Diplomatie en onderhandelen (gedeelte diplomatie)
Samenvatting
Prof. Jan Melissen (gedeelte diplomatie)
Universiteit Antwerpen 2e semester 2018
Inhoud
Literature overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. What is diplomacy? ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Historical Diplomatic Systems: Continuity and Change ................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Historical diplomatic systems ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Diplomacy through the ages ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Diplomacy and the renaissance .............................................................................................................................. 9
3. Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies: IR and Beyond .................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Diplomacy in international relations..................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Diplomatic studies................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 The diplomatic system .......................................................................................................................................... 13
4. Evolution of Summit Diplomacy: the Highest Level .................................................................................................... 16
4.1 The evolution of summit diplomacy ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Summitry as intercultural communication ........................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Globalization and summit diplomacy ................................................................................................................... 19
5. Public Diplomacy: Conceptual and Practical Challenges ............................................................................................ 21
5.1 Public diplomacy ................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Public diplomacy, China and East Asia .................................................................................................................. 22
5.3 Public diplomacy study ......................................................................................................................................... 25
6. Consular Diplomacy: Societization and the Duty of Care ........................................................................................... 28
6.1 Consular affairs ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Diplomacy and the duty of care ............................................................................................................................ 31
7. NGOs and Diplomacy: Competitors or New Rules of the Game ................................................................................. 36
7.1 Global governance ................................................................................................................................................ 36
7.2 The influence of NGOs .......................................................................................................................................... 37
7.3 Diplomacy and global governance ........................................................................................................................ 40
7.4 diplomatic action beyond the state ...................................................................................................................... 43
8. The Future of Diplomacy: Power and Hybridity .......................................................................................................... 46
8.1 Power in global affairs........................................................................................................................................... 46
1
, 8.2 Networks ............................................................................................................................................................... 47
8.3 Mega diplomacy .................................................................................................................................................... 50
8.4 Integrative diplomacy for the 21st century ........................................................................................................... 52
9. Diplomacy and Hostility: Alternatives for Diplomatic Relations? ............................................................................... 58
9.1 Diplomacy of revolutionary states ........................................................................................................................ 58
9.2 The intermediary and the disguised embassy ...................................................................................................... 60
9.3 Adversarial states .................................................................................................................................................. 63
9.4 Cuba ...................................................................................................................................................................... 65
10. The Rise of Digital Diplomacy (incl. the Conundrum of Fake News) ......................................................................... 67
10.1 The new frontiers of diplomacy .......................................................................................................................... 67
10.2 Digital diplomacy as a global challenge – South Korea ....................................................................................... 69
10.3 Social media ........................................................................................................................................................ 71
10.4 Fake news............................................................................................................................................................ 74
2
,Literature overview
Only the required literature is used to make this summary.
Sessions Literature
Session 2: Historical Nicolson, Harold, ‘Diplomacy in Greece and Rome’, ‘The Italian System’, and ‘The
Diplomatic Systems French System’, in Harold Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, London,
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1954, 1988 reprint, pp. 1-71.
Raymond Cohen, ‘Diplomacy Through the Ages’, in Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey
Wiseman, Diplomacy in the Age of Globalization: Theories and Practices, pp. 15-
29.
Hamilton, Keith & Richard Langhorne, ch. 2, ‘The diplomacy of the Renaissance
and the resident ambassador’, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory
and Administration, London, Routledge, 2011 (2n ed), pp. 61-90.
Session 3: Diplomacy and Paul Sharp, ‘Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other Disciplinary
Diplomatic Studies Perspectives’, in: Pauline Kerr and Geoff Wiseman, Diplomacy in A Globalizing
World: Theories and Practices, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2017 edition, pp.57-71.
Rebecca Adler-Nissen, ‘Conclusion: Relationalism or why diplomats find
international relations theory strange’, Ole Jacob Sending and Iver B. Neumann
(eds), Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge
Universitry Press, 2015, pp. 284-308.
Stuart Murray et al, ‘The Present and Future of Diplomatic Studies’, International
Studies Review 2011:3, pp. 709-728.
Hocking, Brian, ‘The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Diplomatic
System’, in: Pauline Kerr and Geoff Wiseman, Diplomacy in A Globalizing World:
Theories and Practices, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp.
123-140.
Session 4: The Evolution of Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, ‘Summit and Ministerial Diplomacy’, Ch. 10 in: The
Summit Diplomacy Dynamics of Diplomacy, London and Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2009, pp. 293-329.
Reynolds, David, ‘Summitry as Intercultural Communication’, International
Affairs, vol. 85, no. 1, 2009, pp. 115-127.
Mourlon-Druol, Emmanuel, ‘”Managing from the Top”: Globalisation and the Rise
of Regular Summitry, Mid-1970s-early 1980s’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 23/4,
2012, pp. 679-703.
Session 5: Public Huijgh, Ellen, ‘Public Diplomacy’, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, LA etc.: 2017,
Diplomacy pp. 437-450;
Melissen, Jan, in: Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (eds), Diplomacy in the Age
of Globalization: Theories and Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018
(2nd ed), pp. 199-218.
Zhao Kejin, ‘Public Diplomacy, Rising Power, and China’s Strategy in East Asia’, in:
Jan Melissen and Yul Sohn (eds), Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp. 51-78. Essays on other East Asian states
by various authors.
Melissen, J., ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions and Key Points on Public Diplomacy
in East Asia’, in: Jan Melissen and Yul Sohn, Understanding Public Diplomacy in
East Asia, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Session 6: Consular Okano-Heijmans, Maaike ‘Consular affairs and diplomacy’, in Andrew F. Cooper,
Diplomacy Jorge Heine and Ramesh Thakur (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern
Diplomacy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
Jan Melissen and Maaike Okano-Heijmans, ‘Introduction: Diplomacy and the Duty
of Care’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (2018), pp. 137-145.
Nina Graeger and Wrenn Yennie Lindgren, ‘The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad:
Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises, The Hague
Journal of Diplomacy 13 (2018), 23 pp.
Kristin Haugevik, Parental Child Abduction and the State: Identity, Diplomacy and
the Duty of Care, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (2018), 21 pp.
3
,Session 7: NGOs and Willets, Peter ‘The creation of global governance’, in: Peter Willets, Non-
Diplomacy Governmental Organizations in World Politics: The Construction of Global
Governance, New York, Routledge, 2011, pp. 144-162.
Cohen, Samy, ‘A (Nearly) Perfect World: The NGO Jungle’ and ‘NGO Influence,
State Resilience’, in Samy Cohen, The Resilience of the State: Democracy and the
Challenge of Globalization, London, Hurst and Co, 2006, pp. 34-68.
Bertrand Badie, ‘Transnationalizing Diplomacy and Global Governance’, in Pauline
Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (eds), Diplomacy and Globalization: Theories and
Practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 87-102.
Kelley, John Robert, Agency Change: Diplomatic Action Beyond the State, Laham
etc: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, Chapters 2 and 7, pp. 15-34 and 101-115.
Session 8: The Future of Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Future of Power, Ch. 1 ‘What is Power in Global
Diplomacy and Power Affairs’, New York: Public Affairs, 2011.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in
a Networked World, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2017, Ch. 1-3
and 7.
Khanna, Parag, Ch. 1 ‘Mega-diplomacy’, in Parag Khanna, How to run the World,
New York, Random House, 2011, pp. 3-29.
Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, Paul Sharp, ‘Integrative Diplomacy
for the 21st Century’, China International Strategy Review, 2013, pp. 53-88.
Session 9: Diplomacy and Armstrong, David, ‘The Diplomacy of Revolutionary States’, in: Jan Melissen (ed.),
Hostility Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Houndmills, Palgrave, 1999, pp. 43-59.
Berridge, G.R., ‘The Intermediary’ and ‘The Disguised Embassy’, in G.R. Berridge,
Talking to the Enemy, Houndmills, Palgrave, 1994, pp. 13-58.
Geoffrey Wiseman (ed), Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreighn Policy
and Public Diplomacy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015, Introduction and
Conclusion, pp. 1-12 and 280-301.
Uri Friedman, ‘Was There Another Way With Cuba?’, The Atlantic, March 2016,
10 pp.
Session 10: Digital Jess Pilegaard, ‘Virtually Virtual: The New Frontiers of Diplomacy’, The Hague
Diplomacy Journal of Dipomacy, 2017:4 , pp. 316-336.
Jan Melissen and Emillie de Keulenaar, ‘Critical Digital Diplomacy as a Global
Challenge: The Experience of South Korea’, Global Policy (2017, forthcoming)
Jan Melissen and Matthew Caesar-Gordon, ‘”Digital Diplomacy and the securing
of nationals in a citizen-centric world’, Global Affairs 2:3 (2016), 10 pp
Benjamin T. Jones and Eleonora Mattiacci, ‘A Manifesto in 140 Characters, or
Fewer: Social Media as Tool of Rebel Diplomacy, British Journal of Political
Science, 2017, 23 pp.
Jan Melissen, ‘Fake News and What (Not) to do About it’, Clingendael Alert,
February 2018.
4
,1. What is diplomacy?
Content in course syllabus:
The lecturer will clarify this module’s analytical perspective on the study of diplomacy, give an overview of the main
topics and selected key points in this lecture series. The group will engage in a preliminary brainstorm on diplomacy,
its meaning and significance in international relations, as well examples of recent developments and events that will
help us understand ‘what diplomacy is all about’. This session is an opportunity to sort out basic misconceptions of
diplomacy. Students that have little previous knowledge on diplomacy are invited to get any questions on diplomacy.
By the end of the meeting diplomacy will be less of a fuzzy concept and students will have a basic understanding of
the focus and requirements of this course.
There are several definitions of diplomacy, 2 of them are:
“The institutions and processes by which states and others represent themselves and their interest to one
another.”
This means, diplomacy is a social institution, reflecting the social world and thus cultural biases. Its primary function
is representation. Foreign policy and international relations are the outcome of diplomacy, which are guided by the
interests of states and others.
“Diplomacy is the art of negotiating agreements in a precise and rectifiable form.”
In this definition the emphasis lies on the major activity of diplomacy, namely negotiating.
5
,2. Historical Diplomatic Systems: Continuity and Change
Content in course syllabus:
In this second session, the topic of the first lecture is the history of diplomacy, with an emphasis on fundamental
principles of diplomacy, its development until the opening of the modern era, and the comparison of distinct
diplomatic systems before the rise of modern European diplomacy. Students will be asked to reflect on the basic
features that distinguish the Westphalian diplomatic system from its predecessors.
2.1 Historical diplomatic systems
The beginning of diplomacy is related to literacy and the rise of urban civilization. We need literacy to write down
the rules and move from an oral culture to a written culture. It’s important to write down what you agreed upon, in
order to pass it down to further generations. Writing was thus fundamental.
Urban culture was needed to build an institutional environment and to manage your relation with other policies. For
example, a palace was built in a city. From this palace you can build up something that will help to manage your
relations, policies for example.
2.1.1 Ancient near eastern diplomacy
The earliest evidence of diplomacy is found in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), in the form of royal inscriptions dedicated to
the gods. The Cuneiform (spijkerschrift) diplomacy dates to about 2500 B.C. and refers to relations between city-
states. In the script are references made to armed struggles, coalitions, border disputes and arbitration. Arbitration
is the settlement of a dispute by a third party.
In this time the main function of the diplomats was to carry messages of kings. A diplomatic letter from Ebla to
Hamazi captures some of the characteristics of diplomacy in this time. In this letter reciprocal action is very
important. This means: as you do this for me, I will do that for you (tit for tat). Other characteristics are:
Use of envoys as messengers
Working relationship between kingdoms
Recognition of equal status they refer to family relationships, however it is more symbolic (from a king to a
king).
Lingua franca the two parties adopted a common language, even though the native languages of the parties
are different.
Embryonic foreign policy bureaucracy a palace bureaucracy that dispatched and received envoys.
Archive they used the lingua franca and documentation to store everything.
Protocol polite forms of address
Exchange of gifts (abolished by Greeks)
2.1.2 Diplomacy in ancient Greece
The Greeks also engaged in diplomacy. They had embassies, normally run by 2 diplomats. These diplomats were
called elders and were chosen for their honor and respected knowledge. If the negotiations they engaged in were
positive, they received a present. If they were not successful, they could be punished. The life of a diplomat was
definitely not simple in ancient Greece.
Diplomacy in ancient Greece was designed to handle matters among the Greek policies, rather than to engage in
international affairs. There was enough rivalry among Greek polities to be preoccupied with. The Greeks had to
figure out how to do diplomacy in a world marked by rivalry (Athens vs. Sparta). The Greek were very loyal to their
own city, that other Greek cities (Hellenic) were seen as enemies.
What problems brought was the experiment with democracy and open diplomacy. Because of this, decisions were
never secret or as quickly as they otherwise could have been. The Greeks magnified this problem, by giving the
ambassadors little powers, the Greek democracy was very suspicious of its own diplomats. These diplomats even
6
,could not accept any gifts, as this was considered a bribe. Often missions failed because they had to return home or
send messengers to obtain additional instructions.
Proxenos was the resident consul. The Proxenos was a native of the host state and was expected to protect the
interests of the citizens of the state by which he was appointed. They involved in trade promotion and pre-
negotiation. However, their job existed only in peacetime. The Proxenos also benefitted from diplomatic immunity.
2.1.3 Diplomacy in ancient Rome
The Romans also didn’t succeed in establishing a good diplomatic method. The main problem for Rome was that
diplomacy did not come natural for them, as there was no equality and reciprocity (they relied on military force).
Decisions were generally taken in the capital, however, most of the time the little partners had no knowledge of
these meetings. The Roman meaning of coalition was that the federation states had to give in to the Roman Senate
that had all the power concerning the foreign policy and the defense of the Roman Empire.
However, the Romans did make some adjustments to the Greek system:
Ambassadors were selected by the senate and got instructions. Their missions were of short term, and every
time before a mission they had to report back to the senate. Then the senate had to vote whether their mission
was approved or not.
The immunity was extended to the personnel of the ambassador.
Some king of arbitration tribunal was established, called the court of Recuperatores. In this tribunal were 2
judges and a neutral chairman present.
A timeframe on negotiations, which meant that if the negotiations took longer than 60 days, the diplomats were
no longer seen as ambassadors, but as spies.
Furthermore, good faith and safe conduct were important. With good faith is meant reliability, a sense of trust
between two partners. Rome understood the importance of reliable contracts in purely practical ways, this was
important as an alternative for war.
Another important aspect was safe conduct for envoys. This means that you don’t take the diplomats hostage or kill
them if you don’t agree with them (diplomatic immunity).
2.1.4 Diplomacy in the Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine Empire existed from 500 till 1500 and stretched across the whole Mediterranean. The empire was so
large, that diplomacy was needed to keep it intact. Furthermore, the loyalty of the people was needed in other to
keep everything together. All sorts of psychological methods were used to keep the empire together.
In their diplomacy was ceremony and protocol very important. Foreign visitors were very impressed by the court
where they met the emperor. The Byzantines were also the first to develop a special department for foreign affairs
and to train professional negotiators.
The Byzantine Empire is often seen as a predecessor of modern diplomacy. The Byzantine Empire was so large that
because of its enormous size a lot was organized around the development of organizations.
2.1.5 Diplomacy in the Venetian Empire
Venice inherited diplomacy from the Byzantines. Venice developed the patterns of diplomacy for all the other Italian
cities in Europe. The Venetians were the first to really develop a good diplomatic system, these people were also
known as good negotiators that had a lot of knowledge. They made some good changes to their diplomatic system:
Diplomatic service The venetians were the first to create an organized system of diplomacy. Resident
ambassadors had to remain at their post until they were replaced. This required permanent diplomatic
networking and organization that could formulate foreign policy, prepare instructions, gather information and
keep records. An early foreign ministry came into place.
Systematic state archive The Venetian diplomats could negotiate independently without constantly keeping
in touch with the government at home. This is something that is still used, however somewhat elaborated.
7
, The Venetians would archive everything, this contained the instructions given to the ambassadors and the
official dispatches received from and sent to foreign countries. Also did it include the final reports on completion
of the ambassadors’ missions. Furthermore, an ambassador on a mission would receive news-letters to inform
them on the events happening at home. The Venetians were thus the first to realize that ambassadors can fall
out of touch with affairs and opinions in their country in case a lack of knowledge occurs.
Continuous information gathering The resident ambassadors became intelligence gatherers. They reported
on the arrival of cargoes, the situation at court, the state of an alliance, military preparations, the atmosphere of
the market, et cetera. Most ambassadors’ sources were open, however sometimes they used spies.
Special agreements with local governments in the Levant Often capitulations were sealed, this meant that
there was a treaty or an agreement that gave the subjects of one country the right to travel or reside in another
territory. Such agreements were made with the Ottoman rulers.
2.2 Diplomacy through the ages
This paragraph provides a ‘bigger picture’ of how diplomacy developed and it shows that some major tools of
diplomacy that are used today, already existed thousands of years ago and evolved trough time. It turns out that
there is nothing new about trade diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, non-state actors, multilateral alliances and
competing government agencies. What has changed is the range of duties of ambassadors, due to the evolutions in
communication and technology. Specialists now conduct the negotiations and leaders can fly in to meet face to face.
2.2.1 Ancient near eastern diplomacy
As stated before, the earliest evidence of diplomacy dates back to 2500 B.C. in Mesopotamia. A diplomatic message
would be cut in clay stone, where after a royal convoy would bring it to the community it was meant for. This is
cuneiform diplomacy and was spread in Asia and beyond. The Sargonistic dynasty (Mesopotamia 2334-2331 B.C.)
introduced the international treaty, which consisted of parallel declarations made separately by kings to each other’s
envoys.
In the time of Hammurabi (Mesopotamia 1700-1670 B.C.) envoys were upgraded from messengers to negotiators. A
few hundred years later, a multicultural system spanning three continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) came into
existence.
2.2.2 Classical diplomacy
The Persian Empire (522-486 B.C.) was determined by conquest and domination, instead of negotiation with equals.
The Greek and Persian diplomatic customs clashed with each other. The Persians did not agree with the Greek
customs and in some conflicts the two leaders even refused to see each other as equal.
Greek diplomacy was used to handle maters between Greek polities instead of international affairs. Since there were
hundreds of Greek polities, the diplomacy had structural limitations because of all its local concerns.
Greek diplomacy is seen as the link between the Mesopotamian and the European traditions. The fall of Rome
transferred the imperial center of gravity to Constantinople (East Roman Empire). The Byzantine Empire then played
a role in international relations between Europe and Asia. The Byzantine Empire set up a ‘diplomatic machine’ with
purpose to manage relations with neighboring countries. The Byzantine Empire took their ideas from methods of
Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome and Christianity.
2.2.3 European diplomacy
Western diplomatic institutions were already developed by 1400. Medieval European diplomacy however was
mostly centered on trade and business.
During the 15th century was Italy very similar to ancient Greece. It also existed of neighboring polities closely tied by
culture, religion and language. However, the Italian diplomatic system included two characteristic institutions of
European diplomacy: the resident ambassador and the foreign ministry. By the end of the 16th century, most of the
major European powers had even permanent missions in Constantinople.
8
,In the 19th century had the ambassadors their ‘glory days’. Communications and travel were still slow, therefore they
had much more responsibility. However, after the 1st world war traveling by plane was introduced and could the
ambassadors and their superiors travel faster.
The Greeks experimented with open diplomacy, and failed. However, complete secrecy lead to wars like the 1 st and
2nd world wars. A balance was thus to be found and it was only in the late 20th century that diplomacy began to
overcome this old culture-bound attitudes and habits and expanded into a truly global system. However, the best
innovation of European diplomacy was the introduction of international conference.
2.3 Diplomacy and the renaissance
The Italian renaissance is often seen as the birth of modern European diplomacy. We see the emergence of a system
that looks like the modern society of states. The ambassador getting more functions and the birth of the resident
ambassador were evolutions that were rapidly copied across Europe. The Italian renaissance builds further on
Venetian diplomacy, the rest that happened is complicated history and not of importance here. The purpose of
learning the history is to show that before the modern era there were forms of diplomacy and some of these basic
principles that make the system work are still found today.
A few features of diplomacy in the renaissance are important:
Balance of power The context of renaissance Italy was one of intense rivalry in city-states, wars and chaos.
However, at one point they realized that they are condemned to be each other’s neighbors and thus can better
work together than be at war all the time. Because of this the idea of interdependency between states was born,
and thereby the balance of power. By the middle of the 15th century were all the major Italian states capable of
sustaining a coherent foreign policy and diplomatic service.
Diplomacy nucleus of a collective system The idea of diplomacy was to hold an international society of states
together. In this international society the different units are separate in the sense of their own interests,
however united in common interests on which they have to negotiate. The concept of an international
conference was introduced around this time. The Congress of Westphalia (1643-1648) entailed a striking
improvement from previous diplomatic practice. Diplomacy became more complex, in terms of keeping working
relations, gathering information and negotiating with multiple others. The idea of permanent ambassadors
spread like a virus on the Italian peninsula, later along Europe.
Thinking about laws of international politics and diplomacy The great thinkers of the Italian renaissance like
Machiavelli and Guiccardini tried to lay the groundwork for laws of international politics and diplomacy. They
sought out what would work and what wouldn’t work and under what conditions.
Nursery of modern Western diplomacy Renaissance diplomacy is the nursery of modern diplomacy as we
know it today. The features of modern diplomacy emerged in a certain period in history, as a result of certain
needs back then. However, this is not were diplomacy started, it already started a millennia before the
renaissance in Italy.
Resident ambassador by the mid-15th century The greatest expansion was the representation of rulers, or a
permanent resident ambassador. Venice converted most of its representation into residencies, some other cities
in Italy followed. After that other European countries followed slowly. The Ottoman Empire however, remained
unwilling to adopt the European notion of the resident ambassador for another two centuries.
However, diplomacy did not end with permanent ambassadors, the diplomatic service, the foreign ministry, the
training of diplomats, the emergence of public international law and international conferences. No,
institutionalization was still to come, as for the rise of multilateral diplomacy.
9
, 3. Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies: IR and Beyond
Content in course syllabus:
This lecture will look at diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy and as an institution of the society of states. The
lecture will evaluate the concept of diplomacy, various definitions and the functions of diplomacy. It will also discuss
its role in international society, as reflected in the writings of both academics and practitioners. New tasks for
diplomacy and diplomats will be seen against the backdrop of globalization’s impact on relations between states and
other international actors. During this lecture students will be asked why relatively little attention has been paid to
diplomacy in the study of international relations and how diplomacy can be best understood.
3.1 Diplomacy in international relations
Diplomacy and diplomats have been resistant to theorizing by international relations scholars. In fact, diplomats and
mainstream IR theory have been mutually estranged. Many diplomats find IR scholarship problematic because it
presents their job in abstract and reductions terms. IR theory seldom takes diplomatic knowledge and practice
seriously. Realists see diplomacy as an instrument of policy. According to them, the priority of diplomats relates to
the interests of other states and the preservation of peace. Rationalists see diplomacy as an imperfect ally in their
efforts to weaken nationalism, maximize prosperity and strengthen the rule of law. Revolutionaries see diplomacy as
the enemy and as a group that is prepared to do anything that will preserve the status quo.
3.1.1 Diplomatic theory
Diplomatic theory is the formal body of conventions and understandings that regulate the conduct and specify the
rights and duties of professional diplomats as set out in the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular
relations.1 Diplomatic theory asks definitional questions like: ‘What is diplomacy?’ and ‘Who may be properly
regarded as a diplomat?’ Answers to these questions generally include particular diplomatic functions, like
negotiating, representing and reporting. These are the necessary qualifications for those undertaking diplomacy. A
classic argument in diplomatic theory is that diplomats are essentially mediators. However, none of these answers
are entirely satisfactory, because a diplomat is not exclusive to diplomacy and can also be found in other kinds of
human relations.
Diplomatic theory is beginning to argue that not only international relations, but all human relations between plural
groups may be better understood if the diplomatic dimension to them is recognized.
3.1.2 Views from IR theories
IR theory tends to bracket diplomacy away or use particular interests or actors as proxies for diplomacy. In sum,
there are 2 versions: self-action and inter-action.
Self-action: diplomacy as states bumping into each other
This version follows a self-action perspective, liberal and rational choice approaches in IR theory assume that
human beings and states act rationally to maximize utility.
Inter-action: diplomacy as reciprocal signaling
The relevant action takes place among the entities themselves. Each entity exists independent of the others and
remain fixed and unchanging throughout any interaction between other states.
3.1.3 Relationalism
The reason that diplomacy and diplomats are this estranged from IR theory is that IR scholars generally subscribe to
substantialism, whereas diplomats tend to think in terms of relations. Relationalism helps to understand the
diplomatic production of world politics and reflects a particular ontology that differs fundamentally form the
worldview that most IR scholars have. A relationship is a dynamic and unfolding process. Consequently, according to
IR theory diplomacy is reduced to the mechanics of states bumping into each other or a system of reciprocal
1
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic
relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform
their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity.
10
