Sister City

Sister City, a non-binding agreement between cities in different countries intended to strengthen cultural and commercial ties.

The sister-city movement is a prominent example of city diplomacy and expanded rapidly after the World War II (1939–1945/1318–1324).¹ The earliest town-twinning agreements in Europe were concluded in 1918 between Brugg, Switzerland, and Rottweil, Germany, and, a few years later, in 1920 between Keighley in Britain and Poix-du-Nord in France. Following the Second World War, sister-city agreements became an effective instrument in the peace-building process, bringing countries formerly engaged in conflict closer together. Such agreements attracted increasing attention after the establishment of the Council of Municipalities of Europe in 1951 and the subsequent adoption of the practice in the United States. This development was followed by the establishment of Organization Sister Cities International in 1967/1346.²

A sister-city relationship is a bilateral memorandum of understanding concluded between the executive authorities of cities—mayors and local administrators—in two different countries. It is intended to facilitate long-term formal cooperation, the exchange of information and experience, the development of cultural, social, economic, municipal, technical, and political relations, and greater interaction among the inhabitants of the two cities.³ In another definition, a sister-city agreement is concluded between cities that share similar archaeological, historical, and cultural characteristics or common symbols.⁴

Town twinning is an instance of city diplomacy, which is regarded as a modern form of public diplomacy. In this approach, cities are recognized as actors in the international system, and relations are established between cities possessing cultural, social, ethnic, racial, scientific, artistic, or literary affinities in order to facilitate international relations in various fields.⁵ Town twinning has also been described as a form of “urban soft diplomacy” based on trust, dialogue, and mutual interests.⁶ One advantage of city diplomacy is that it is not subject to the constraints of official national diplomacy. Consequently, this form of diplomacy now plays an increasingly important role in economic, cultural, and public representation, as well as in conflict management.⁷ It is particularly significant in addressing the major challenges confronting metropolitan areas through bilateral or multilateral international cooperation.⁸

Bilateral relations between cities in Asia first developed in Japan.⁹ In Iran, many cities have likewise concluded agreements with cities elsewhere in the world in order to benefit from the sister-city movement within the international system. The sister-city relationship between Tehran and Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is the oldest and perhaps the best-known such agreement.¹⁰ Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979/1357, Isfahan became the first Iranian city to conclude a sister-city agreement, signing one with Xi’an in the People’s Republic of China.¹¹ This memorandum of understanding, the oldest of Isfahan’s sister-city agreements, was signed on May 7, 1989/17 Urdībehesht 1368 by Muhammad-Hasan Malek-Madanī, mayor of Isfahan, and Yuan Cheng Chung, mayor of Xi’an.¹² Thereafter, as of 2026/1405, Isfahan concluded fifteen further sister-city agreements with cities in various countries: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Florence, Italy; Saint Petersburg, Russia; Iasi, Romania; Barcelona, Spain; Yerevan, Armenia; Freiburg, Germany; Havana, Cuba; Lahore, Pakistan; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Dakar, Senegal; Baalbek, Lebanon; Samarkand, Uzbekistan; Porto, Portugal; and Kazan, Russia.¹³ Each of these cities will be the subject of a separate entry in the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica.

Table 1. Isfahan’s Sister Cities

/Ali Moghtaderi Esfahani/

Bibliography

Clarke, Nick, “Globalising care? Town twinning in Britain since 1945,” Geoforum, vol. 42, no. 1, January 2011.

Dādāshpūr, Hāshem, et al., “az namādgerāʾī tā shabake-garāʾī dar dīplumāsī-ye shahrī: bāzshenāsī-ye degardīsī-ye dāneshī va sākhtār-hā-ye yādgīrī dar ravābeṭ-e khāharkhāndegī,” jughrāfiyā va āmāyesh-e shahrī–manṭaqeʾī, no. 58, spring 2026/1405.

Furmankiewicz, Marek, “Town-twinning as a factor generating international flows of goods and people: The example of Poland,” Belgeo, nos. 1–2, 2005.

Ḥakīm-Fa‛āl, Maḥbūbe, et al., Isfahan va khāharkhānde-hā-ye ān, Isfahan: Isfahan Municipality, General Directorate of Communications and International Affairs, 2020/1399.

Ḥakīmī, ‛Abdullāh, et al., “shenāsāʾī va ulavīyat-bandī-ye muʾallefe-hā-ye muʾathther dar estefāde az ẓarfīyat-e khāharkhāndegī-ye shahr-hā: bā rūykard-e tuseʿe-ye eqteṣādī, muṭāle‛e-ye muredī: kalānshahr-hā,” mudīrīyat-e shahrī, no. 55, summer 2019/1398.

Jamālī-Nezhād, Mahdī, dīplumāsī-ye shahrī, Isfahan: Ārmā, 2013/1392.

Qūrchī, Murtaḍā, and Javād Kāvīyānī-Rād, “barresī-ye hamkh^vānī-ye dīplumāsī-ye shahrī bā sīyāsat-e khārejī-ye Jumhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Iran: muṭāle‛e-ye muredī-ye khāharshahr-hā-ye kalānshahr-e Tehran,” geopolitics quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, spring 2019/1398.

Sa‛īd, Parastū; Muḥammad-Reza Ḥāfeẓ-Niyā; and Murtaḍā Qūrchī, “naqsh-e dīplumāsī-ye shahrī dar munāsebāt-e beyn al-melalī-ye shahr-hā: muṭāle‛e-ye muredī-ye neẓām-e mudīrīyat-e shahrī-ye Tehran,” tuse‛e-ye pāydār-e muḥīṭ-e jughrāfiyāʾī, vol. 4, no. 6, spring and summer 2022/1401.

Tafaḍḍulī, Husein; Yūsuf Muḥammadī; and Muhammad Tavakkulī, “barresī-ye jāygāh va ahammīyat-e khāharshahr-hā va ẓarfīyat-hā-ye khāharkhāndegī-ye shahrī-ye Iran,” dānesh-e tafsīr-e sīyāsī, vol. 3, no. 10, winter 2022/1400.

Tavares, Rodrigo, Para diplomacy: cities and states as global players, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Zeynalī, Hājar, “khāharkhāndegī-ye shahr-hā,” shahrdārī-hā, no. 92, February 2009/Bahman 1387.

1. Tavares, p. 29.[↩]
2. Furmankiewicz, p. 146; Tavares, p. 29.[↩]
3. Qūrchī and Kāvīyānī-Rād, p. 65; Zeynalī, p. 110.[↩]
4. Clarke, p. 115; Zeynalī, ibid.; Tafazzolī et al., pp. 76–77.[↩]
5. Sa‛īd et al., p. 18; Tafazzulī et al., pp. 59, 61.[↩]
6. Dādāshpūr et al., p. 141.[↩]
7. Qūrchī and Kāvīyānī-Rād, p. 64.[↩]
8. Jamālī-Nezhād, p. 103.[↩]
9. Furmankiewicz, p. 146.[↩]
10. Ḥakīmī et al., p. 216.[↩]
11. Qūrchī and Kāviyānī-Rād, p. 78.[↩]
12. Ḥakīm-Fa‛āl et al., p. 13.[↩]
13. Ḥakīm-Fa‛āl et al., 2020/1399; see also Table 1.[↩]