How Cities’ Engagement in Environmental Urban Diplomacy Reshapes, and is in Turn Shaped By, City–State Relations: A Typology Drawn from Three C40 Member Cities

This paper explores how cities’ engagement in environmental urban diplomacy reshapes, and is simultaneously conditioned by, city–state relations. Environmental urban diplomacy refers to the ways in which cities operate beyond their borders to advance environmental and climate agendas through transnational municipal networks (TMNs) such as the C40. Drawing on qualitative research in three C40 member cities: Copenhagen, Tel Aviv–Yafo, and Dakar, the paper develops a typology that captures how cities’ engagement in environmental municipal diplomacy shapes their relationship with the nation-state. The three cities examined in this study are all considered global cities and members of the selective C40 network, yet they differ significantly in their institutional and political contexts, their forms of environmental leadership, and their capacity both to drive transformative change domestically and to influence the network itself. The typology identifies three types of cities: the Ambitious-Champion (Copenhagen), which aligns with its national government’s climate priorities while amplifying them both domestically and globally; the Progressive-Steward (Tel Aviv-Yafo), which positions itself as more progressive than its state and acts as a local norm entrepreneur; and the Dependent-Mobilizer (Dakar), which remains dependent on its nation-state and lacking the autonomy to act independently, nonetheless leverages municipal diplomacy to compensate for limited resources and institutional capacity. The paper examines the distinct ways in which each of the three cities engages with the C40 network and draws insights into how cities’ use of urban diplomacy and learning from the global arena influence national environmental governance, varying according to each city’s political and institutional context. At the same time, it sheds light on how city–state relations shape cities’ agency within transnational municipal networks, revealing the reciprocal interplay between local autonomy and urban diplomacy.