall, E. (eds.) Science Diplomacy in the Making: Case-based insights from the S4D4C project.
73.   Rungius, C; Flink, T. (2020). Romancing Science for Global Solutions: On Narratives and Interpretative Schemas of Science Diplomacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7, 102. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s415 99-020-00585-w.
74.   Saipiatuddin, K.I; Sari, A.R; Rifaldi, M.R; Hendarto, T. (2024). Geopolitical Tensions in The Modern World: A Comprehensive Global Risk Analysis and The Path Forward for International Diplomacy. International Journal of Science and Society, 6(1), 982-994. https://doi.org/10. 54783/ ijsoc.v6i1. 1096.
75.   Schreer, B. (2022). A Geopolitical and Geostrategic Blueprint for NATO’s China Challenge. Comparative Strategy, 41(2), 189-202.
76.   Science Diplomacy in a Fractured World. (2025). ISSUES in Science and Technology, 41(2). Online. URL: https://issues.org/science-diplomacy-turekian-gluckman-forum/ /.
77.   Sharma, M; Mindermann, S; Rogers-Smith, C; Leech, G; Snodin, B; Ahuja, J; Sandbrink, J.B; Monrad, J.T; Altman, G; Dhaliwal, G. (2021). Understanding the Effectiveness of Government Interventions Against the Resurgence of COVID-19 in Europe. Nature communications, 12(1), 5820.
78.   Sinha, S. (2023). Addressing Global Challenges Through South-South Cooperation and Science Diplomacy. In: Mohamed Moussaoui(ede.). Global Science’s Cooperation Opportunities, Challenges, and Good Practices.  IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 1-27. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7874-5.ch001.
79.   Sogbanmu, T.O; Gordon, H.S.J; El Youssfi, L; Obare, F.D; Duncan, S; Hicks, M; Aremu, A.O. (2023). Indigenous Youth Must Be at the Forefront of Climate Diplomacy. Nature, 620(7973), 273-276.
80.   Soler, M.G. (2021). Science Diplomacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 670001.
81.   Taitingfong, R; Martinez, A; Hudson, M; Lovett, R; Maher, B; Prehn, J; Carroll, S. R. (2024). Aligning Policy and Practice to Implement CARE with FAIR Through Indigenous Peoples. Protocols. Acta Borealia, 41(2), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2024.2410112 .
82.   The Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy (2019). URL: https://www. s4d4c.eu/s4d4c-1st-global-meeting/the-madrid-declaration-on-science-dip- lomacy/.
83.   Torres-Jarrín, M; Riordan, S. (2023). Science Diplomacy (pp. 31-54). In: Science Diplomacy, Cyberdiplomacy and Techplomacy in EU-LAC Relations. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36868-4_3.
84.   Turchetti, S. (2020) The Unflinching Mr. Smith and the Nuclear Age. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 43(4), 521–541. doi:10.1002/ bewi. 202000019.
85.   Turchetti, S; Lalli, R.  (2020). Envisioning a “Science Diplomacy 2.0”: On Data, Global Challenges, and Multi-Layered Networks. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 144. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00636-2.
86.   Turekian, V; Gluckman, P. (2024). Science Diplomacy and the Rise of Technopoles. Issues in Science and Technology, 41(1), 51-55. https:// doi. org/10.58875/PSYH6414.
87.   Yazdanpanah, M; Moradi, M; Asgarkhani, A. (2024). Scientific and Technological Diplomacy and Regional Development of Iran. International Relations Research, 13(4), 175-191. doi: 10.22034/irr.2024.195854. [In Persian]
88.   Zhang, J.Y. (2024). Science Diplomacy and China’s New “Self-Prioritizing” Development Mindset. Science & Diplomacy. Online. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scidip.adt9926 .
89.   Zúñiga, N; Burton, S.D; Blancato, F; Carr, M. (2024). The Geopolitics of Technology Standards: Historical Context for US, EU and Chinese Approaches. International Affairs, 100(4), 1635-1652. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ia/iiae124.
Geopolitics Quarterly
Volume 22, Issue 3
Summer 2026
Pages 70-108

  • Receive Date 07 January 2026
  • Revise Date 16 February 2026
  • Accept Date 05 May 2026