DIPLOMACY

DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY

 WHY AND HOW TO STUDY DIPLOMACY

◼ There are many very good reasons to study diplomacy right now.
◼ The outstanding economic progress of China, increasingly also India, in recent
decades makes scholars and policymakers alike investigate the question: whether the
potential redistribution of power from the West to the East would lead to regional
and global stability or instability.
◼ Diplomacy will have a lot to do with the trajectory of these changes.
◼ The breakdown of state authority in Libya, the fragile statehood in Iraq, regional
rivalries such as the one between Iran and Saudi Arabia, civil wars in Syria and
Yemen, and the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict pose serious challenges.
◼ Coping with these challenges requires skillful diplomacy.
 WHY AND HOW TO STUDY DIPLOMACY

◼ The Paris Agreement remains a landmark agreement for countering climate change.
◼ Yet Washington’s announcement to opt out of the agreement, as well as a plethora
of implementation issues, will keep diplomats busy for some time to come.
◼ In the wake of the process that led to the Sustainable Development Goals, African
states have agreed to specify their developmental goals in the Agenda 2063.
◼ Making progress towards these goals requires, among other things, negotiation and
renegotiation – in other words, diplomacy.
◼ There are innumerous challenges, pertaining to conflict and peace, economics and
development, health, migration, disaster relief and many others, that states cannot
address appropriately without sending their representatives onto the diplomatic
stage.
 WHY AND HOW TO STUDY DIPLOMACY

◼ We seem to be situated in an ‘in-between era’, where international politics – and with it

diplomacy – needs fresh ideas and new initiatives of diplomatic engagement to engage with a
changing world.
◼ The need for such a re-orientation is nothing particularly new.
◼ Diplomacy has a history of adapting and re-inventing itself to changing political conditions.
◼ However, the challenge for diplomats has surprisingly remained similar throughout different
historical ages: how to properly recognize, interpret, and project relevant forms of power by
communicating with one another?
◼ In other words, what exactly is there to understand about diplomacy and how can we make
sense of it?
◼ Diplomacy represents a unique, multi-faceted, effective and highly relevant instrument for
managing relationships of estrangement between political communities, while retaining their
institutional, ideological and social differences.
 DOES DIPLOMACY (STILL) MATTER?

◼ “States receive so much benefit from uninterrupted foreign negotiations”, Cardinal

Richelieu, the founder of the first-ever professional diplomatic service, once argued,
but the nature of the much-praised “benefit” has not always been clear.
◼ Diplomacy, at its core, is about relationship management and maintaining
international order.
◼ At the micro-level, this translates into diplomats building and managing relations of
friendship.
◼ At the macro-level, diplomacy contributes through its core functions of
representation, communication, and negotiation to producing and distributing global
public goods (security, development, sustainable environment, etc.).
 DOES DIPLOMACY (STILL) MATTER?

◼ Diplomatic success is therefore arguably an equal matter of maximizing the number

of allies and friends and reducing that of enemies and rivals on the one hand, and of
creating a stable and self-sustainable international order, on the other.
◼ However, what is less clear is how diplomats can actually accomplish these worthy
undertakings.
◼ What exactly do they need to do in order to live up to these expectations, especially
since their profession is going through some critical transformations with respect to
the nature of the actors, issue areas, and methods of diplomatic engagement?
◼ Put differently, what is the value of diplomacy in the twenty-first century
 ACTORS

◼ We are witnessing a multiplication of diplomatic actors in Europe as well as

worldwide.
◼ The field of diplomacy is no longer populated just by representatives of foreign
services, but also by representatives of other ministries, multinational corporations,
civil society organizations, and even influential individuals who do not represent a
particular state, organization, or corporation.
◼ The nature of the national diplomatic environment is changing from one which
privileges the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to one which places it
within a broader construct – that of the national diplomatic system (NDS), which
covers the complex network of governmental and non-governmental institutions
that inform and shape a country’s international policy objectives.
 ACTORS

◼ Assessing the value of diplomacy in this context is no longer an issue of measuring

MFA performance solely.
◼ It has to involve a more sophisticated analysis of mapping and comparing NDS
configurations that prove most conducive to addressing and managing core files of
foreign policy.
◼ The European refugee crisis has shown, for instance, how important it is for MFAs to
collaborate with local NGOs, charities, international institutions (such as the
UNHCR), aid agencies and industry groups in order to make sure that countries’
immigration policies and their humanitarian commitments remain reasonably aligned
with each other.
 ISSUE AREAS

◼ Diplomacy, on the one hand, and regional and global governance, on the other, are
inextricably intertwined.
◼ As a key mechanism of regional and global ordering, diplomacy increasingly gets
involved in issue areas that, until quite recently, had been primarily dealt with at the
domestic level (economics, environment, health, migration).
◼ Most critically, many of these issue areas mutually influence each other, and,
consequently, they are often discussed in the same breath in international fora (e.g.
migration and security, environment and trade, economics and health, etc.).
◼ What this means is that the value of diplomacy may not be properly captured by
sector-specific measures, but rather by compact-sensitive tools that take into
account the complementary and added value of integrated issue areas.
 ISSUE AREAS

◼ For example, the 3D concept (Diplomacy, Development, and Defense) put forward
by the U.S. State Department in collaboration with USAID and the Department of
Defense recognizes the mutually reinforcing capacity of the three dimensions and
seeks to leverage their joint potential through combined strategic planning.
◼ One could probably add “Digital” as the fourth logical extension of this approach
(4D), as digital technologies are becoming indispensable tools for conducting
diplomacy, promoting development and boosting defence.
◼ What needs to change is our method of assessing the mechanisms by which these
objectives can be reached.
 METHODS

◼ The multiplication of actors and issue areas also changes the ways diplomats do their work.
◼ It changes both their daily practices and their methods for handling international
negotiations, public engagements, and situations of international crisis.
◼ The twentieth-century mantra of diplomats being able to excel in their work as long as they
had a strong sense of history and a good grasp of general economic, political, and
international issues is no longer sufficient.
◼ Rather, professional aspects of diplomacy can be found in a range of different occupational
roles requiring multiple competences and trans-professional skills (strong leadership
qualities, good analytical intuitions in economics and data science, proven negotiation
abilities, deep know-how of organizational management, etc.).
◼ Good diplomatic performance is therefore not only an issue of suitably linking capacities to
outcomes, but also of demonstrating the capacity and talent to do this in a way that
embraces multitasking, welcomes improvisation, controls uncertainty and complexity, and
maximizes real-time impact.
 METHODS

◼ In short, the method of evaluating diplomatic performance must take note of the
hybridity of professional competences required to function efficiently in the
diplomatic environment of the twenty-first century.
◼ To sum up, the core mission of diplomacy to manage relationships and maintain
international order has hardly changed in the twenty-first century.
◼ What needs to change is our method of assessing the mechanisms by which these
objectives can be reached.
◼ A stronger focus on the strength and efficiency of national diplomatic systems, on
the added value and degree of compactness of integrated issue areas, and on the
level of hybridity of professional competences and skills required for delivering
results in a dynamic environment could offer a more balanced perspective to
understanding the value of contemporary diplomacy.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ “Diplomacy is the institutionalized communication among internationally recognized

representatives of internationally recognized entities through which these
representatives produce, manage, and distribute public goods.”
◼ This definition has three key features. First, diplomacy is, on its most fundamental
level, about communication.
◼ More precisely, it is about a peculiar form of communication that is highly
institutionalized.
◼ There are a plethora of rules and norms that diplomats become socialized into and
these rules and norms govern the communication among diplomats.
◼ On the one hand, therefore, our definition is not far removed from Adam Watson’s
(1982) highly influential claim that diplomacy revolves around dialogue.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ He, too, wrote about diplomacy as an institution and, choosing the term ‘dialogue’, he also
put communication centre stage in his writings on diplomacy.
◼ On the other hand, the authors here use the term communication more broadly.
◼ There is a wide variety of diplomatic communication, ranging from dialogue on the one
hand to coercive diplomacy on the other.
◼ Note also that we do not subscribe to a celebratory view of diplomatic communication.
◼ While diplomacy has plenty of potential to resolve conflicts peacefully, it is not always
innocent.
◼ Declaring war, for instance, is as much a diplomatic act – very much an institutionalized
communicative act – as mediation and negotiation of peaceful resolution of conflicts.
◼ So are attempts to build coalitions with other states to go to war.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ Second, processes of double recognition make an individual an actor in the

diplomatic field.
◼ These processes are very straightforward when it comes to an ambassador
representing a state.
◼ States are recognized as entities on the diplomatic stage, for instance through the
UN Charter and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The latter
also codifies the accreditation process through which a host state recognizes the
ambassador of a sending state.
◼ Some books on diplomacy put this much simpler. Watson, for instance, writes only
about states (1982).
◼ Yet this is, in our view, a bit too simple, especially in our global age.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ Of course, states are still key entities in the diplomatic game.

◼ To this very day, diplomacy privileges states. It is, for example, states that hold membership
of the UN.
◼ But this does not mean that we can understand today’s diplomacy by looking only at states.
◼ The UN Secretariat, for example, is oftentimes recognized as a diplomatic player in its own
right.
◼ Its representatives, above all the Secretary-General but also his Under-Secretary-Generals,
are recognized to act on behalf of this recognized international entity.
◼ In similar ways, the chairpersons and other high-ranking representatives of, say, Amnesty
International and Greenpeace, are diplomatic actors (although they may not necessarily
self-identify as such).
◼ Diplomacy, in other words, has a lot to do with recognition.
◼ Who is recognized changes over time.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ Third, diplomacy is about producing, managing and distributing public goods, that is,
goods that are important for the well-being of a community and where the use by
some members of the community does not reduce the availability of the public good
to others.
◼ Traditionally, diplomacy has been primarily about engaging in communication for the
purpose of achieving a particular type of public good: the protection of the state
against external interventions (i.e. security).
◼ In the twentieth century, diplomatic communication has expanded to address a
growing number of other public goods, including economic welfare, development,
environmental protection, health, safety, and migration control.
◼ More recently, it has become increasingly evident that many of these public goods
are interrelated, and hence diplomats need to be proficient in juggling competing
priorities of public goods.
 HOW TO DEFINE DIPLOMACY

◼ Equally important, globalization is redefining some of these public goods

into global public goods, that is, goods that are important for the
well-being of multiple political communities.
◼ Issues that have traditionally been merely national are now global
because they are beyond the grasp of any single nation (e.g.,
environment, health, peace, justice).
◼ This transformation introduces a new set of challenges for how
diplomats manage public goods and may even lead to the end of
diplomacy as we know it today.
 ESSENCE OF DIPLOMACY

◼ Given the undeveloped and fragmented nature of the field, it is not surprising that the study
of diplomacy displays a variety of conceptualizations rather than scholarly consensus.
◼ The very definition of diplomacy is a bone of contention.
◼ Let us take two examples to illustrate some of the major controversies.
◼ One textbook defines diplomacy as ‘the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political
entities, their principals and accredited agents’ (Hamilton and Langhorne, 1995: 1).
◼ The Portuguese diplomat José Calvet De Magalhães, who criticizes the existing conceptual
confusion, offers his own ‘pure concept’ of diplomacy as ‘an instrument of foreign policy for
the establishment and development of peaceful contacts between the governments of
different states, through the use of intermediaries mutually recognized by the respective
parties’
 ESSENCE OF DIPLOMACY

◼ One element, which these two definitions have in common but which has been questioned
by others, concerns the peaceful character of diplomacy.
◼ Whereas these and many other authors regard diplomacy as the opposite of war or any use
of force, several scholars are reluctant to draw such a clear-cut line.
◼ From a cross-cultural, historical perspective, the ‘juxtaposition of diplomacy and war as
polar opposites appears as a peculiarly Western notion not necessarily found in other
traditions’.
◼ Alternatively, the blurring of the line between diplomacy and violence is seen as ‘one of the
developments of note distinguishing modern diplomacy’.
◼ Students of contemporary international relations, the Cold War era in particular, have
coined the phrase ‘coercive diplomacy’ to denote the use of threats or limited force to
persuade opponents not to change the status quo in their favor or to call off or undo an
encroachment.
 ESSENCE OF DIPLOMACY

◼ On the other hand, several authors argue that diplomacy ‘expresses a human
condition that precedes and transcends the experience of living in the sovereign,
territorial states of the past few hundred years’ (Sharp, 1999: 51).
◼ Rather than restricting the concept to specific practices and specific actors, these
authors understand diplomacy in terms of generic concepts, such as representation
and communication.
◼ That representation – in the sense of ‘acting on behalf of ’ – is a key function of
diplomacy is recognized by most observers, regardless of theoretical background.
◼ Paul Sharp (1999), who is the most explicit advocate of an understanding of
diplomacy in terms of representation, argues that its ‘practice and context should be
seen as responses to a common problem of living separately and wanting to do so,
while having to conduct relations with others’.
 ESSENCE OF DIPLOMACY

◼ In addition to being a system of representation, diplomacy is also a system of

communication.
◼ Authors who emphasize this aspect argue that communication is one of the logically
necessary conditions for the existence of international relations.
◼ Diplomacy can thus be understood as ‘a regulated process of communication’
(Constantinou, 1996) or ‘the communication system of the international society’
(James, 1980).
◼ The need to communicate is demonstrated, paradoxically, when diplomatic relations
are broken, and the parties almost always look for, and find, other ways of
communicating (James, 1993; Berridge, 1994).
 ESSENCE OF DIPLOMACY

◼ Despite this bewildering array of definitions and conceptualizations, most texts on

diplomacy have a common core.
◼ In varying proportions, they typically contain:
◼ (1) an account of the history and prehistory of diplomacy
◼ (2) typologies of diplomatic functions, modes and techniques
◼ (3) information about the legal framework of diplomacy, and
◼ (4) a discussion of contemporary developments and problems.
 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

◼ Historically, the origins of diplomacy lay with the first decisions of human
communities to reach an understanding with their neighbours about the limits of
their hunting territories and the identity boundaries they formed by engaging with
and reacting to each other.
◼ Even though early diplomatic exchanges allowed for the establishment of some basic
rules of representation, communication and conflict management, they did not result
in the creation of any permanent institutions.
◼ At this time, diplomatic interaction was not sufficiently frequent or important and
hence, it lacked the incentives required to develop complex institutional relations.
◼ Since the 3rd millennium BCE – the time period in which international relations and
diplomacy as they are known today are believed to have been born – the
development of diplomatic practice around the world has been characterized by a
lack of uniformity.
 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

◼ Different areas of the world have had (and still have) differing perceptions of the role
of their diplomats within their governing systems.
◼ The objectives, methods employed, responsibilities, influence and power of
diplomats have therefore been far from universal.
◼ Their relative importance to international affairs has contracted and expanded
throughout history.
◼ Diplomatic practice is therefore both historically and geographically situated.
◼ Its arrangements and agreements are provisional, problems are often recurring, and
the diplomatic climate is volatile
 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

◼ Three distinct diplomatic periods – ancient, medieval and modern – both inside and outside
of the Western world (up until World War I).
◼ Analysis of each period according to three sub-themes:
◼ (1) representation procedures – in which the roles, characteristics and perceptions of the
diplomat are examined.
◼ (2) communication methods – in which the key developments and procedures of diplomatic
engagement are traced.
◼ (3) conflict management – in which the evolution of various instruments for resolving
international disputes is described.
◼ Diplomatic developments on the European continent will form the basis of the discussion of
each of the eras under review, as this is where the modern institutionalization of diplomatic
practice occurred.
◼ The analysis will be complemented by non-Western examples in order to highlight global
contrasts.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Diplomatic practice emerged in close association with the development of writing and urban culture
in the Ancient Near East, in the 3rd millennium BCE.
◼ Already at that time, elements of diplomatic tradition as they are known today were established.
◼ A ritualized system, consisting of elaborate diplomatic norms, practices and processes, was drawn
up as a reaction to the needs of various kingdoms becoming increasingly interconnected by
common concerns spanning the dynastic, religious, commercial as well as strategic interests.
◼ Furthermore, diplomatic practice at this time was primarily conducted between ‘Great Kings’,
whose willingness to negotiate and cooperate with one another through diplomatic representation
signalled the acknowledgement and acceptance of the other as an equal.
◼ ‘Great Kings’ ruled extensive territories, had numerous vassals at their disposal, possessed sufficient
wealth as well as military might to maintain domestic control and order, as well as keep outside
threats at bay.
◼ Principalities considered of inferior status were not afforded the luxury of having their diplomatic
agents received by the ‘Great Kings’ and had to pay significant tribute.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ The practice of diplomacy was transmitted from the Ancient Near East by the cuneiform
civilizations out of Akkadian Mesopotamia to Assyria and Babylon, and further on to Persia,
Greece, as well as to the Italian Region.
◼ Ancient proto-diplomatic systems involved ad hoc missions, taking place as circumstances
arose.
◼ Patterns of diplomatic representation, communication and conflict management developed
by ancient states were largely influenced by the perceived levels of power asymmetry.
◼ Among the small but independent Greek city-states, for example, no single city was
powerful enough to rule over the others, nor were the city-states overwhelmed from the
outside.
◼ The cities thus diplomatically engaged with each other as equals.
◼ By contrast, the Egyptian, Roman, Persian and Chinese diplomatic methods primarily served
to assert, establish and maintain their alleged political, religious or military superiority over
neighbours or any other groups with which they interacted.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Representation procedures
◼ In the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, envoys travelled between ‘Great Kings’, transmitting
the message of their rulers.
◼ While they stayed for a period of time in their host region, their appointment had a strict and
specific purpose and, once completed, they returned home.
◼ While these envoys were usually of high standing and suitably qualified, no conclusive evidence
indicates that they were entitled to the immunities granted to diplomats of later periods.
◼ Passage to and from their host countries was often dangerous with little or no guarantee of
protection.
◼ Diplomatic envoys were subject to kidnapping, imprisonment, and even assassination.
◼ Their stay in the receiving country was almost completely defined by the terms of the hosting
sovereign, who could dictate on a whim the length of the envoy’s stay, their access and freedom of
movement, as well as when they were in their right to leave and return home.
◼ In other words, diplomats of this period faced unpredictable impediments to conducting and
completing their assigned duties abroad.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ In the ancient Greek system, three types of diplomatic representation were

recognized.
◼ First and foremost, the angelos or presbys (messenger and elder, respectively) were
diplomatic envoys sent for ‘brief and highly specific missions’.
◼ The second type, the keryx (herald), had special rights of personal safety.
◼ And the third was the proxenos, who would “act . . . for another state while
remaining resident in his own state”.
◼ Angelos and presbys were supposed to perform well oratorically before the
city-state council of the host state.
◼ This meant that they were often chosen by the assembly of the city for their ‘known
respectability’, ‘reputed wisdom’ and for their maturity.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ In contrast, proxenos played a facilitating role in the handling of inter-state negotiations.

◼ In bad times, their main duties consisted of offering hospitality and assistance to visitors
from the relevant state.
◼ And at times, they would be asked to give advice on the domestic situation in the state they
represented.
◼ But in good times, the proxenos could play a more influential role in shaping public policy,
specifically in commerce, culture and politics.
◼ They were expected to protect their nationals located in the receiving state, handle their
legal administration, and promote trade and commerce between the two states in general.
◼ It is important to note that many current concepts of diplomacy found no place in Greek
language and practice.
◼ For example, no theory of diplomatic immunity prevailed at the time, as envoys relied on
the traditional codes of religion and hospitality in their movements.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ The Romans inherited from the Greeks the lack of a formal structure for dealing with
matters of foreign policy, but also the appreciation for the talent of speaking fluently in
public and the ability to persuade by argument.
◼ The similarities between the two diplomatic methods nevertheless stop here.
◼ In view of the fact that formally the Senate had the ultimate authority on matters of foreign
policy, Roman envoys were appointed from within senatorial ranks.
◼ They were provided with credentials and instructions, which were supposed to be closely
followed.
◼ Their main task was to find someone worthwhile to talk to and then report back to the
Senate, which would sanction or decline to accept the results of their negotiation.
◼ With the expansion of the empire, the decision-making power on diplomatic matters
gradually transferred into the hands of the emperor.
◼ The emperor often relied on his governors to deal with foreign embassies and execute
diplomatic decisions.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Ancient Egyptians both sent and received diplomatic missions.

◼ The Pharaoh used to maintain close contact with the rulers of neighbouring powers via special
envoys with ambassadorial functions.
◼ The common practice in the region was to appoint diplomatic messengers from among the high
officers of the administration, who were supposed to be experienced in state affairs and fully
cognizant of royal policy.
◼ Diplomatic relations between Egypt and other powers in the region, including Babylonia and Assyria,
around mid-fourteenth century BCE, are detailed in some thirty-five items of correspondence in the
Amarna Letters.
◼ In principle, the rulers corresponded on a basis of equality, as ‘great kings’.
◼ They referred to each other as ‘my brother’ as opposed to ‘sons’, which would have indicated the
status of the vassal.
◼ In practice though, the Egyptian ruler enjoyed an advantage over his Asiatic counterparts.
◼ As the leader of a hegemonic power that was more self-sufficient in prestige goods than the other
powers, and enjoyed a near monopoly on the production of gold, the Pharaoh was able to bargain
from a position of strength, thus often forcing his counterparts to make humiliating concessions.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Communication methods
◼ The development of diplomatic practice in the Ancient Near East was based on
access to a common language, individuals trained to record and transmit that
language, as well as mutual familiarity with court protocol and ritual.
◼ During this period, diplomatic communication often came in the form of formally and
ritualistically asserted initiatives and demands, incorporated as a preliminary step
before the enactment of force was considered.
◼ ‘Opulent gifts’ and ‘glittering ceremonial’ were used as means of communicating the
level of esteem or importance to which a diplomatic agent was regarded by his host.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ The ancient Greek diplomatic system had a number of characteristics that presented a high
level of sophistication.
◼ They included, for example, the constant flow of missions, the mutual respect of diplomatic
immunities, the treaties and alliances that resulted from diplomatic interaction, and the high
standard of public debate.
◼ These features allowed diplomats to become increasingly effective in working out
regulations that were widely observed, such as “defining the position of aliens, the grant of
naturalisation, the right of asylum, extradition, and maritime practices”.
◼ On matters of treaties, Greek envoys worked under restrictive instructions.
◼ While most treaties were quite simple documents, they were nevertheless concluded after
reference to, and approval of, public assemblies.
◼ The Spartans eventually introduced the institution of conference diplomacy to address the
problem of how to deal with numerous dependent allies after prolonged wars.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ The widespread suspicion of diplomats in ancient Greece also meant that missions
were often composed of several diplomats.
◼ The number of ambassadors involved in a mission could be as many as ten.
◼ The size of these missions was also intended to increase the weight of the case
brought to the other city-state and to facilitate the representation of different
opinions that were held by the citizens in the sending state.
◼ However, it often had a negative effect on the overall effectiveness of the mission
due to personal disagreements between individual ambassadors on the mission.
◼ At times, negotiating partners would play upon such internal animosities to divide
the mission against itself.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ One of the most important Roman contributions to the Greek diplomatic legacy
was, for instance, the practice of declaring war.
◼ According to this practice, any declaration of war had to follow a proper procedure
and had to offer a legal justification for the war.
◼ The college of Fetiales informed the enemy of the grievances of Rome, and if nothing
happened after a fixed period, then a declaration of war would be made.
◼ As legal grounds for waging war, the Romans invoked the following: violation of a
treaty, truce, or armistice; an offence committed against an ally; violation of
neutrality; violation of sanctity of ambassadors; refusal to surrender an ambassador
who had violated his neutrality; unjustifiable rejection of an embassy; violation of
territorial rights; refusal of a peaceful passage of troops; and refusal to surrender an
individual who committed a crime.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Archival documentation of early Chinese diplomatic exchanges indicates a complex dynamic

centred on ceremony, status claiming and procedure.
◼ The Chinese Empire was considered to be the centre of the world and, as a result, China’s
influence and its relationship with other ‘states’ of the region were formalized via a tribute
system.
◼ Sending diplomatic delegations to pay homage or tribute, China’s regional counterparts –
today Cambodia, Myanmar, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam – recognized it as the superior
force in the regional hierarchy.
◼ In 57 BCE, for example, an emissary from the state of Wa (the ancient name of Japan)
travelled to offer tribute, and he received a seal and a ribbon from the emperor.
◼ In these early centuries, “a China-centered universe was assumed on both sides . . . and Wa
most desired to be accepted as a vassal within that orb”.
◼ Princes made court visits which were mainly ceremonial goodwill functions, and they
frequently communicated by envoys, sending them on courtesy missions and for preparing
interstate agreements.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Conflict management
◼ In the Ancient Near East, arbitration of grievances, the practice of negotiation as well as the
sacralization of treaties through religious oaths were not unknown.
◼ A form of dynastic diplomacy was undertaken, as ancient rulers considered their equals within the
international system as brothers.
◼ With this adoptive kinship, “tangible attachments. . . were the only bases for obligation that made
sense”.
◼ Ancient rulers thus perceived “the international system as an extended family, with all its affections,
duties, and rivalries”.
◼ Diplomatic practice was thus exclusively conducted within a fraternity of great powers.
◼ These regimes would often try to strengthen their diplomatic ties through dynastic marriages,
building up tangible moral and political obligations which could be called upon in times of conflict.
◼ Some of the earliest examples of diplomatic negotiation as well as oaths of allegiance are found in
the Sumerian city-states of third-millennium BCE Mesopotamia.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Peace agreements in ancient Greece did not necessarily mean what their negotiators
wanted them to mean.
◼ Often, they were formulated ambiguously in order to allow different states on different
occasions to interpret them to their own advantage.
◼ Still, these peace agreements mattered, especially when they were reinforced by oaths.
◼ For pacific conflict resolution, arbitration was quite a customary device.
◼ Indeed, forty-six cases of dispute arbitration had been adjudicated between 300 and 100
BCE.
◼ The designated arbiter was either another state or an individual – often a philosopher of
good reputation or even a victor at the Olympic Games.
◼ Ambassadors were often entrusted with important communications.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Religion often played a significant role in framing diplomatic practices of conflict resolution.
◼ The Greeks believed, for instance, that the conduct of international affairs was governed by
“certain divinely ordained principles”.
◼ Being regarded as under the guardianship of Zeus, treaties and allies were ascribed a divine
authority that made it wrong to break them without good reason.
◼ The rules of ‘civilized conduct’ developed by ancient Greeks included fair treatment of
prisoners, non-use of poisoned weapons and treacherous stratagems, observance of truces
and armistices, prohibition of warfare during religious festivals or athletic contests, as well
as inviolability of important temples, sanctuaries and embassies.
◼ Festivals such as the Olympic Games represented “a period of deliberately controlled
international relations”, during which agreements on cooperation were frequently
discussed.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ Persian kings oftentimes resorted to preventive diplomacy in their interaction with

the Greek city-states between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.
◼ In fact, Persians were more successful through diplomacy than they were in war
against the Greeks.
◼ They aimed to maintain the balance of power between the Greek city-states by
operating as ‘neutral’ treaty brokers in wars fought by the Greeks in the fourth
century.
◼ The strategic objective was to prevent any city-state from becoming powerful
enough to challenge the Persian military superiority.
◼ In short, the Persian-Greek relations were pragmatic and constantly evolving in
response to political circumstances from both sides, whose capacities for direct
confrontations were reduced by numerous internal problems.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ The Romans had a notable respect for international treaties, which were used for
establishing peace, building alliances, and dividing spoils.
◼ By 264 BCE, more than 150 separate treaties had been concluded, which greatly increased
Rome’s military strength, since, rather than requesting tribute, Rome demanded contingents
of soldiers to supplement its armies.
◼ While in the early days of the Republic the Romans had used to conclude agreements on a
reciprocal basis, this practice was later drastically changed by the introduction of new forms
of treaties “under which the federated parties were constrained to recognize the maiestas
populi romani, or, in more modern terms, to surrender to the Roman Senate the control of
foreign policy and defence”.
◼ Considering ancient Chinese diplomacy, some authors suggest the heavy influence of Sun
Tzu’s Art of War, written around 500 BCE, which emphasizes the idea that victory should
be ensured by subduing the enemy without fighting.
 ANCIENT DIPLOMACY

◼ It is a matter of constraining the movement of the enemy and achieving victory by attacking
moral and mind through “indirection and the manipulation of the enemy’s perceptions of
the structure of the conflict” rather than through physical domination.
◼ This has given Chinese strategic behaviour a distinctive “minimally violent character,” and
this has arguably been the case throughout Chinese history all the way from Sun Tzu’s time.
◼ Characteristics of Chinese strategic culture:
◼ A theoretical practical preference for strategic defence accompanied by diplomatic intrigue
and alliance building rather than the invasion, subjugation or extermination of the adversary.
◼ A preference for limited war, or the restrained application of force for clearly enunciated
political ends.
◼ An apparently low estimation of the efficacy of violence.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ During the early medieval period, diplomatic relations in both the Western and
non-Western world were relatively infrequent, inconsistent and subject to little organic
development.
◼ In the later part of this period, however, European diplomacy took an institutional leap
relative to that in the non-Western world under the impact of two factors.
◼ On the one hand, the flourishing of the church and the belief in the unity of Christendom
that underlay political thought and activity – republica christiana – introduced a level of
harmony among the emerging political entities.
◼ On the other hand, the legacy of Roman law joined forces with the evolving body of canon
law to establish a universalistic foundation for regulating diplomatic relations.
◼ It was at this time that European diplomacy professionalized. “It was the Byzantines who
taught diplomacy to Venice; it was the Venetians who set the pattern for Italian cities, for
France and Spain, and eventually for all Europe” (Nicolson, 1988).
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ Representation procedures
◼ The main form of diplomatic representation in Europe during the early medieval
period was the nuncius, an agent whose main function was to provide a channel of
communication between rulers and to explore opportunities for concluding treaties
and alliances.
◼ The practical and legal identification of the nuncius with the principal also meant that
the nuncius enjoyed a status of immunity from the harm that could be inflicted upon
him.
◼ This security of the person – often based on religious grounds – and the special
status of the ambassador were mutually understood.
◼ The nuncius was sometimes instructed to engage in propagandizing, fomenting
revolts and breaking unfriendly relations.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ In the later part of the medieval period, the increased complexity of European societies and
the growth of diplomatic interaction rendered the employment of nuncii insufficient
because of the great delays and potential failures inflicted in their missions.
◼ As a result, a new type of official function was established, the procurator, with increased
powers of representation and negotiation.
◼ Unlike nuncii, procurators were given full powers to enter into private contracts and to
negotiate agreements on behalf of their leaders.
◼ At times, principals repudiated the actions of procurators that had exceeded their
mandates, or they withdrew mandates altogether, after which no procurator could
conclude agreements on behalf of the principal.
◼ The diplomatic influence of procurators is also illustrated by the fact that even the most
solemn acts, such as contracting a marriage alliance, could be carried out by a procurator by
standing in for the bride or the groom, as it happened, for instance, in the case of the proxy
engagement between the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and Isabella of England in 1234.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY
◼ In parallel with the work of nuncii and procurators, a growth in trade helped to
develop the consular system, with most notably French, Italian and Spanish
merchants electing consuls to supervise their commerce and adjudicate disputes in
the East.
◼ During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Capitulations treaties between
Christians and Muslims further developed the consular functions by granting civil and
criminal jurisdiction over nationals in the Byzantine Empire.
◼ During the fifteenth century, there were exchanges of consuls between Great
Britain, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
◼ Around this time, China also posted officers in the West that were in effect consuls.
◼ The sixteenth century saw significant change; consuls were now appointed by
sending states as official representatives, diplomatic functions involved protecting
state interests in trade and commerce, and some privileges and immunities were
attached.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ Communication methods
◼ In the early medieval period, principals used messages to communicate with each other in
order to prepare for personal meetings.
◼ In this communication process, the nuncius was often described as a ‘living letter’, because
he was supposed to communicate the messages “in a way that was as near a personal
exchange as possible” (Hamilton and Langhorne, 1995).
◼ The significance of the use of a nuncius instead of a letter lay in the meanings a person could
convey beyond the written word.
◼ Indeed, his attitude, his actual wording and his responses to questions were of vital
importance to the communication between principals.
◼ Letters of instructions were particularly important in case of negotiations as they provided
specific guidelines and often the exact words the envoy had to use for extracting and
making concessions.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ Gift-giving was also used as an important means of communication.

◼ By conveying political messages through which prestige and honour could be expressed or
withheld, gifts were indispensable elements of every diplomatic mission and served to
create, preserve and strengthen political bonds.
◼ They gained the favour of the gift receiver, expressed esteem for the diplomatic
counterpart, and cleared the way for negotiations.
◼ Diplomatic gifts were carefully chosen from a wide range of objects, characterized by costly
materials, skilful manufacture, aesthetic value, rarity and a high monetary value.
◼ Costly gifts were crucial to spur interest and to add authority to a diplomatic request.
◼ Gifts were such an important part of diplomatic exchange that bringing an inappropriate gift,
or no gift at all, could have serious implications.
◼ Diplomatic gift-giving was (and continues to be) highly contextual and dependent on the
cultural, social and political environment in which it is undertaken.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ In their diplomatic communications, the Byzantines “adhered to the strategy of the

indirect approach, incorporating delays with avoidance of the unnecessary resort to
force” (Sofer, 2013).
◼ The Empire frequently emphasized its political and military superiority, its longevity,
grandeur and the contrasting fates of its enemies.
◼ Diplomacy in Byzantium was thus characterized by an elaborate ceremonial and
propaganda system.
◼ The Byzantine Empire was, perhaps, the first to institutionalize the training of
diplomatic envoys, who were recruited and carefully trained to understand and
honour manners and customs of their hosts, to observe situations abroad and report
back to their sovereign, as well as negotiate terms with their hosts.
◼ Bribery, flattery and marriage were tools used to avoid war.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ On the other side of the globe, the Chinese diplomatic dominance of the Sino-Japanese relations
started to be challenged in the seventh century.
◼ In 607, the Japanese mission to China tried to establish parity in diplomatic status by referring to the
Japanese ruler as “the son of heaven in the land of the rising sun” and to the Chinese ruler as “the
son of heaven in the land of the setting sun”.
◼ The Chinese emperor did not accept the letter.
◼ However, shared Confucian values enabled a high degree of mutual acceptance and a reduced sense
of threat.
◼ Consequently, the Japanese did not think that they should challenge the existing Chinese world
order, a fact reinforced by Japan’s economic conditions in which continued commerce with other
Asian states was seen as vital.
◼ Diplomatic intercourse between China and neighbouring states had both practical and ceremonial
aspects.
◼ Face-to-face meetings were held out in the open, often in locations considered sacred in nature.
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ Conflict management
◼ Religion was the most important source of inspiration for various methods of conflict
management throughout the medieval period.
◼ As the Catholic Church became a major user of diplomacy during its struggle with the
Roman Holy Empire during the thirteenth century, canon law and Roman law combined to
form a key instrument for framing diplomatic disputes.
◼ The canonists determined the (un)justness of war and breakers of peace, and they framed
rules of diplomatic conduct.
◼ The rise of Islam in the sixth century brought about non-Christian understandings of the
legal procedures and justifications for conflict management.
◼ The Islamic Law of Nations made a clear distinction between Dar al-Islam (the territory of
Islam) and Dar al-Harb (territory of war, inhabited by all those of non-Islamic faith).
 MEDIEVAL DIPLOMACY

◼ Many rulers in the Middle East had ideologies of kingship that asserted the legality and
legitimacy of their rule over various – often overlapping – audiences.
◼ The Mamluk sultans – who ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 to 1517 – saw themselves, for
instance, as the martial guardians of Islam and Islamic society.
◼ Still, their diplomatic interaction was based on respect for diplomatic immunity and an
understanding of the importance of ceremony.
◼ Indeed, the amount of food and money spent on the guest ambassador reflected the status
of the sender’s embassy, and the diplomat’s behaviour during meetings was carefully
calculated to project the status of both sides.
◼ Competing religious conceptions of conflict management also emerged in Latin America.
◼ In the second quarter of the fifteenth century, the Aztec and Inca were able to conquer vast
amounts of territory in a relatively short period of time.
◼ These conquests were successful because Aztec and Inca had manipulated traditional
religious concepts and rituals in such a way that it gave them decisive advantages.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ At the end of the fifteenth century, a series of transformations in Europe combined

to trigger a major diplomatic innovation: the establishment of the institution of the
resident ambassador.
◼ With this, diplomatic practice became continuous in nature as a continent-wide state
system was forged in Europe.
◼ As diplomacy institutionalized, the social status of ambassadors improved
significantly, and their ability to operate efficiently was enhanced.
◼ Diplomatic practice became “de-Christianized and de- Europeanized”, finding a new
basis in the rules of common sense, thereby allowing it to become increasingly
exportable to the non-Western world.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Representation procedures
◼ The establishment of the new office of resident ambassador was based on the need of rulers to
know as much as could be known about the internal affairs of the neighbouring states.
◼ Resident ambassadors were expected to acclimatize themselves to local conditions in order to
assess to what extent they could intervene in local political intrigues.
◼ In addition, resident ambassadors were expected to watch the safety of their fellow countrymen
and to aid them in their business abroad.
◼ The social background of the resident ambassador was not uniform, at least in the early days of the
institution, but this had an uneven impact on the quality of diplomacy being carried out.
◼ England’s residents were typically gentry of modest descent and generally competent; the French
were nobles of lower rank with a good sense of seizing strategic opportunities; the Spanish
employed high-calibre people of noble origin and were well-reputed for their diplomatic skills; the
Venetians were members of leading families; while the Dutch residents came from all walks of life
and allegedly were not excessively effective in the day-to-day management of diplomatic contacts.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Gradually, it became increasingly plain that the skills of the resident diplomat were a crucial
asset.
◼ These resident ambassadors were therefore required to meet a number of requirements.
◼ While the institution of the resident diplomat gradually became common practice in
Western Europe, the adoption of this form of diplomatic representation in the rest of the
world was slow, fragmentary and varied substantially depending on the actors’ willingness to
accept the European diplomatic style cultivated in Europe or their capacity to carry out
diplomatic relations in the first place.
◼ In pre-colonial Africa, diplomatic relations were established for the negotiation of
agreements, the delimitation of frontiers, the settlement of past disputes and the resolution
of potential crises.
◼ Pre-colonial Africa was not ‘empty land’ or ‘‘land belonging to no one’ before European
colonization.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ It was characterized by coherent and rational international relations of peace and

war.
◼ African rulers made use of two types of diplomats, ambassadors and messengers,
which broadly resembled the roles of medieval procurators and nuncius,
respectively.
◼ The ambassador had the status of a plenipotentiary and could settle a dispute on his
own authority.
◼ Messengers had no such power, as they merely transmitted orders or information
and could not engage in negotiation.
◼ But with either type of diplomatic interaction, the African rulers insisted that proper
respect should be paid to their representatives abroad.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ The transformation of the international system from a dynastic- to a territorial

sovereign principle of domestic legitimacy after the Peace of Westphalia shifted the
object of diplomatic loyalty from the prince to the state.
◼ Ideologically, this move was made possible by the doctrine of raison d’état, which
was intellectually prepared by Machiavelli’s reflections on statesmanship, but was
given a coherent structure as a guiding principle of foreign policy by Cardinal
Richelieu.
◼ Raison d’état transformed diplomatic loyalty from a personal type of relationship
between the diplomat and the prince as in the early modern period, into an
impersonal mode of affiliation to a collective entity, the state.
◼ The diplomat was still serving the sovereign, but from the broader perspective of
protecting and enhancing the stature of the state and not of the prince.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Communication methods
◼ The main duty of the resident ambassador was to gather information regarding domestic
political conditions in the host state and report back relevant developments to chancelleries
at home.
◼ To this end, ambassadors were required to build close relationships with the individuals
with whom the power rested, form good channels of communication between the two
governments and to advise the sending government on the best course of action.
◼ Resident ambassadors generally enjoyed a significant degree of discretion in pursuing their
missions.
◼ They alone could decide at what moment and in what terms their instructions could be
best executed, and they could interpret the purposes and motives of one government to
the other.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ The reports they sent back were “very detailed, seemingly filled with political trivia and
endless verbatim accounts of conversations that the resident had” (Hamilton and
Langhorne, 1995).
◼ This style of reporting was maintained so that the secretaries and clerks in the chancellery
could identify important connections that were neglected by the resident ambassador on
the spot.
◼ However, the ever-growing volume of diplomatic exchanges between diplomatic residents
and home chancelleries was not accompanied by the development of an effective and
competent bureaucratic administration.
◼ This often had the effect of slowing down the pace of diplomatic relations and of even
misplacing texts of treaties.
◼ The creation of the foreign affairs ministry spearheaded by Richelieu therefore represented
a logical and necessary step for streamlining diplomatic activity.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Much attention was paid to the affirmation of an ambassador’s haute bourgeoisie

background through ceremony.
◼ First, diplomatic ritual was a clear measure of the aspirations and responses to status
recognition among the parties.
◼ The sending state could demonstrate its wealth and power and its rating of the
importance of the recipient by the lavishness of the mission and the seniority of its
head.
◼ The receiver, on the other hand, said something about its standing by the quality of
reception offered, the grandeur of accommodation, the nature of celebrations and
the value of the gifts.
◼ Indeed, “the envoys of powerful or friendly governments enjoyed far more
distinguished honors than were granted to others” (Murray, 1855).
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Essential to communication was language.

◼ Before the fifteenth century, Latin was the prevailing mode of diplomatic communication
both in terms of written treaties and oral exchanges.
◼ With the decline of the Holy Roman Empire and the deepening of religious fragmentation,
the use of Latin among diplomats became rare and negotiations through interpreters
became more common.
◼ While French became frequently used by the Russian nobility, by the end of the seventeenth
century Russia also had an excellent service of foreign language, which included fifteen
translators (perevodčik) and fifty interpreters (tolmach) of Latin, Italian, Polish, Romanian,
English, German, Swedish, Dutch, Greek, Tartar, Persian, Arab, Turkish and Georgian.
◼ Most often they were foreigners in Russian service or former prisoners of war.
◼ It was only in the eighteenth century that French had grown to be the dominant diplomatic
language, a status it retained until the end of World War I, when it gradually became
replaced by English.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Ambassadors enjoyed certain advantages that facilitated their access to information and
communication.
◼ Most importantly, they enjoyed diplomatic immunities.
◼ These immunities – notably the physical inviolability of ambassadors, the ambassadorial
lifting of indictment for civil or criminal offences and the freedom to practice religion in
private – were granted to diplomats on the basis of religious, legal and practical sources.
◼ First, religious reasons were grounded in the ‘sacred’ attribute of the ambassador, who was
perceived to act for the general.
◼ Second, Roman law incorporated legal sanctions for diplomatic immunity, the scope of
which was subsequently extended by canon law under the threat of excommunication, and
later by legal precedents under the doctrine of extraterritoriality.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Third, practical considerations led states to reciprocally respect the safety of envoys.
◼ Indeed, the rulers were generally convinced that diplomatic immunity, granted on a
reciprocal basis, was a precondition for overcoming the hazards of length and physical
dangers that plagued diplomatic missions in the Middle Ages.
◼ Another important development was the standardization of matters of payment and
accommodation of ambassadors.
◼ For a long time, resident ambassadors were provided free accommodation and an
allowance by the host government.
◼ From the fifteenth century onwards, the practice of paying resident diplomats by the
sending authorities became gradually widespread, rendering them independent of the host
with regard to allowances or accommodation.
◼ However, the standardization of payment by the sending state did not mean the end of
complaints about financial resources, and quite often potential ambassadors refused to
serve on the grounds that they might stand to lose financially by taking up the mission.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Conflict management
◼ The establishment of the Westphalian conception of territorial sovereignty as a constitutive
principle of international order helped create a new configuration of hierarchical relations in
Europe between great and smaller powers.
◼ This order often led to an excessive preoccupation with status recognition and diplomatic
precedence.
◼ Symbolic ceremonial was understood to send precise messages about the relationship
between the parties involved and to indicate the significance of the matters discussed.
◼ Also, relationships between the several permanent embassies were established through
ceremonial, meaning that “each ambassador would struggle for the highest position relative
to others on all occasions, but never more so than at formal court functions” (Hamilton
and Langhorne, 1995)
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ This element of diplomacy was taken very seriously.

◼ The Pope tried to settle the issue of diplomatic precedence by producing a
memorandum in 1504 in which he placed himself first, followed by the kings of
France, Spain, Aragon and Portugal.
◼ The memorandum failed to allay diplomatic tensions and continued to be a major
source of political irritation and occasionally military brinkmanship for almost two
centuries.
◼ The Congress of Vienna finally settled the issue in 1815 by establishing precedence
among diplomatic envoys according to the date they presented their credentials.
◼ In time, great powers increasingly recognized the need for direct meetings to
prevent dangerous escalation of diplomatic tensions.
 MODERN DIPLOMACY

◼ Conference diplomacy had its modern origins in the congresses of Osnabrück and Münster
that restored peace in Europe through the 1648 Peace of Westphalia after thirty years of
religious conflict.
◼ This was followed by the Congress of Utrecht in 1712–13 that brought together
eighty-three plenipotentiaries to resolve the issue of European hegemony brought about by
the question of the Spanish succession.
◼ Most importantly, the Concert of Europe, established in the aftermath of the 1814 Vienna
settlement of the Napoleonic Wars, introduced the practice of regular face-to-face
consultation among the leaders of the Great Powers (Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia
and France).
◼ The five powers met on forty-one occasions to address a number of thorny diplomatic
issues concerning matters in Spain, Greece and Belgium.
◼ In so doing, the congress system helped prevent a direct conflict between great powers
until the Crimean War in 1856.
 SUMMARY

◼ Ancient diplomatic interactions were conducted on an ad hoc basis.

◼ The patterns of diplomatic representation, communication and negotiation were
largely influenced by the perceived levels of power asymmetry among the various
political entities.
◼ Imperial powers primarily used diplomacy to establish and maintain their political,
religious or military superiority over neighbours or any other groups with which
they interacted.
◼ In Europe, most of diplomatic exchanges during this period were conducted by
nuncii and procurators.
◼ However, unlike nuncii, procurators were given full powers to enter into private
contracts and to negotiate agreements on behalf of their leaders.
 SUMMARY

◼ The establishment of the modern institution of the resident ambassador was the
result of the rise of the secular sovereign state after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia
and the growing need for ‘continuous and confidential’ negotiation as a means of
preventing dangerous diplomatic escalations among Great Powers.
◼ The broader discretion that resident ambassadors enjoyed in pursuing their missions
was accompanied by a gradual consolidation of their diplomatic immunities, first on a
religious, then on a legal and practical basis.
◼ After the Congress of Vienna, conference diplomacy emerged as an effective method
of conflict management in the nineteenth century.
◼ By making visible the balance of power to those who constituted it, the Concert of
Europe encouraged self-restraint among its members.