Modern states use any means necessary that are provided by foreign policy. At this point, states more often use new means to implement foreign policy – there are, in a broad sense, soft power policies – public diplomacy and promotion of state’s international interests. While tasks of traditional diplomacy that are connected with state’s political security and military security have to be implemented by state’s central organs, however, all the rest can be and are implemented by decentralized self-government authorities. These new forms of diplomatic activity developed, especially, after the Cold War ended and can be classified as paradiplomacy i.e. the involvement of sub-national actors (regions) of the national states in international relations. Russian regions, including the Russian Far East, establish these forms of activity. However, legal conditions are quite alike, the practice between regions differs from each other. The general conclusion, which emerges from the analysis, points to the fact that many decisions concerning paradiplomacy are made by federal authorities and the level of regional authorities’ activity in new millennium has decreased comparing to the 1990s. This conclusion also concerns the Russian Far East.

The external surroundings of the Russian Far East – Asia-Pacific region is extremely active international actor. Russia looks with more concerns on the region and sees itself a strategic approach for further international activities. This approach is also important due to the Russian Far East international activity, however, any attempt at adding this region to East Asia integration concepts is inefficient. Problem is noted and the goal of Ministry of Foreign Policy of Russian Federation is to incorporate regional diplomacy to traditional diplomacy. In activity of regions is still ample potential, which is clearly noticeable. In 2013, the 5th program – The Far East and Trans-Baikal Socio-Economic Development Strategy to 2025 was adopted. However, there is a concern that this program may suffer the same fate as other unrealized programs to exploit potential and development of this region, if a few requirements, which are listed in paradiplomacy theoretical models, are not accomplished e.g. the strengthen of regional authorities. They are better in defining its needs and opportunities but they should efficiently cooperate with inhabitants living in these regions. However, the requirements are greater influence on their choice, greater trust and identifying with activities of authority.

Foreign activity (paradiplomacy) of local governments is one of the elements of Polish foreign policy and plays a special, positive role in the process of Polish integration with the European Union. This paper presents the results of the investigations concerning foreign activity of Polish local and regional governments with Russia. In particular, there is intensive cooperation with the Kaliningrad region, the only region bordering Poland and refers to the neighboring provinces of Warmia and Mazury and Pomorskie. Studies have shown, however, that 11 out of the 16 Polish provinces signed agreements with other regions of Russia and only 2 have no cooperation.

The aim of this article was to explain development of paradiplomacy and describe the most important factors influencing its shape and form. Paradiplomacy is seen as a concept oft en used to describe international action of regions or entities of federal systems. Paradiplomacy in broad sense refers to international action by non-central governments. Intuitive predictions suggest further development of paradiplomacy as a sign of regions empowerment. Contrary to that, last research show that devolution of power inside the state does not correlate with increased use of paradiplomacy by regions.

The paper’s main objective is to determine whether the New Hansa is a form of the Politics of Memory for cities. In the paper, the author proposes a definition of the Politics of Memory and analyses the characteristics of the medieval and modern Hansa. Separate sections analyse the old and new Hansa, and describe the discussion on the Politics of Memory in the context of paradiplomacy, especially city diplomacy. Altogether, these reflections lead to comparisons of the organisations and conclusions about the selective nature of the New Hansa in relation to its legendary predecessor. Nevertheless, the New Hansa has specific core features – such as the deliberate use of legacy, brand-oriented actions and education – that make this urban network an excellent example of the Politics of Memory implemented by municipal governments.