4/23/2019
1
Diplomacy in East Asia
Jan Polišenský, MSc., Ph.D.
Spring 2019
1
2
4/23/2019
2
Diplomacy in East Asia
• Course Schedule
– The course is taught bi-weekly. Therefore, every session will be composed of two
lectures.
• Session 01 – Introduction
– Tuesday 19.02.2019
• Session 02 – Diplomacy and Foreign policy making & leadership in East
Asia
– Tuesday 5.03.2019
• Session 03 – Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy
– Tuesday 19.03.2019
• Session 04 – Coercive, Gunboat and Preventive Diplomacy
– Tuesday 2.04.2019
Diplomacy in East Asia
• Session 05 – Economic Diplomacy
– Tuesday 16.04.2019
• Session 06 – Sport Diplomacy
– Tuesday 30.04.2019
• Session 07 – Final Discussion and Conclusion
– Tuesday 14.05.2019
3
4
4/23/2019
3
Diplomacy in East Asia
• Research paper 49 % - (Obligatory)
• Final examination 51 % - (Obligatory)
Research Paper
• Introduction
– Why is the topic important
– Focus of the paper
– Aim and Goal
– Methodology
– Research Question
– Literature overview and discussion
• Body
– 3 chapters
• Conclusion
– same as Introduction. What was the aim, and if the aim was fulfilled.
• Sources
– Rule of thumb. Number of pages = number of sources. Cite everything.
– At least 1 book, At least 2 academic articles, 1 primary source and others
5
6
4/23/2019
4
Research Paper
• Research Paper Due on 14th MAY 2019 Central European Time.
• The students may choose their own topic, after a consultation with the
instructor. More detailed information about the research paper will be
provided by the instructor during lectures. The essay must include research
question, the length is minimum 2 500 words (not counting bibliography).
The format of the paper should be standard academic article.
• The Submission of the essay is through IS.MUNI system.
• I will not accept late papers 
Final examination
• Final test
• Midterm will consist of short essay questions focused on the problems
presented in the assigned readings and/or discussed in the lectures and
seminars. Further information will be given during the lectures. The midterm
will also have a blind map test of key countries in the region.
• The FINAL test will be in form of essay question focused on the problems
presented in the assigned readings and/or discussed in the lectures and
seminars. Further information will be given during the lectures.
• During the exam period (January 2018 – February 2018) you can retake the
midterm and the final test according to the Study and Examination Rules of
the Masaryk University (https://www.muni.cz/en/about-us/official-notice-
board/mu-study-and-examination-regulations).
7
8
4/23/2019
5
Grades and grading scale
Letter Grade Percentage Description
Credited 50 – 100 Passed
Not credited 0 – 49 Fail. The student has not succeeded in
mastering the subject matter covered in the
course.
The theory of Diplomacy
History of Diplomacy
9
10
4/23/2019
6
Foreign Policy
• Foreign Policy
– The strategy or approach chosen by the national governments to
achieve its goals in its relations with external entities.
• This includes decisions to do nothing.
– Foreign policy is designed to protect and promote the national interest
abroad
Diplomacy
• Diplomacy has probably existed for as long as civilization has.
• The easiest way to understand it is to start by seeing it as a system of
structured communication between two or more parties.
• Records of regular contact via envoys travelling between neighboring
civilizations date back at least 2500 years.
– They lacked many of the characteristics and commonalities of
modern diplomacy such as embassies, international law and
professional diplomatic services.
11
12
4/23/2019
7
What is Diplomacy ?
• Diplomacy
– is the management of relations between states and between states and
other actors.
– From a state perspective, diplomacy is concerned with advising,
shaping and implementing foreign policy.
– As such it is the means by which states through their formal and other
representatives, as well as other actors, articulate, coordinate and
secure particular or wider interests, using correspondence, private
talks, exchanges of view, lobbying, visits, threats and other related
activities.
Diplomacy
• Widening content of diplomacy.
– At one level, the changes in the substantive form of diplomacy are reflected in
terms such as ‘oil diplomacy’, ‘resource diplomacy’, ‘knowledge diplomacy’, ‘global
governance’ and ‘transition diplomacy’.
• What constitutes diplomacy today goes beyond the sometimes rather narrow
politico-strategic conception given to the term.
• Currently we view the diplomacy in a restrictive or formal sense as being
the preserve of foreign ministries and diplomatic service personnel.
• The diplomacy is undertaken by a wide range of actors, including ‘political’
diplomats, advisers, envoys and officials from a wide range of ‘domestic’
ministries or agencies with their foreign counterparts, reflecting its technical
content, between officials from different international organisations, ongovernmental
organisations (NGOs) and ‘private’ individuals
13
14
4/23/2019
8
Diplomacy
• Diplomacy has been changing over centuries and is the basis of how
states communicate.
• Diplomacy has changed substantially, in Genghis Khan era,
– diplomats were given immunity and further international laws
implementation, starting the age where ethical foreign and
international law along with diplomatic immunity were implemented
between states (Weathford, 2017)
The Use of Diplomacy
• The use of Diplomacy is traditionally to discuss war, peace and
conflict on the contrary, caused by the rise of cooperation and
resource diplomacy, rising number of diplomats within different
foreign ministries and embassies now proceed to operate more on
economic cooperation as well as diplomacy (Barston, 2013)
15
16
4/23/2019
9
The art of Diplomacy
• Making peace is easier when you have shown
you can make war
– (Fletcher, 2016, p. 2)
Diplomacy
• States are committed to diplomacy by the nature of the world in which
they exist.
• In times and places where there are several separate states and their
actions affect one another, they cannot function in a vacuum of
isolation, with each community considering only how to manage its
internal affairs.
• Each state is obliged, by the very desire to control its own destiny as
far as possible, to take account of the neighbours who impinge on its
interests and those of its citizens, whatever it considers those interests
to be.
JP3
17
18
Snímek 18
JP3 adam watson
Jan Polišenský; 27.01.2019
4/23/2019
10
Diplomacy
• The essential condition of diplomacy is thus plurality.
• It arises out of the coexistence of a multitude of independent states in
an interdependent world.
Diplomacy
• Initially diplomacy appears as a sporadic communication between very
separate states, such as the Kingdom of the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt
and the Kingdom of the Hittites, which found themselves in contact
with one another through the trade conducted by their merchants and
through disputes over border territories.
• To put it more formally, the purpose of diplomacy was initially, and
still is, to reconcile the assertion of political will by independent
entities
19
20
4/23/2019
11
Diplomacy
• The ability to conduct a diplomatic dialogue with other states is a
hallmark of statehood, the importance which external contacts have
varies in practice from one state to another.
• Sometimes the interests of a number of states are so closely
intertwined, and the activities and indeed the existence of every state
are sometimes so largely determined by what its neighbours do, that
there is a ‘primacy of foreign policy’ in every such state’s decisions is
necessary to look at the historical origins and the cultural context of
any given diplomatic practice in order to understand it.
Diplomacy
• Remote states, separated from an active states system by natural
obstacles such as an ocean or desert, can afford to be marginal
members of it and to maintain fitful and selective relations with the
states more closely involved in the system.
– George Washington warned his countrymen against entangling
alliances, by which he meant that degree of involvement in the
European states system which made alliances necessary.
– Since then, however, the United States has become increasingly
entangled, and isolation has become an ever less realizable ideal.
21
22
4/23/2019
12
Diplomacy
• Independent states deal bilaterally with each other and meet together
in multilateral organizations not only because they have interests in
common, but also because they have interests which conflict.
• Moreover, the fact of independence fosters suspicion and doubts.
• Another power may be insincere in what it says and promises; or if
sincere it may change its mind.
• History is full of examples of conflict, duplicity and reversals of
policy, and the news brings fresh examples every day.
– Diplomacy is intimately concerned with these problems.
Diplomacy
• It is an organized pattern of communication and negotiation,
nowadays continuous, which enables each independent government to
learn what other governments want and what they object to.
• In a developed international society it becomes more than an
instrument of communication and bargaining.
23
24
4/23/2019
13
Diplomacy
• Conflicts of interest are a major subject of diplomacy
– which can function effectively only when the necessary level of understanding
exists between the parties to the dialogue about the maintenance of the
system as a whole
– the rules for the promotion of their separate interests within the system.
– The diplomatic dialogue is thus the instrument of international society:
– a civilized process based on awareness and respect for other people’s points
of view; and a civilizing one also, because the continuous exchange of ideas,
and the attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts of interest,
increase that awareness and respect
Diplomatic Space
• It takes place in the medium of international law as states use
international law to explain and justify their policies to other states and
other audiences and to understand them themselves.JP4
25
26
Snímek 26
JP4 diplomacy and the making of world politics
Jan Polišenský; 27.01.2019
4/23/2019
14
Diplomacy as a Practice
• The interaction among sovereign states inevitably produces diplomacy
– the dialogue of states talking to states about the business of states.
– This is the “infrastructure of world politics,”
– Diplomacy is a subset of these dialogues, where the broader set also
includes private negotiations and secret interactions.
– Negotiation involves trading interests toward an agreement, where
reaching a point of agreement is essential to moving forward on a
common project
Diplomacy
• It requires several actors in pursuit of their private interests where
coordination with the other(s) carries the possibility of a greater
payoff than does independent action.
• Secret interactions are defined by the state’s failure to provide a public
justification for its action – the public justification being the crucial
component of diplomacy.
• The absence of a public justification may have many reasons, one
being that the state finds itself outside the bounds of the available
resources of justification, that is, outside of existing international law.
27
28
4/23/2019
15
Diplomacy as a Social Practice
• It is a form of interaction among social actors that is framed by the
existing social structures of rules, norms, and habits, and that is in turn
productive of these structures.
Social component of diplomacy
• Diplomacy is, first of all, a social activity.
• It connects a public language to the business of the state, giving
meaning, reasons, and explanations for state action.
• It is embedded in a social context of reasons, rules, and meanings that
exists before the interaction.
29
30
4/23/2019
16
Diplomacy as a Compotent
• The primary component of the contemporary legalized international
order is the notion of an international rule of law in which states are
expected to abide by the legal commitments that they take on.
• Through treaties, custom, and other mechanisms, the content of
these commitments might be subject to competing interpretations, but
the underlying idea of the rule of law and the importance of
compliance are universally espoused and are presented as morally,
legally, and politically good by states and publicists.
Diplomacy and the System
• The pervasiveness of the rule-of-law ideology in world politics is evident in
the absence of critical contestation over it and in the degree to which
compliance with international obligations is identified as the solution to a
wide range of political problems
– from human rights abuses to international conflict to economic development.
– Diplomacy puts these resources to work to explain, justify, or change the
actions of the state.
– The public, social quality of diplomacy arises because the resources for
making these justifications come from the wider social setting in which the
actor finds itself, from the legal concepts and rules that make up the corpus
of international legal argument.
31
32
4/23/2019
17
The Art of Diplomacy and the System
• France sent its military to Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) in 2011, it explained
itself in relation to the international rules and norms on humanitarian
intervention, and especially the actions of the United Nations.
– The power of this diplomacy came from its ability to distinguish between the
image of humanitarian intervention and images of imperialism and
neocolonialism.
– The competing narratives of humanitarian intervention, colonialism, and
imperialism are like the “symbolic tokens” described by Zygmunt Bauman –
resources deployed by agents that signal membership in groups or ways sof
thinking.
The Art of Diplomacy and the System
• With the use of these tokens, diplomacy involves both internal and
external processes in the state.
• Internal deliberation draws on the conceptual resources that exist in
the external legal environment and may be done with an external
audience in mind.
• As the state deliberates within itself about the meaning of its interests,
obligations, and behavior, the connection between these interests and
their international legality is never irrelevant, and so the power of legal
resources to define legality is consequential even without an external
audience.
33
34
4/23/2019
18
The Art of Diplomacy and the System
• The deliberation within the Bush administration prior to invading Iraq in
2003 shows some of this:
– a behind-closed-doors consideration of the complexity among interests, rules,
and actions, which included a need to reconcile the invasion with a selfunderstanding
of the US government as a peaceful rather than an aggressive
actor.
– The prohibition against aggression under international law forced the war’s
planners to define their policy as something other than that.
– The result was a series of attempts to associate the invasion with American
self-defense, humanitarian rescue for people in Iraq, and a defense of the UN
Security Council’s resolutions against the Iraqi government.
The Art of Diplomacy and the System
• This suggests that international diplomacy bridges between state interests and
their external environment in two ways
– first, states make use of legal resources and contribute through that use to
remaking them,
– second, states exercise agency in the construction of their legal positions but
within constraints set by the history and politics of their context.
– The first suggests the mutual constitution of states and rules (or interests and
international law), and the second suggests the interconnection between
structure and agents.
– International diplomacy can show the way for IR scholars in the empirical
study of mutually implicating phenomena.
35
36
4/23/2019
19
Diplomacy and State Centrism
• The second feature of international diplomacy is that as a practice, it is
necessarily connected to states rather than to other kinds of actors.
• This does not mean that non-state actors cannot engage in the practice –
rather, it means that when they do, they are engaged in an activity that is
directed toward states, in a process of using international social resources to
influence state behavior.
• This follows naturally from the formal structure of the activity and its
connection to the state-centric framework of public international law: only
states are obligated under public international law, and only states find
themselves in a position to claim credit or earn demerits for following or
breaking international law.
Diplomacy and State Centrism
• The interposition of new kinds of actors (i.e., non-state actors) into
public diplomacy has dramatically increased the density of interaction,
but it remains a state-centric social field.
37
38
4/23/2019
20
Productive Aspect of Diplomacy
• As states use international law to explain their behavior, they
contribute to remaking and reinforcing those rules.
• Diplomacy therefore has a “productive” effect in the sense of the term
defined by Barnett and Duvall
– it produces the public, social, and legal resources with which future
state behavior is understood, justified, and argued over.
– This is the effect identified by Sending, Pouliot, and Neumann by
which “forms of diplomacy come to constitute the basic political
fabric of world politics.”
Productive Aspect of Diplomacy
• The productive elements of diplomacy can be seen in many recent
cases where international law has developed through practice.
– Humanitarian intervention, for instance, is increasingly seen as legal
under certain circumstances, despite its tension with the ban on war
and other rules of the UN Charter
– This process was largely driven by governments using the language of
legalized humanitarianism to justify their positions on intervention,
and the effect has been to change the prevailing definition of the laws
on the use of force
39
40
4/23/2019
21
Productive Aspect of Diplomacy
• When the US argued in its “war on terror” that Its detainees were
illegal enemy combatants and therefore not covered by the Geneva
Conventions
– it was generally seen as having made an error of legal interpretation.
– As a social practice, diplomacy has these three formal qualities:
• sociality,
• state centrism,
• and a productive effect.
– The substantive content comes from its connection with international
law, and especially with the ideology of the rule of law,
Diplomacy and Law
• Diplomacy operates at the boundaries between politics and law and
between the internal needs or interests of the state and their
explanation in an external language.
• It is therefore deeply bound to the idea of rule following, and the
practice of diplomacy is constituted by the political appeal invested in
the idea of compliance:
– diplomacy means providing rule-following explanations for the
choices of the state
41
42
4/23/2019
22
Diplomacy, War, and World Politics
• Diplomacy
– It is the ‘art’ of resolving negotiations peacefully.
• Paul Sharp,
– diplomacy is about the maintenance of peaceful relations between
– separate political entities
– War marks the “failure of diplomacy.”
Diplomacy, War, and World Politics
• Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne
– define diplomacy as “the peaceful conduct of relations amongst
political entities.”
• Realists, and certainly strategists, by contrast, do not necessarily align
diplomacy with peace.
• Diplomacy can be about building alliances and delivering threats. But
diplomacy is still seen as distinct from war.
– Even “coercive diplomacy,” according to Alexander George, is an
“alternative to war.
43
44
4/23/2019
23
Clausewitz
• Clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is "War
is the continuation of politics by other means."
War and Peace
• The place to begin is with a prior binary: that between war and peace.
• Only through some version of this binary can diplomacy be distinguished
from war or aligned with peace. One must first have an idea of peace as
distinct from war to place diplomacy on one side or another.
• In IR, juridical and Eurocentric ideas inform the determination of states of
peace and war.
• The criteria used elide the forms of violence characteristic of international
hierarchies, whether in empires or in other kinds of world order projects that
involve armed conflict between the strong and the weak, as in the Cold War
in the Third World or the War on Terror.
45
46
4/23/2019
24
Definition of Diplomacy
• Diplomacy is in various ways defined and distinguished by the fact that
it involves communication and negotiation
– Harold Nicholson, diplomacy is “the management of international
relations by negotiation.”.
Definition of Diplomacy
• Adam Watson has more generally defined diplomacy as
– 'negotiation between political entities which acknowledge each other's
independence'.
47
48
4/23/2019
25
The Definition of Diplomacy
• Diplomacy can be defined as a process between actors (diplomats,
usually representing a state) who exist within a system (international
relations) and engage in private and public dialogue (diplomacy) to
pursue their objectives in a peaceful manner.
Diplomacy and Foreign Policy
• Diplomacy is not foreign policy and must be distinguished from it.
• It may be helpful to perceive diplomacy as part of foreign policy.
– When a nation-state makes foreign policy it does so for its own national interests.
• these interests are shaped by a wide range of factors.
– In basic terms, a state’s foreign policy has two key ingredients; its actions and its
strategies for achieving its goals.
• The interaction one state has with another is considered the act of its foreign
policy.
• This act typically takes place via interactions between government personnel
through diplomacy.
• To interact without diplomacy would typically limit a state’s foreign policy actions
to conflict (usually war, but also via economic sanctions) or espionage.
– In that sense, diplomacy is an essential tool required to operate successfully in
today’s international system.
49
50
4/23/2019
26
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• The applicable international law that governs diplomacy – the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) – only references states as
diplomatic actors.
– Yet, the modern international system also involves powerful actors that are
not states.
– These tend to be international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and
international governmental organizations (IGOs).
– These actors regularly partake in areas of diplomacy and often materially
shape outcomes.
– A range of INGOs – such as Greenpeace – have meaningfully advanced
progress toward treaties and agreements in important areas tied to the health
and progress of humankind such as international environmental negotiations.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• Summary of Article 9
– The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular
member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. The
sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of
time, or otherwise this person may lose their diplomatic immunity.
51
52
4/23/2019
27
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 9
– The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its
decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member
of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other
member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the
sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or
terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata
or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
– If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its
obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to
recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• Article 11
– In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the
receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within
limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to
circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs
of the particular mission.
– The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a nondiscriminatory
basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category.
53
54
4/23/2019
28
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• Article 12
– The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the
receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in
localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 20
– The mission and its head shall have the right to use the flag and
emblem of the sending State on the premises of the mission,
including the residence of the head of the mission, and on his means
of transport.
55
56
4/23/2019
29
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• Summary of Article 22
– The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are
inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except
by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host
country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host
country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents
or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence
of the diplomats.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 22
– The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving
State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the
mission.
– The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to
protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to
prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its
dignity.
– The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon
and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search,
requisition, attachment or execution.
57
58
4/23/2019
30
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 24
– The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any
time and wherever they may be.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 26
– Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which
is prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the
receiving State shall ensure to all members of the mission freedom of
movement and travel in its territory.
59
60
4/23/2019
31
• Summary of Article 27
– The host country must permit and protect free communication
between the diplomats of the mission and their home country. A
diplomatic bag must never be opened even on suspicion of abuse. A
diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 27
– The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of
the mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and
the other missions and consulates of the sending State, wherever situated, the
mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and
messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless
transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State.
– The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official
correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its
functions.
– The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
– The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of
their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended
for official use.
61
62
4/23/2019
32
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 29
– The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be
liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat
him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent
any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 27
– The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document
indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag,
shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He
shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or
detention.
– The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In
such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except
that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier
has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.
– A diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft
scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an
official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but he
shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier. The mission may send one of
its members to take possession of the diplomatic bag directly and freely from the
captain of the aircraft.
63
64
4/23/2019
33
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 30
– The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same
inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.
– His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of
article 31, his property shall likewise enjoy inviolability.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• Summary of Article 31.1c
– Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity: professional activity
outside diplomat's official functions.
65
66
4/23/2019
34
• ARTICLE 31
– A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and
administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
– A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the
territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the
sending State for the purposes of the mission;
– An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is
involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person
and not on behalf of the sending State;
• ARTICLE 31
– An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the
diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
– A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
– No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent
except in the cases coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph
1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken
without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.
– The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving
State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.
67
68
4/23/2019
35
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 31
– An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the
diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
– A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
– No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent
except in the cases coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph
1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken
without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.
– The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving
State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 37
– The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his
household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the
privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.
– Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together
with members of their families forming part of their respective households,
shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving
State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except
that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving
State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed
outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges
specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time
of first installation.
69
70
4/23/2019
36
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
• ARTICLE 37
– Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or
permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of
acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes
on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the
exemption contained in article 33.
– Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of
or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes
on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In other
respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted
by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its
jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly
with the performance of the functions of the mission.
Tools of Diplomacy
• Diplomacy has become a tool to deal with global issues such as global
warming, economic support and cooperation on installing
international laws which include but does not only cover competition
laws, Land disputes, companies and states’ disputes
• Diplomacy and the Art of Negotiation is used in our day to day life,
but completely different from one person to another and from one
culture to another
– the adaptation to working with other states, keeping live
communications and economic prosperity will ensure peace longevity
and reduce the likelihood of conflicts
71
72
4/23/2019
37
Tools of Diplomacy
• According to Palmer and Perkins a Diplomat has five Functions:
– Representation
– Negotiations
– Reporting
– Protections of national Interest abroad
– Maintenance of International peace and promotion of peace and
cooperation
• Role of Diplomacy In Foreign Policy
Tasks of Diplomacy
• The functions of diplomacy can be broken down into six broad areas:
– Ceremonial
• protocol
• representation
• visits
– Management
• day-to-day problems
• promotion of interests (political, economic, scientific, military, tourism)
• explanation and defence of policy
• strengthening bilateral relations
• bilateral coordination
• multilateral cooperation
– Information/communication
• assessment and reporting
• monitoring
73
74
4/23/2019
38
Tasks of Diplomacy
• Continue:
– International negotiation
– Duty of protection
– Normative/legal
• rule making
• mediation/pacific settlement
Diplomacy
• Traditionally, diplomacy has been associated with the ceremonial duty.
– Formal representation, protocol and participation in the diplomatic
circuit of a national capital or international institution continue as
important elements in state sovereignty and as part of the notion of
international society.
– At a substantive level, much of the business of diplomacy is
concerned with the management of short-term routine issues in
bilateral and multilateral relations (coordination, consultation,
lobbying, adjustment, the agenda of official or private visits).
– These include the promotion and management of interests, which for
most states are dominated by financial, economic, resource issues and
tourism, along with threat management.
75
76
4/23/2019
39
Diplomacy
• The function of diplomacy is acquisition of information and assessment,
including acting as a listening post or early warning system.
– an embassy, if it is functioning conventionally – and not all are – should
identify any key issues and domestic or external patterns, together with their
implications, in order to advise or warn the sending government.
– Humphrey Trevelyan notes on embassies:
• Apart from negotiating, the ambassador’s basic task is to report on the
political, social and economic conditions in the country in which he (she)
is living, on the policy of its government and on his conversations with
political leaders, officials and anyone else who has illuminated the local
scene for him.
Contribution to international order
• diplomatic functions relating to conflict, disputes and international order.
– In the multilateralist view, an important function of diplomacy is the creation,
drafting and amendment of a wide variety of international rules of a
normative and regulatory kind that provide structure in the international
system.
– The principal normative objective of diplomacy from a multilateralist
perspective is contribution to the creation of universal rules. Multilateralism is
thus distinct from other approaches, such as regionalism, and in direct
contrast to narrow state power preoccupation, for example ‘soft’ power;
‘smart’ power.
77
78
4/23/2019
40
Diplomacy
• Adam Watson suggests:
– ‘the central task of diplomacy is not just the management of order,
but the management of change and the maintenance by continued
persuasion of order in the midst of change’
Diplomatic methods
• Cooperative strategy
– The main methods involve:
• exchange of views;
• clarification of drafting;
• intention on policy;
• seeking support for an initiative
• building bilateral relations or coalitions and negotiation.
– Exchanges of view and clarification of positions are probably the most
difficult techniques in diplomatic craft.
• The results may not be immediately obvious and may take some
considerable time before a position is known.
– patience is required, coupled with effective preparation, to avoid
diplomatic formalism and stereotypical exchanges
79
80
4/23/2019
41
Diplomatic methods
– Cooperative methods also often include, especially in visits
diplomacy, ceremonial or symbolic events to reinforce the visit.
– Symbolic visits to memorials, commemorative events, public grounds
or opening ceremonies serve to signal the importance or significance
of the event or bilateral relationship.
– The symbolism is strengthened by multimedia and social coverage
– On the other hand shifting from cooperative methods to indicate
dissatisfaction is achieved through informal briefing, formal
statements, tabling draft amendments at an international or regional
organisation, or, in extreme cases, withdrawal of funding, or veto.
Diplomatic methods
• Communications strategies
– The main methods involve:
• image/presence;
• getting the message across;
• attack;
• counter-public diplomacy.
– The idea of establishing and projecting diplomatic presence has
become a much more important feature of contemporary diplomacy
– growth in associated media technologies, which offer easy scope for
information distribution.
81
82
4/23/2019
42
Diplomatic methods
– Media strategies directed at improving ‘presence’ objectives generally
address key component parts of presence:
• general external perceptions; acquisition of track record; perceived
effectiveness; perceived value
• The second media area – getting the message across – has
traditionally relied on briefing media leaks, press conferences and
spokespersons.
Diplomacy and Media
• Operational environment and the media
– the media have been affected by pace and the rapid ways in which some
events change.
– Journalists, when they have a particularly important story, are concerned to
keep the ‘newsness’ of it intact, and its lead nature.
– the growth of online news has affected several aspects of the process
outlined above, particularly pace, and the need to turn out short mobile-media
computer copy,
– The media environment, in fact, can frequently be unpredictable and hostile.
For example UN peace-keeping operations have been subject to periodic
media attack regarding incidents and neutrality
83
84
4/23/2019
43
Diplomacy
• Resistance and delay
– Strategies based on resistance or seeking delay move diplomacy
potentially into non-cooperative areas, if positions are held, rather
than shifting to accommodation.
– Methods include:
• seeking clarification;
• calls for further meetings;
• drafting changes, with the aim of changing, delaying or blocking
proposals or initiatives.
– Delaying methods of this type effectively seek to ‘buy time’ in a variety of
contexts such as: gaining more preferred wording in a draft convention;
protecting a core economic interest; avoiding environmental costs; achieving
greater internal security; staving off external pressure for internal reform; or
supporting an ally.
Diplomatic Methods
• Counter-strategies
– Counter-strategies use the full range of diplomatic methods discussed
above – cooperative, media, negotiation, economic sanctions,
and other coercive measures.
– Common counter-strategies are political methods to: develop
bilateral support; build wider coalitions; split a group or
alliance; and side-diplomacy at the margins of the UN or
standing international conference.
– Other strategies in crises include escalation to ratchet up pressure
through a media campaign, or to negotiate a wider and ‘deeper’
range of sanctions.
85
86
4/23/2019
44
Diplomatic Methods
• Expansion strategy
– In expansion strategy, states and other actors seek to extend their
influence and diplomatic space through groupings, institutions,
dialogue and representation rather than in a territorial sense.
– Expansion strategies have three hub elements:
• membership,
• media and
• representation.
Diplomatic Methods
• Diplomatic space
– Diplomatic space is setting within which diplomacy and foreign policy are carried
out
– Diplomatic space is not static and may be gained or lost.
– It is a central concept in diplomatic practice.
– The elements that go to make up diplomatic space include:
• physical (location, facilities, architectural style) embassies and consulates tend to
remain stable with core missions
• conceptual (ideas, language, commonly agreed or disputed terms or sconcepts)
core of the idea, and takes us to the central purposes of diplomacy
• institutional – legal (treaties, organisational competence, membership) legal
recognition and capacity to conduct international relations. diplomatic recognition
• setting constraints (responses or anticipated positions of other actors).
87
88
4/23/2019
45
The use of bilateral and multilateral relations
• Bilateral relations
– A number of types of bilateral relations can be distinguished:
• special relations, e.g. USA–UK (political–military), France–Germany (intraregional)
• economic–trade arrangements, e.g. most favoured nation (MFN)
• asymmetrical, e.g. alliance of major–minor powers; security – military
• cooperation;
• resource supply
• cultural, e.g. education, ethnic, religious;
• cross-boundary subnational;
• administrative, e.g. legal, technical, consular. the choice or use of bilateral relations
reflects factors such as historical links, alliance interests, the impact of regional
organisation, resource possession and territorial boundaries.
• A number of general reasons can be suggested for why some states prefer to conduct
foreign policy through bilateral relations.
• In some cases, a foreign policy has traditionally placed strong emphasis on bilateral visit
diplomacy (e.g. the PRC, Japan and Russia),
The use of bilateral and multilateral relations
• Bilateral diplomacy provides a sense of control and management.
– It is, moreover, selective in that, in most instances other than
dependent relations, states are able to target or develop links with
other actors for political, economic, medical and technical or strategic
purposes
89
90
4/23/2019
46
The use of bilateral and multilateral relations
• The principal disadvantages of bilateral diplomacy are that it is time
consuming and limits international contacts, unless supported by
multilateral initiatives.
• The routine care and maintenance of bilateral relations requires
significant commitments of organisation resources and may fragment
expertise.
• In dependent bilateral relations, the dependent power may be
vulnerable to coercive diplomacy and corresponding loss of foreign
policy control if the main power seeks support on wider foreign policy
issues as the ‘price’ of favoured bilateral status
The use of bilateral and multilateral relations
• Bilateral relations aim to develop joint ideas, often as dominant directing
concepts in regional and international fora, and the protection of shared interests.
• Bilateral special relations are distinguished by high levels of military–
bureaucratic coordination, summits, extensive political cooperation and a
network of formal treaties.
• Most special relations also involve informal secret arrangements in such areas as
intelligence, weapons supply and security guarantees.
• A further distinguishing feature of some special relations is the manner in which
adverse historical legacy is underplayed or managed as political theatre, in order
not to undermine overall political cooperation.
• Above all, the main characteristic of most bilateral special relations is the concern
of one or both parties to retain exclusivity or the fiction of exclusivity, and
exclude or reduce the significance of access by other actors.
91
92
4/23/2019
47
• https://www.asef.org/images/docs/ModelASEM_Diplo_Multilateral
Diplomacy.pdf
Multilateral relations
• Multilateral diplomacy has now become an established and diverse
feature of modern diplomacy, conducted through global institutions,
permanent conferences and a variety of regional and pan-regional
institutions.
• Multilateral international institutions provide a global arena for states
and other actors in which participation demonstrates their sovereign
equality, masking but not removing disparities of economic and other
power. The state is able to project its views and receive diplomatic
recognition of its identity
93
94
4/23/2019
48
Multilateral relations
• Multilateral institutions, in addition, provide a framework or sense of
solidarity within which states are able to display independence and
operate within larger group fora.
• The institutions themselves are also seen as the preferred route or
vehicle for articulating concepts of international order.
• General rule making in a wide variety of areas, the containment of
conflict and conflict resolution are primary goals, in contrast to
restrictive non-multilateralists who emphasise ad hoc, like-minded
groups operating outside or independently of multilateral institutions,
restricting these primarily to roles mobilising collective sanctions
Multilateral relations
• Other factors influencing multilateralism derive specifically from aspects of
foreign policy orientation.
• For some states, bilateral relations are not seen as a viable option, given the
range of economic and other political interests.
• Multilateral institutions may also be favoured by those states that seek to
depoliticise their foreign policy and assume an anodyne role in international
relations.
– For example German and Japanese foreign humanitarian assistance is
channelled largely through UN agencies such as the United Nations
International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), so reducing political
exposure by multilateralising the aid
95
96
4/23/2019
49
Diplomatic Visits
• Visits
– In general, visits are the workhorse for the strategic management of
relations and policy, particularly in bilateral and also to a lesser extent
in multilateral diplomacy. Broadly the purposes of visits fall into
(though may cross over) one of the following five categories:
• Symbolic
• improving diplomatic space
• addressing (or not) substantive issues
• Signalling
• • other purposes, e.g. reorientation.
Diplomatic Visits
• In many instances visits at the level of head of government or foreign
minister are in whole or part symbolic.
– In this sense the visit may serve to draw a line under a past historical
period, and indicate by the level and other features that the parties
wish to ‘mend’ fences and initiate improved relations after a period of
political or other tension (e.g. Germany–USA post-Iraq war; USA–
PRC relations or India–Pakistan over Kashmir).
• Whether such visits have any lasting substantive effect is in part related
to the nature of the issues underlying the tension, such as policy
differences over the handling of conflict, or territorial disputes.
97
98
4/23/2019
50
Diplomatic Visits
• A second important feature of visits is that they may be part of efforts to
• improve the diplomatic space and overall freedom of action of a state. Thus,
• states use visits and other methods such as initiatives (discussed below) to
• develop their credibility or international reputation, stake a claim to an
• idea, propose institutional reforms, or, quite simply, acquire a lead role or
• influence on an issue such as UN reform, genocide, climate change.
Diplomatic Visits
• Third, visits are used for substantive purposes, such as an exchange
of views, coordination of policy prior to a regional or multilateral
gathering, or the negotiation of a bilateral issue (e.g. Saudi Arabia–
Syria over Lebanon), or other agreements regulating relations such as a
framework agreement for transborder relations.
– In the latter, negotiations visits by heads of government or foreign
ministers are generally likely to be at the initial or concluding stages
of the talks (e.g. applying political persuasion or pressure to initiate
renegotiation of stalled talks, or breaking deadlock in the final stages
of negotiations)
99
100
4/23/2019
51
Diplomatic Visits
• Fourth, visits may be used for a number of other specific purposes.
– These include signalling an important shift in a policy; for example the
Sharon–Abbas meeting marked a significant move in the resumption
of Israel–Palestinian talks aimed at attempting to resolve the
Palestinian and other related issues.
– A further important use of visits by heads of government or foreign
ministers is to indicate foreign policy reorientation. The visit to Spain
of Venezuela’s President Chavez, following his re-election, was part of
a policy of shifting relations away from the USA
Side Diplomacy
• Using all opportunities: side-diplomacy
– The use of side-diplomacy – that is the holding of short discussions and meetings
on matters other than the main formal business, at the margins of multilateral,
regional and other events – is an established part of modern diplomatic practice.
– The annual meeting of the UN General Assembly, for example, provides
opportunities for a variety of contacts and exchanges
– Occasionally unplanned and embarrassing diplomatic encounters can occur, as in
the case of that between the British foreign secretary and Mugabe delegation
while navigating the UN’s crowded intersessional diplomatic traffic.
– Funerals of foreign leaders and statesmen have also traditionally offered venues
for diplomatic and political contact from time to time.
– The funeral of President Arafat, for example, was used for a number of private
side exchanges, such as that between Greek and Turkish representatives on the
question of Turkish admission to the EU.s
101
102
4/23/2019
52
Side Diplomacy
• While providing opportunities for contact, such occasions present
difficult protocol decisions on whether to attend the event or not, and
the rank of person attending the decline in the phenomenon of the
charismatic leader with long historical reach has reduced the
importance and, above all, impact of this method.
Side Diplomacy
• side-diplomacy in its main form has the following advantages:
– it avoids public visits
– it is conducted in (relative) privacy
– key leaders are able to focus
– it is a vehicle for initial contact after break or hostility
– it provides opportunity for personal diplomacy
– it facilitates meetings or contact with several leaders in one location.
103
104
4/23/2019
53
Diplomacy by Visits
• The effectiveness of diplomacy by visits
– visits are an important part of the repertoire of diplomacy.
– However, they do not automatically produce the desired effect and
their value may be misperceived or misinterpreted. Effectiveness may
be extremely limited if relations remain conducted largely at a
ceremonial level.
– An economic or cultural agreement may not be implemented or
followed up, and in this sense ceremony outweighs substance
Diplomacy by Visits
• In other instances, relations between leaders may result in growing
personal rapport, which may develop more quickly or be ahead of the
underlying and unresolved bilateral or multilateral issues.
• While political rhetoric may suggest a ‘new era’ or ‘historic
opportunity’, implementation is, in varying degrees, influenced by
disaggregated bureaucratic and other agency interests – the ‘many
voices’.
105
106
4/23/2019
54
Diplomacy by Visits
• Bilateral visits may also suffer from other factors, such as inappropriate
• timing, dissimilar expectations, perceptions of different purposes and
over-exaggeration of pressure or leverage.
• Visits may less frequently be proposed largely as diversion from
domestic political difficulties.
• These former instances, particularly different conceptions of what
might be achieved, suggest some of the principal weaknesses of this
type of diplomacy.
Diplomacy by Visits
• Some states – such as North Korea, the PRC, Cuba and Japan – rely
heavily, or almost exclusively, on bilateral diplomacy, using in-bound
visits as distinct from multilateral or plurilateral fora, or a mixture of
the two.
• While in-bound visits provide the receiving state with advantages, such
as controlling the nature of the setting or agenda, major limitations are
related to time
107
108
4/23/2019
55
Diplomacy: Signaling
• Getting the message across: signaling
– Signalling is an established part of traditional diplomacy, and provides
additional or other means of communication. It is, however, one of the least
straightforward aspects of statecraft.
– Signalling may be defined as the use of verbal (e.g. unilateral statements,
policy announcements) and non-verbal communication (e.g. appointments,
release of POWs, using an agenda that omits areas of difference and focuses
on areas of possible cooperation, non-attendance, level of representative,
recall of an ambassador).
– Frequently, signalling uses economic instruments to indicate intentions or
bring about changes in behaviour of another actor.
• For example the USA eased its trade embargo on North Korea in 1990 as
part of the Five Point engagement policy of the Reagan Administration
Diplomacy : Signalling
• Non-verbal actions of this kind should be distinguished from indirect
verbal communication, in that non-verbal action can involve significant
risk, be less ambiguous vis-ŕ-vis origin, and involve formal approval
109
110
4/23/2019
56
Diplomacy : Signalling
• Both forms of indirect communication are subject to misinterpretation,
which is a particular feature of this method.
• Signalling occurs for the following reasons or types of contexts:
– abnormal relations (an absence or break in diplomatic relations)
– conflict/dispute resolution
– intersessional conference communication
– an indication of review, or shift of policy
– exploratory first moves
– minimising politicisation or exposure of institutions and/or
– decisionmakers
– an escalation in a crisis.
111
112
4/23/2019
57
Indirect Communication
• The use of indirect communication reduces the political cost or impact of
rebuff or failure.
• Non-verbal measures such as trade concessions or aid programmes can be
retracted relatively easily through non-implementation or being allowed to
lapse.
• The use of a general or indirect statement reduces over-politicisation of an
organisation or decisionmaker and can demonstrate, by collective statements,
collective solidarity.
– The IMF for example, as part of the review of its role in international debt
management, has reviewed differing signalling devices it might use to indicate
to IMF members and other international or financial bodies its assessment of
the performance recovery or credit-worthiness of borrowing states
Indirect Communication
• For states themselves, announcements of the early repayment of international
sovereign debt are intended as signals of economic robustness and foreign
policy control.
• Third, signalling is an important device in cases of long-standing disputes and
conflicts, or where states have not established or have broken diplomatic
relations.
• Signalling, such as the visit of a parliamentary delegation, may be used by the
sending state to edge formal relations along, or to test the climate or
willingness to enter into bilateral or plurilateral talks.
• Fourth, use of indirect communication enables states and other actors to
retain some measure of freedom of action, enabling them to shift tactics or
develop other lines of approach.
113
114
4/23/2019
58
Reception and Misperception
• The principal difficulties with signalling centre around the questions of reception and
misperception.
• It is not always clear who the target is or whether the message has been received.
– This aspect is particularly evident in relations with
• isolated (e.g. North Korea, Burma, Sudan)
• fragmented (e.g. Indonesia, Congo, Haiti, Pakistan)
• revolutionary or theocratic regimes (so-called dualist states, e.g. Iran).
• Further difficulties occur in that the messages may be untargeted, such as a general appeal
for restraint (e.g. Security Council Resolution), unilateral acts or open statements.
• In the Ukraine election transition crisis, for example, President Putin undertook ‘to work
with any government’.
• The impact of open statements or appeals such as this tends to be weakened in that there is
no clear recipient; the message may also contradict previous behaviour or be ambiguous
about implementation
Diplomacy: Initiatives
• Initiatives
– Initiatives are non-routine proposals put forward on a particular issue or
problem. They may take the form of a sponsored draft resolution, new
draft articles, proposals for restarting talks or similar moves to break
deadlock, develop ideas and rules, and move forward issues.
– Initiatives are frequently undertaken in conjunction with two or more other
states as co-sponsors in the context of multilateral conferences.
– In other instances, behind-the-scenes ‘quiet diplomacy’ is a vehicle for putting
forward initiatives, especially in long-running disputes, for example Finland in
the Aceh dispute.
– Where immediate impact and a wide élite audience are required, ideas are
periodically floated as de facto proposals in the major international press.
115
116
4/23/2019
59
Diplomacy: Initiatives
• The reasons for initiatives
– four purposes need to be carefully distinguished.
• First, initiatives are particularly part of the foreign policy styles of those states
with a high involvement in multilateral institutions and tradition of support for
humanitarian assistance, human rights and pacific settlement of disputes.
– Canada, for example cosponsored with Namibia (president of the Security
Council) Resolution 1261 on the protection of children in war and the Accra
conference with Ghana.
• Second, the development of initiatives is a key role of office holders and chairs of
working groups in standing and ad hoc multilateral conferences, as illustrated by
Satiya Nandan’s negotiating text in the UN Highly Migratory and Straddling Fish
Stocks Negotiations, or the initiative by the chair of the WTO’s General Council
to break the Dohar trade talks deadlock.
• Apart from the above, a third sense in which diplomatic initiatives may be
understood is in terms of factors such as prestige, claiming competence or
exclusivity and, finally, power projection.
Coercive diplomacy
• Coercive diplomacy
– Coercive diplomacy aims to compel changes in behaviour using threats, sanctions and
withdrawal or denial of rewards.
– Threats may or may not involve a ‘ladder’ or progressive escalation.
– In coercive diplomacy, force and pure violence does not automatically follow. Rather, the
intention is to convey the possibility of pain or damage.
– Thus, an ultimatum may set time limits for unspecified action in the event of non-
compliance.
– The threat is implicit and relies on ambiguity and uncertainty over subsequent events and
expectations of the substantial costs of non-compliance. If threats are explicit, the
assumption differs in that it relies more heavily on decisionmakers’ rational assessment of
the risks associated with noncompliance, given that specified consequences are set out.
• Coercive action moves diplomacy into a grey area. Diplomacy no longer is distinguished by
the notion of ‘give and take’, argument and persuasion, in which the parties achieve degrees
of mutual benefit, but rather compulsion through force. Diplomacy shifts to become an
instrument of coercive behaviour, rather than exchange and adjustment that is conducted
through discussion, mediation or pacific settlement.
117
118
4/23/2019
60
Diplomacy and the theories
• Diplomacy has been theorized long before the development of the
subfield of diplomatic theory that we currently associate with the
academic discipline of International Relations (IR).
• Within modern academia, theorizing is commonly perceived as a
systematization of thinking, an extensive elaboration of ideas and
principles governing or seeking to explain a particular phenomenon
that there is a lot of diplomatic theory around, including when writers
do not name what they do as ‘diplomatic theory’.
Early Diplomatic Thoughts
• Among classical, medieval and modern thinkers of diplomacy, a key and
recurring issue has been the outlining of the necessary conditions for
fulfilling the diplomatic mission.
• It includes the demarcation of the role of the diplomatic agent,
delineating the skills and ethics of the ideal ambassador within different
diplomatic cultures.
• One of the earliest exchanges on this subject is found in the orations of
Aeschines and Demosthenes on The False Embassy (Peri Parapresbeias), which
concerned legal charges pressed by the latter on the former for his
ambassadorial conduct in fourth-century BCE Athens, following a series
of embassies to the Macedonians
119
120
4/23/2019
61
Early Diplomatic Thoughts
• Another key focus of the diplomatic craft has been negotiation.
• Not only the conditions for a successful negotiation but the ends of
• negotiation have been a major concern for philosophers and
practitioners.
• In seventeenth-century Europe, Cardinal Richelieu has been the key
thinker of continuous negotiation, elevated and valorized as an end in
itself, including during war and even with no possible agreement in
sight
Early Diplomatic Thoughts
• The idea of continuous negotiation underscored the importance of always
retaining open channels of communication, so that compromise and
settlement could follow when conditions allowed for them some time in the
future.
• This notion further highlighted the value of indirection or multi-directionality
in diplomacy, the importance of negotiating for ‘side effects’.
• These sideway pursuits could occur not merely strategically or as a devious
objective of negotiation, but as a pragmatic response when stalemates have
been reached, informing and reformulating unsustainable policy objectives
121
122
4/23/2019
62
Diplomacy and Strategy
• Philosophers–practitioners have reflected on strategy, often depicted as a
crucial ingredient of diplomacy that underscores the means–ends method of
getting one’s way with others.
• In this regard, the importance of deceit and dissimulation, or less darkly of
ambiguity, has been highlighted by thinkers from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli.
• Crucially retriever from these strategic thinkers, although often singularly and
absolutely interpreted, has been the bypassing of restraining ethics or the
development of a different ethics (i.e. public morality vs private morality) in
determining a course of action.
– The prevalent motto in such diplomatic thinking is that ‘the end always
justifies the means’,
Diplomacy and Strategy
• On the other side of the spectrum, however, and especially when one realizes
that diplomacy is almost always not a one-off game but an iterative
business underscoring the importance of honesty in negotiation, crucial in
developing long-term and sustainable relationships with others
– Diplomacy is not simply concerned with short-term gains or empire building.
• Mahatma Gandhi (1997)
– the means employed should always match the ends, projecting a more
holistic–spiritual approach in dealing with rivals – irrespective of the means
they choose to use.
123
124
4/23/2019
63
Diplomacy and IR
• Diplomacy has long been neglected as a preoccupation of
international theory. To repair this deficiency, this essay focuses upon
bargaining over interstate disputes and makes two distinctions.
• One is between diplomacy as independent and as dependent variable
Diplomacy and Strategy
• Henry Kissinger
– Raison d’état has been suggested to be the founding principle of
modern diplomacy
– Conceived in early Renaissance Italy by thinkers such as Guicciardini
and Machiavelli, it legitimated diplomatic action through policies and
activities that promoted the status of the ruler, but which
progressively acquired an impersonal legal quality and autonomous
ethics.
125
126
4/23/2019
64
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• Among most scholars of diplomacy that their chosen field and its
subject are unjustly and unwisely neglected by their mainstream IR
colleagues
• The claim of diplomacy’s neglect is only true up to a point because, as
even a cursory glance at some of the major works in IR reveals, quite a
lot of attention is devoted to something called diplomacy (Morgenthau
1967, Kissinger 1994, to students of diplomacy, they tend to respond
that what people like Morgenthau and Kissinger call diplomacy is
not, properly speaking, diplomacy but something else, for
example, foreign policy or statecraft.
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• IR developed as a state-centric field of inquiry, and very much remains one today.
• States, their roles and their significance remain the axis around which inquiry
revolves.
• Even the descants and challenges to their privileged position which are
proliferating still seem to reinforce, rather than undermine, this centrality.
– As a consequence, diplomacy has been seen in mainstream IR as a state practice.
– It is assumed to exist, and exist in the way that it does, because states and the
modern system of sovereign territorial states exist.
– It is assumed to function in accordance with the interests, priorities and concerns
of these entities. In short, for most scholars the sovereign territorial state provides
diplomacy’s raison d’ętre.
127
128
4/23/2019
65
Diplomacy ???
• Especially in the United States (US), the term is used as a synonym for
foreign policy or international relations in general
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• Holsti - Diplomacy is presented in mainstream IR as an instrument of foreign
policy along with propaganda, economic rewards and punishments, and the
threat or use of force to crush or punish
• Morgenthau, in particular, presents diplomacy as an undervalued
instrument of foreign policy and one which, if used properly, confers the
advantages of a force multiplier, and a morally significant one at that.
– Good diplomacy enhances the more material instruments of power allowing a
state to ‘punch above its weight’ or achieve what it wants more cheaply.
– Bad diplomacy can result in a state using its other foreign policy instruments
unwisely and underperforming as a consequence.
– In addition, however, good diplomacy is good because it is associated with
pursuing foreign policy objectives peacefully and taking a bigger picture view
of what needs to be done.
129
130
4/23/2019
66
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• If we can accept that states, or their representatives, very often approach matters
of common concern simply by talking things through, then diplomacy may be
seen as an instrument of foreign policy.
– One way of getting what you want is by talking to other people.
• However, the claims in mainstream IR that diplomacy can render foreign policy
more efficient, serve as a force multiplier or constitute a morally better way of
conducting international relations all pose problems for the idea that diplomacy is
simply one among several instruments of foreign policy.
• As soon as states move from simply talking to communicating threats and
promises about punishments and rewards, then diplomacy moves from simply
being an instrument of foreign policy to being a medium by which the possible
use of the other instruments is communicated.
• It may be important, indeed necessary, but it is no more interesting than the
processes by which the message gets delivered, especially when compared to the
things being communicated
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• There is more to getting what states want than simply communicating
it and what they are prepared to do or give to get it.
• And when the idea of diplomacy is imbued with the notion that it is a
particularly good way for states to get what they want because it is
generally cheaper than the alternatives and peaceful, then this raises the
question of for whom and for what purposes diplomacy may be
regarded as an instrument.
– If monopolized by statecraft, it thus raises questions of representation
and inclusiveness as well as of substate and transnational interests.
131
132
4/23/2019
67
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• Mainstream IR has not been interested in considering, let alone resolving,
these puzzles about whether diplomacy should be viewed as
– an instrument (and if so whose instrument and for what purposes), a
– medium (and if so why and when a virtuous one),
– or combination of both.
• Instead, it has simply treated them as aspects of other issues, leaving its
understanding of diplomacy compartmentalized to the point of being
fragmented and incoherent.
– Thus diplomacy, viewed simply as the way a state ‘talks’ to other states, has
been presented as not only unimportant but – in its traditional form as a way
of communicating through resident embassies and foreign ministries – as in
decline (Fulton 1998).
Diplomacy and Theories of International Relations
• Diplomacy as a way of enhancing (or inhibiting) the effectiveness of
other foreign policy instruments has been treated as statecraft
• Diplomacy viewed as a good way of handling international relations
has been treated as a subfield of the ethics of international and human
conduct in general,
– as a component of international institution building and as a practice
being superseded and displaced by the emergence of global
governance and public diplomacy conducted by the representatives of
an emerging civil society (Seib 2009).
133
134
4/23/2019
68
Diplomatic Theory And Critical IR
• Critical IR theorists draw attention to the problems
– Drawing on a variety of sources in philosophy, psychology, sociology,
linguistics, literature and the arts
• It is impossible to make true or false claims about what diplomacy
really is, only from what people say it is and how they use the term.
Diplomatic Theory And Critical IR
• Critical perspectives in diplomacy have challenged dominant accounts of
what diplomacy is or ought to be.
– Most of these approaches seek to expose the ethical and power
implications of different practices of diplomacy, and specifically the
marginalizations, hierarchies, exclusions and alienations that these practices
consciously or unconsciously produce.
– Some of these approaches are sympathetic to diplomacy as a practice for
managing a world composed of agents equipped with positivist and universal,
yet competing, understandings of this world.
– Critical approaches have helped to bring the field of diplomatic studies
into conversation with other fields of IR and underscored the significance
of opening up diplomacy to scholarly developments beyond the discipline.
135
136
4/23/2019
69
Diplomatic Theory And Critical IR
• New theoretical perspectives in diplomacy have been provided from
within disciplines beyond IR, such as sociology, anthropology,
psychology, theology, philosophy and cultural studies as well as
from within cross-disciplinary perspectives.
– Such studies support the need for a more plural understanding and
broadly conceived notion of diplomacy.
– A conceptual history of diplomacy treats diplomacy as a contingent
phenomenon.
– Understanding ‘diplomacy’ as a concept implies acceptance of
ambiguity and a surplus of meaning.
Morgenthau on Diplomacy
• According to Hans J Morgenthau
– (1)Diplomacy must determine its objectives in the light of the power actually
and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives.
– (2) Diplomacy must assess the objectives of other nations and the power
actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives.
– (3) Diplomacy must determine to what extent these different objectives are
compatible with each other.
– (4) Diplomacy must employ the means suited to the pursuit of its objectives.
To him a Diplomat fulfills three basic functions for his government:
Symbolic, Legal and Political Failure in any one of these tasks may jeopardize
the success of foreign policy and with it the peace of the world.
137
138
4/23/2019
70
Morgenthau on Diplomacy
• According to Hans J Morgenthau
– To carry out such diplomacy, he argued, nations had three tools at
their disposal
• Persuasion
• Compromise
• and the threat of force.
– You can’t fall too much in love with any one of these tools.
– To maximize diplomacy’s effectiveness, countries must blend and
match these tools to best deal with particular problems and situations.
Morgenthau on Diplomacy
• Morgenthau argued that there are nine rules for diplomacy; four
“fundamental” and five relating to compromise.
• His four fundamental rules are:
– diplomacy must be divested of the crusading spirit (i.e., don’t get dogmatic);
– the objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national
interest and must be supported with adequate power (his national interest for
“a peace-loving nation” is its national security defined by the integrity of its
national territory and its institutions);
– diplomacy must look at the political scene from the point of view of other
nations (defined in terms of their national security); and
– nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them.
139
140
4/23/2019
71
Morgenthau on Diplomacy
• And his five prerequisites for compromise are:
– “Give up the Shadow of Worthless Rights for the Substance of Real
Advantage” [i.e., don’t be too legalistic or ideological]
– “Never Put Yourself in a Position from Which You Cannot Retreat
Without Losing Face and from Which You Cannot Advance Without
Grave Risks”
– “Never Allow a Weak Ally to Make Decisions for You”
– “The Armed Forces Are the Instrument of Foreign Policy, Not Its
Master”; and
– “The Government Is the Leader of Public Opinion, Not Its Slave”.
Dependent and Independent Variable
• Analysis of diplomacy as independent variable studies diplomatic
practice as causal influence, as when overcoming pressures that
increase the danger of war or deadlock.
– This perspective is important for developing a diplomatic 'point of
view'.
– Diplomacy as dependent variable takes into account rising constraints
upon diplomatic statecraft, such as public opinion, ideology, and the
intrusion of specialised actors.
• Dependent diplomacy analysis is preoccupied with constraints upon
diplomatic statecraft and with adaptation
141
142
4/23/2019
72
Dependent and Independent Variable
• Analysis of diplomacy as dependent variable also focuses on the
degree to which diplomatic practice adapts to these constraints.
– Nicolson's idea of 'protean' diplomacy presumably incorporates the
potential of diplomats and their governments to adapt to political,
military, and economic changes affecting the fate of diplomatic
initiatives.
Dependent and Independent Variable
– Morgenthau, critiquing the effects of ideological inflexibility and
militarisation on Cold War diplomacy in the latter half of the
twentieth century, was more pessimistic about diplomacy's adaptive
potential.
• By contrast, diplomacy constitutes an independent variable when
diplomats push for dispute management in opposition to pressures
that increase the chances of war.
• When Morgenthau praised the qualities of nineteenth century
European diplomats for their ability to prevent war between major
powers, and argued for taking the crusading spirit out of diplomacy
and for accommodating on secondary questions, he had in mind
diplomacy as independent variable.
143
144
4/23/2019
73
Negotiated and Non-negotiated
• Second distinction is between negotiated and non-negotiated types
of bargaining.
– Diplomacy is negotiated when the interests of states cannot be fully
reconciled, and explicit bargaining is required to reveal the area of
agreement.
• For example, Hedley Bull notes that the problem for diplomacy is
that 'states have different interests, and . . . common interests have
first to be identified by a process of bargaining before any question
of maximization of them can arise'.
Diplomacy as Dependent Variable
• Diplomacy as dependent variable refers to the consequences of
specified constraints for the ability of states to cope diplomatically
with disputes with other states.
– Constraints have effects either as possibilities, with some courses of
action made more difficult or impossible by the constraints and others
easier to accomplish or newly possible; or as probabilities that, because
of changes in the environment, specified courses of diplomatic action
will be taken and others excluded.
145
146
4/23/2019
74
Diplomacy as independent variable
• Martin Wight understands diplomacy as an independent variable when,
contrasting the inevitability of war in general and the preventability of
particular wars, he argues that the difference between them is
explainable by diplomatic statecraft.
• 'It is the task of diplomacy', he writes, 'to circumvent the occasions of
war, and to extend the series of circumvented occasions; to drive the
automobile of state along a one way track, against head-on traffic, past
infinitely recurring precipices'.
Diplomacy as Independent Variable
• In the nineteenth century, as in the mid-twentieth, the importance of
independent diplomatic action was directly associated with the magnitude of
the threat of great-power war.
• And while diplomacy was certainly employed as it was earlier for propaganda,
deception and gamesmanship, its greater importance was to counter the
prevailing tide of conflict at the time of the greatest need.
– The crisis management dimension of diplomacy in particular can be fully
examined, it appears, only by understanding diplomacy as an independent
variable - that is to say, the use of statesmanship to counter the drift to war,
rivalry, and mistrust - by reaching cooperative arrange ments in spite of those
tendencies.
147
148
4/23/2019
75
• Craig and George appear to treat it as an independent variable in
relation to the requirements of successful crisis management, in
which the consequences of diplomatic failure could mean highly
destructive warfare.
– 'If catastrophe is to be avoided', they write in relation to superpower
confrontation, 'decision makers in a crisis must be capable of
functioning at a very high level'.
The Study of Diplomacy
• The lack of theoretical interest in diplomacy, alluded to in the does not
imply any dearth of literature on the subject.
• On the contrary, there is an abundance of narratives of various kinds
dealing with diplomacy.
JP1
149
150
Snímek 150
JP1 Essence of Diplomacy
Jan Polišenský; 26.01.2019
4/23/2019
76
The Study of Diplomacy
• Extant studies
– The bulk of the vast literature on diplomacy has been written either
practitioners or diplomatic historians
• Practitioners have tended to be anecdotal rather than systematic
• Diplomatic historians idiographic rather than nomothetic
The Study of Diplomacy
• The defining characteristic of historians may not be their dedication to
the past in general, but their immersion in a particular past
• practitioners have drawn on their own particular experiences.
• Neither practitioners nor diplomatic historians have been prone to
regard different historical experiences and insights as comparable or
detached
151
152
4/23/2019
77
The Study of Diplomacy
• Practitioners' insights
– In works written by diplomats or scholars-cum-practitioners there is a
clear prescriptive bent.
– Diplomats have reflected on their own practice to an extent that few
other professions can match.
– Much of this literature is in the form of memoirs.
– These, together with the succession of diplomatic manuals, while
often prescriptive and value-laden, contain a wealth of useful
information in need of systematization.
The Study of Diplomacy
• Diplomatic history
– Diplomatic history is an old subdiscipline. Having amassed a wealth
of information about specific eras or incidents from antiquity onwards
153
154
4/23/2019
78
Realism and diplomacy
• Hans Morgenthau, for instance, the conduct of a nation's foreign affairs by its
diplomats is for national power in peace what military strategy and tactics by
its military leaders are for national power in war.
• It is the art of bringing the different elements of national power to bear with
maximum effect upon those points in the international situation which
concern the national interest most directly.
• Politics among Nations
– Diplomacy is the only defense against war - which is not seen as an anomaly since
to fail in any of these four tasks may mean to "jeopardize the success of
foreign policy and with it the peace of the world."
Realism and Diplomacy
• Robert Gilpin, in his War and Change in World Politics, states clearly his
substantialist approach, as well as his view on diplomacy:
– the process of international political change is generally an
evolutionary process in which continual adjustments are made to
accommodate the shifting interests and power relations of groups and
states.
– This gradual evolution of the international system is characterized by
bargaining, coercive diplomacy, and warfare over specific and
relatively narrowly defined interests.
155
156
4/23/2019
79
Realism and Diplomacy
• This argument, which may represent classical realism more generally,
• shows clearly why realism has not theorized diplomacy. Groups and
• states remain, but there may be changes in specific interests and power
• positions. Various tools are available in the pursuit or defense of these
• interests, and international change is a reflection of the deployment of
• these tools. What needs to be theorized is not the tools but those who
• are in possession of the tools - states (and indeed, realism has spent
• considerable energy on theorizing the state)
Liberalism and diplomacy
• Liberalism and diplomacy
– liberals tend to proceed from methodological individualism and conceptualize
international relations as the sum total of state or actor behavior.
– State behavior, in turn, is seen to be shaped by state-society relations.
– Diplomacy, therefore, "takes place within a context of international rules,
institutions, and practices, which affect the incentives of the actors.„
– diplomacy does not belong to the core matter of international relations, but is
merely a tool for acting on incentives, and is therefore not a prioritized object
of theoretical development
157
158
4/23/2019
80
Diplomacy as an Institution
• Diplomacy, should be seen as an institution,
– understood broadly as a relatively stable collection of social
practices consisting of easily recognized roles coupled with
underlying norms and a set of rules or conventions defining
appropriate behavior for, and governing relations among, occupants
of these roles.
– These norms and rules "prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity,
and shape expectations.
Diplomacy as an Institution
• Institutions may or may not involve organizations, or groups of
individuals who pursue a set of collective purposes.
• Organizations are entities that normally possess physical locations,
offices, personnel, equipment and budgets
159
160
4/23/2019
81
Diplomatic Norms and Rules
• Diplomatic norms and rules
– diplomacy rests on a norm of coexistence, allowing polities "to live
and let live.„
– In the words of Garrett Mattingly, "unless people realize that they
have to live together, indefinitely, in spite of their differences,
diplomats have no place to stand.
Diplomatic Norms and Rules
• Whereas the specific rules of the institution of diplomacy have varied
over time, reciprocity appears to be a core normative theme running
through all diplomatic practice.
• Reciprocity implies that exchanges should be of roughly equivalent
values.
– In other words, reciprocity is meant to produce "balanced" exchanges
– The norm of reciprocity lends an amount of predictability to
diplomatic relations.
– While not offering exact predictability, it makes it possible for polities
to know the general range of possible outcomes of their exchanges
161
162
4/23/2019
82
Diplomatic Reciprocity
• The distinction between specific and diffuse reciprocity is pertinent
in this connection.
– Specific reciprocity refers to "situations in which specified partners
exchange items of equivalent value in a strictly delimited sequence,"
whereas in situations of
– diffuse reciprocity "the definition of equivalence is less precise ... and
the sequence of events is less narrowly bounded.”
• Diffuse reciprocity implies that the parties do not insist on immediate
and exactly equivalent reciprocation of each and every concession, on
an appropriate "quid" for every "quo."
Diplomatic Reciprocity
• Contingency and equivalence as the two basic dimensions of social
exchange characterizing reciprocity, we can identify mixed reciprocity
patterns.
– A highly contingent action is a fairly immediate response to an action taken
by another,
– Less contingent action may take place after a longer period of time or even
in advance of the other's action.
– Equivalence refers to a comparison of the perceived values of goods given
and received.
• Contingency and equivalence vary continuously, but if we - for analytical
purposes - treat them dichotomously, we end up with four types of
reciprocity
163
164
4/23/2019
83
Diplomatic Reciprocity - Example
• The practice of expelling foreign diplomats for espionage may
illustrate specific reciprocity.
– States today recognize that when they expel diplomats from a foreign
country, that government is likely to respond in kind by immediately
expelling an equivalent number of their own diplomats.
– The anticipation of specific reciprocity therefore often deters states
from uncooperative behavior.
165
166
4/23/2019
84
Diplomatic Reciprocity – Example II
• the exchanges between the United States and China prior to the mutual
presidential visits in 1997 and 1998.
• President Clinton was pressured by Congress, which was seeking to impose
sanctions against China because of its human-rights violations, to secure a
significant human-rights concession from China as a prerequisite for the state
visit.
• Just before Jiang Zemin's arrival in the United States, a prominent Chinese
political prisoner was released.
• While one political prisoner's freedom could not be and was not- considered
"equal" in value to the political and economic benefits China was likely to reap
from the summit, the US Administration was apparently sufficiently satisfied with
this specific concession to welcome the Chinese President and negotiate a wide
range of issues
Diplomatic Reciprocity - Immunity
• Among the procedural rules of diplomacy, immunity has assumed
prominence throughout history.
• The inviolability of diplomatic agents is seen to be a prerequisite for
the establishment of stable relations between polities.
• "Rooted in necessity, immunity was buttressed by religion, sanctioned
by custom, and fortified by reciprocity."
167
168
4/23/2019
85
Diplomatic Reciprocity - Immunity
• Traditional codes of hospitality may have contributed to the notion of
according diplomatic envoys inviolability.
– "The ancient Greeks and Romans considered it impious to injure a
guest, as did the Celts, the Gauls, and the Teutons.“
– The most perennial and robust foundation of diplomatic immunity
seems to be functional necessity: the privileges and immunities that
diplomatic envoys have enjoyed throughout the ages have simply been
seen as necessary to enable diplomats to perform their functions.
Toward a Historical Sociology of Diplomacy
• Can we see we see diplomacy as a institution of international societies,
not of individual states ????
JP2
169
170
Snímek 170
JP2 essence of diplomacy
Jan Polišenský; 26.01.2019
4/23/2019
86
Diplomacy of Ancient Civilizations: Ancient Egypt
• Tell el-Amarna, site of ruins and tombs of the city Akhetaton in Upper
Egypt, new capital of the kingdom build by Amenhotep IV
(Akhenaton)
• 1887-1888: an archives of diplomatic correspondence of pharaohs
Amenhotep III. and his son Amenhotep IV found. Today the archives
is in British Museum in London
Diplomatic Correspondence Of Pharaohs With Other Rulers
• Diplomatic Correspondence
– Egypt – Babylonia
– Egypt – Assyria
– Egypt – Mitann
– Egypt - Hittit Empire
• Discussed
– Marriages, sending daughters and sisters
– Occasion of death of rulers, succession on throne
– Assurance on continuing friendly relationship a
– Negotiation on adjustment of borders
– Agreements on handing over escaped persons
– Gifts and presents
– Explanations of problems with not accurate information
• Complains on not polite enough treatment of diplomats of the other side
171
172
4/23/2019
87
Diplomacy in Ancient India
• Beginnings: 3000 BC – civilization Harappa
– Mohenjo Daro
– Theocratical state with a central power and important international relations and
diplomacy
• Invasion of Aryans from Afghanistan (1800-1700 BC)
– Harappa civilization disappeared
– Vedic culture
– Rapid development of diplomacy: many states on Indian subcontinent, relations
among them, alliances, coalitions, gradual unification
– Vedas (1500-400 BC)
– Sanscrit
– Arthasatras (textbooks on world affairs, important sourse on diplomacy)
• "the science of politics“
• It includes books on the nature of government, law, civil and criminal court
systems, ethics, economics, markets and trade, the methods for screening
ministers, diplomacy, theories on war, nature of peace, and the duties and
obligations of a king
Kautilya: Arthasastra
• Six instruments of foreign policy and diplomatic practice:
1. Peace which can be based on a treaty concluded with a more
powerfull ruler
2. War against a weaker enemy
3. Neutrality based on waiting
4. Preparation for negotiation which should result in an attack
5. Achievement of an alliance to get a protection from a powerfull ruler
6. Conduct of „double policy“ meaning to have a war with one ruler
and to be in peace with another ruler
173
174
4/23/2019
88
Kautilya: Arthasastra
Principles for the rules to set a goal, strategy and instruments of
diplomacy.
• Diplomacy should:
1. strengthen the sovereignty of the power of the state
2. respect the principle of balance between the states (mandala)
Diplomacy of Ancient China
• 3000 BC – tribes, tribal unions, development of statehood
• Dynasty Shang (from 18 Century BC): diplomacy between the king and
the tribal rulers
– Agreements on tributes, fees, participation in military operations, assistance in
defense
– Reception of tribal rulers in the capital had a high ceremony and etiquette,
important diplomatic event
175
176
4/23/2019
89
Diplomacy of Ancient China
• Unification of Empire (70 states, Dynasty Zhou, king Wu)
• 771 B.C.- “Barbaric invasion”
– Intensive diplomacy, defense of China
– Establishment of “Institution of Chairman of the Council of Lords”
• responsibility for defense
• responsibility to preserve independence of individual states
Diplomacy of Ancient China
• 481-250 BC: Period of Warring states
• Diplomatic activities, wars
• Dynasty Chin: unification
– defense against Huns
– expansion toward Vietnam
• Till 220 AD: Dynasty Chan
• Diplomatic contacts of China with India, Persia, Mediterranean
•
177
178
4/23/2019
90
Diplomacy of Ancient China
• 560 BC: Treaty of 12 states on arrangement of post-war relations
– The states will not exclude each other from benefits
– The states will not provide an asylum to the traitors
– The states will not protect any criminals
– The states will help each other in catastrophes and problems
– The states will be compassionate each to other in times of disaster and unrest
– The states will support and strengthen the royal court
• 544 BC: a League of 6 states concluded a multilateral agreement on
trade, escaped persons from justice, mutual assistance in case of
famine or uprising and coordinated attitude toward friends and
enemies
• Confucius (551-791BC)
179
180
4/23/2019
91
Silk Road
• Trade between East and West
• 114 BC – 1450 AD
• Some remnants of what was probably Chinese silk dating from 1070 BCE have
been found in Ancient Egypt
– An elite burial near Stuttgart, Germany, dated to the 6th century BCE, was
excavated and found to have not only Greek bronzes but also Chinese silks
– around 130 BCE, with the embassies of the Han dynasty to Central Asia
following the reports of the ambassador Zhang Qian
• Zhang Qian's report suggested the economic reason for Chinese expansion and
wall-building westward, and trailblazed the silk road, which is one of the most
famous trade routes
– Acording to Chinese dynastic histories, it is from this region that the Roman
embassies arrived in China, beginning in 166 CE during the reigns of Marcus
Aurelius and Emperor Huan of Han
Silk Road
• Trade between East and West
• 114 BC – 1450 AD
• Some remnants of what was probably Chinese silk dating from 1070
BCE have been found in Ancient Egypt
– An elite burial near Stuttgart, Germany, dated to the 6th century BCE,
was excavated and found to have not only Greek bronzes but also
Chinese silks
– around 130 BCE, with the embassies of the Han dynasty to Central
Asia following the reports of the ambassador Zhang Qian
181
182
4/23/2019
92
History of Diplomacy
• Scholars of diplomacy have identified diplomatic practices across the human
experience, spanning the globe and going back before recorded history.
– Even so, the actual term ‘diplomacy’ did not enter into usage until the last
decade of the eighteenth century.
– Before the eighteenth century there was no collective term for the activities
of ambassadors and envoys.
– Until the eighteenth century, relations between princes were seen as ‘political’;
‘foreign policy’ was not established as a separate sphere before the mid-
century.
– ‘Diplomacy’ grew out of an etymological background of treaties, duplicity,
secrecy, and privilege.
Conclusion
• Ancient civilizations developed basic principles which became
founding stones of diplomacy from ancient time to the present
• In all ancient civilizations: with the transition from tribal to state
societies appeared diplomacy as a specific political activity oriented on
presentation, defense or realization of interest of the state or/and of
the ruler to or against other ruler or rulers.
• Gradually, this activity became recognized as legitimate foreign political
activity. The diplomats as authorized subjects started to use specific
instruments, steps and procedures to achieve agreements.
• In all ancient civilizations the supreme political subject were the
monarch
183
184
4/23/2019
93
The Diplomats In Ancient Civilizations
• Enjoyed a high social prestige
– Were instructed by the monarch
• Negotiated treaties on peace, friendship and mutual cooperation, joint
military operations, on definition of borders, on development of
economic and cultural relations
• Conducted intelligence and espionage
• Diplomats were selected from the most qualified, closest, most loyal
members of elite
• The diplomats were provided credentials, letters and documents,
accompanying persons, presents
The Diplomats In Ancient Civilizations
• The evaluation of diplomatic performance, the way how the diplomats were
treated, in what conditions they fulfilled their mission etc. indicated cultural and
moral status of the respective courts and societies.
• In most of states, the diplomats were considered to be under the protection of
gods
• In some areas, the treatment of diplomats was harsh, based on the decision of the
ruler
• Killing of diplomats was usually considered as unacceptable
• Conclusion of treaties was sometimes accompanied by specific rituals
• Hostages (members of elite families) were sometimes provided to guarantee the
fulfillment of the treaty
• The knowledge of language understandable to all sides was necessary. The
diplomatic languages were Accadian, Sanscrit, Chinese language in China.
185
186
4/23/2019
94
The Diplomats In Ancient Civilizations
• The ability to practice diplomacy is one of the defining elements of a state, and
diplomacy has been practiced since the formation of the first city-states.
• Originally diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations, and would return
immediately after their mission concluded.
• Diplomats were usually relatives of the ruling family or of very high rank in order
to give them legitimacy when they sought to negotiate with the other state.
• One notable exception involved the relationship between the Pope and the
Byzantine Emperor.
– Papal agents, called apocrisiarii, were permanently resident in Constantinople.
– After the 8th century, however, conflicts between the Pope and the Emperor
(such as the Iconoclastic controversy) led to the breaking down of these close ties.
The Diplomats In Ancient Civilizations
• Modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of Northern
Italy in the early Renaissance, with the first embassies being established
in the thirteenth century.
• Milan played a leading role, especially under Francesco Sforza who
established permanent embassies to the other cities states of Northern
Italy.
– It was in Italy that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy
began, such as the presentation of an ambassador's credentials to the
head of state.
• The practice spread from Italy to the other European powers.
187
188
4/23/2019
95
The Diplomats In Ancient Civilizations
• Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of France in 1455.
• Milan however refused to host French representatives fearing espionage and
possible intervention in internal affairs.
• As foreign powers such as France and Spain became increasingly involved in
Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized.
• Soon all the major European powers were exchanging representatives.
• Spain was the first to send a permanent representative when it appointed an
ambassador to the Court of England in 1487. By the late 16th century,
permanent missions became the standard.
Modern Diplomacy
• Many of the conventions of modern diplomacy developed during this period.
• The top rank of representatives was an ambassador.
– An ambassador at this time was almost always a nobleman - the rank of the
noble varied with the prestige of the country he was posted to.
– Defining standards emerged for ambassadors, requiring that they have large
residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court life of
the host nation.
– In Rome, the most important post for Catholic ambassadors, the French and
Spanish representatives sometimes maintained a retinue of up to a hundred
people.
– Even in smaller posts, ambassadors could be very expensive. Smaller states
would send and receive envoys who were one level below an ambassador.
189
190
4/23/2019
96
Modern Diplomacy And/As Colonial Apparatus
• The colonies were the site of diplomatic imagination and designs where
frontiers were constructed not only in geographical terms but also in terms
of the boundaries of humanity (Mignolo,1995: viii–xi).
– The invention and articulation of the ‘genres of man’ as evinced by the idea
of diplomatic man, colonial man and the human in general meant that
‘diplomatic’ encounters with non-European others were quickly transformed
into some form of colonial governance through the non-recognition of
indigenous diplomatic agents, denigration of gods and reneging on treaties as
well as the conversion of a people and a space into something familiar and
governable.
– The modern diplomatic mediation of difference is entangled with the
mediation of colonial difference. These entanglements play out in spectral
spaces where ‘global designs have to be adapted, adopted, rejected, integrated,
or ignored’ (Mignolo, 1995: viii–xi).
History of Diplomacy
• The word diplomacy has its roots in Greek and was later used by the French
(diplomatie) to refer to the work of a negotiator on behalf of a sovereign.
• There is a long history of diplomatic activity going back at least two millennia.
• Sovereigns sent envoys to other sovereigns for various reasons:
– to prevent wars,
– to cease hostilities,
– or merely to continue peaceful relations and further economic exchanges.
• The first foreign ministry was created in Paris by Cardinal Richelieu in
1626.
– Other European countries followed the French example.
• As absolute monarchs gave way to constitutional monarchies and republics,
embassies and legations became more institutionalized all over Europe, and by the
end of the nineteenth century European-style diplomacy had been adopted
throughout the world.
191
192
4/23/2019
97
History of Diplomacy
• Large countries had embassies in other large countries and legations in
smaller states.
• Embassies were headed by ambassadors and legations by ministers.
• Embassies and legations were strictly limited in their contacts with the
ordinary citizens of the receiving state.
• These limitations were codified in the Havana Convention of 1927, which
under the heading “Duties of Diplomatic Officers” stated that these officers
must not interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving state and must
confine their relations to the foreign ministry of the host state.
• Thus, in their host country, diplomatic personnel from abroad had no
relations with the public at large.
– National day celebrations at an embassy or legation were attended (aside from
other diplomats) by locally resident citizens from that country and, for
protocol reasons, by officials of the foreign ministry of the receiving state.
History of Diplomacy
• As embassies and legations around the world expanded their information and
cultural activities aimed at the people of the host countries, an interesting
phenomenon became apparent:
– the Soviet Union and its satellites became avid supporters of the objectives of the
old Havana Convention.
– Press and cultural attachés, they said, were perfectly acceptable at embassies and
legations but they had to confine their activities to officials of the host country.
And they had to be diplomats, that is, members of the foreign office of the
sending country. That became a problem when the US Information Agency
(USIA) was created in 1953 and information activities were transferred from the
State Department to USIA. The Soviets refused to grant USIA officers diplomatic
status, resulting in the ridiculous situation where USIA officers appointed to serve
in the American embassy in Moscow had to be transferred literally to the State
Department payroll in order to be assigned to the Soviet capital.
193
194
4/23/2019
98
Conclusion
• Ancient civilizations developed basic principles which became
founding stones of diplomacy from ancient time to the present
195