Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The diaspora turned from a narrative of exile into a potent transnational variable in IR. This article asks under what conditions a diaspora organization becomes an institutionalized diplomatic intermediary between a root state and a host state, and explores whether sustainable diaspora diplomacy can be conceptualized through the Diaspora Diplomacy Triangle (TOP) model. Read through neoclassical realism, diasporas operate as relative power units and 'sub-main actors' within the state–society relationship rather than outside it. TOP specifies three reversible, policy-specific conditions—Threat, Offer, and Practice—and treats reciprocity and adaptation as what stabilizes practice, not as later stages. A structured comparison of Indian, Jewish-American, and Kurdish organizations illustrates these conditions and identifies the model's boundary. Because the illustrations rely on secondary sources and were not selected as matched cases, they refine concepts and generate propositions rather than test causal claims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fazlıcan ALTUNTAŞ (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: