Diplomacy is the main instrument offoreign policy which represents the broader goals and strategies that guide a state's interactions with the rest of the world. Internationaltreaties,agreements,alliances, and other manifestations ofinternational relations are usually the result of diplomaticnegotiations and processes. Diplomats may also help shape a state by advising governmentofficials.
Modern diplomatic methods, practices, and principles originated largely from 17th-century European customs. Beginning in the early 20th century, diplomacy became professionalized; the 1961Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, ratified by most of the world's sovereign states, provides a framework for diplomatic procedures, methods, and conduct. Most diplomacy is now conducted byaccredited officials, such asenvoys and ambassadors, through adedicated foreign affairs office. Diplomats operate throughdiplomatic missions, most commonly consulates and embassies, and rely on a number of support staff; the term diplomat is thus sometimes applied broadly to diplomatic and consular personnel and foreign ministry officials.[3]
The termdiplomacy is derived from the 18th-century French termdiplomate ("diplomat" or "diplomatist"), based on the ancient Greekdiplōma, which roughly means "an object folded in two".[4] This reflected the practice of sovereigns providing a folded document to confer some official privilege; prior to the invention of the envelope, folding a document served to protect the privacy of its content. The term was later applied to all official documents, such as those containing agreements between governments, and thus became identified with international relations. This established history has in recent years been criticized by scholars pointing out how the term originates in the political context of theFrench Revolution.[5][6][additional citation(s) needed]
Theancient Greek city-states on some occasions dispatched envoys to negotiate specific issues, such as war and peace or commercial relations, but did not have diplomatic representatives regularly posted in each other's territory. However, some of the functions given to modern diplomatic representatives were fulfilled by aproxenos, a citizen of the host city who had friendly relations with another city, often through familial ties. In times of peace, diplomacy was even conducted with non-Hellenistic rivals such as theAchaemenid Empire of Persia, though it was ultimately conquered byAlexander the Great of Macedon. Alexander was also adept at diplomacy, realizing that the conquest of foreign cultures would be better achieved by having hisMacedonian and Greek subjects intermingle and intermarry with native populations. For instance, Alexander took as his wife aSogdian woman ofBactria,Roxana, after the siege of theSogdian Rock, in order to placate the rebelling populace. Diplomacy remained a necessary tool of statecraft for the greatHellenistic states that succeeded Alexander's empire, such as thePtolemaic Kingdom andSeleucid Empire, which fought several wars in the Near East and often negotiated peace treaties throughmarriage alliances.[citation needed]
Relations with theOttoman Empire were particularly important to Italian states, to which the Ottoman government was known as theSublime Porte.[7] Themaritime republics ofGenoa andVenice depended less and less upon their nautical capabilities, and more and more upon the perpetuation of good relations with the Ottomans.[7] Interactions between various merchants, diplomats and clergymen hailing from the Italian and Ottoman empires helped inaugurate and create new forms of diplomacy andstatecraft. Eventually the primary purpose of a diplomat, which was originally a negotiator, evolved into a persona that represented an autonomous state in all aspects of political affairs. It became evident that all othersovereigns felt the need to accommodate themselves diplomatically, due to the emergence of the powerful political environment of the Ottoman Empire.[7] One could come to the conclusion that the atmosphere of diplomacy within the early modern period revolved around a foundation of conformity to Ottoman culture.[citation needed]
One of the earliest realists ininternational relations theory was the 6th-century BC military strategistSun Tzu (d. 496 BC), author ofThe Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay less attention to traditional respects of tutelage to theZhou dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) figurehead monarchs while each vied for power and total conquest. However, a great deal of diplomacy in establishing allies, bartering land, and signing peace treaties was necessary for each warring state, and the idealized role of the "persuader/diplomat" developed.[8]
From theBattle of Baideng (200 BC) to theBattle of Mayi (133 BC), theHan dynasty was forced touphold a marriage alliance and pay an exorbitant amount of tribute (in silk, cloth, grain, and other foodstuffs) to the powerful northern nomadicXiongnu that had been consolidated byModu Shanyu. After the Xiongnu sent word toEmperor Wen of Han (r. 180–157) that they controlled areas stretching fromManchuria to theTarim Basin oasis city-states, a treaty was drafted in 162 BC proclaiming that everything north of theGreat Wall belongs to nomads' lands, while everything south of it would be reserved forHan Chinese. The treaty was renewed no less than nine times but did not restrain some Xiongnutuqi from raiding Han borders. That was until the far-flung campaigns ofEmperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BC) which shattered the unity of the Xiongnu and allowed Han to conquer theWestern Regions; under Wu, in 104 BC the Han armies ventured as farFergana in Central Asia to battle theYuezhi who had conqueredHellenistic Greek areas.[citation needed]
The Koreans and Japanese during the ChineseTang dynasty (618–907 AD) looked to the Chinese capital ofChang'an as the hub of civilization and emulated its central bureaucracy as the model of governance. The Japanese sent frequent embassies to China in this period, although they halted these trips in 894 when the Tang seemed on the brink of collapse. After the devastatingAn Shi Rebellion from 755 to 763, the Tang dynasty was in no position to reconquer Central Asia and theTarim Basin. After several conflicts with theTibetan Empire spanning several different decades, the Tang finally made a truce and signed a peace treaty with them in 841.[citation needed]
In the 11th century during theSong dynasty (960–1279), there were shrewd ambassadors such asShen Kuo andSu Song who achieved diplomatic success with theLiao dynasty, the often hostileKhitan neighbor to the north. Both diplomats secured the rightful borders of the Song dynasty through knowledge ofcartography and dredging up old court archives. There was also a triad of warfare and diplomacy between these two states and theTangutWestern Xia dynasty to the northwest of Song China (centered in modern-dayShaanxi). After warring with theLý dynasty ofVietnam from 1075 to 1077, Song and Lýmade a peace agreement in 1082 to exchange the respective lands they had captured from each other during the war.[citation needed]
Long before the Tang and Song dynasties, the Chinese had sent envoys into Central Asia, India, andPersia, starting withZhang Qian in the 2nd century BC. Another notable event in Chinese diplomacy was the Chinese embassy mission ofZhou Daguan to theKhmer Empire ofCambodia in the 13th century. Chinese diplomacy was a necessity in the distinctive period ofChinese exploration. Since the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD), the Chinese also became heavily invested in sending diplomatic envoys abroad onmaritime missions into the Indian Ocean, to India, Persia,Arabia, East Africa, and Egypt. Chinese maritime activity increased dramatically during the commercialized period of the Song dynasty, with new nautical technologies, many more private ship owners, and an increasing amount of economic investors in overseas ventures.[citation needed]
During theMongol Empire (1206–1294) the Mongols created something similar to today's diplomatic passport calledpaiza. The paiza was in three different types (golden, silver, and copper) depending on the envoy's level of importance. With the paiza, there came authority that the envoy could ask for food, transport, and a place to stay from any city, village, or clan within the empire with no difficulties.[citation needed]
As European power spread around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries so too did its diplomatic model, and Asian countries adopted syncretic or European diplomatic systems. For example, as part of diplomatic negotiations with the West over control of land and trade in China in the 19th century after theFirst Opium War, the Chinese diplomatQiying gifted intimate portraits of himself to representatives from Italy, England, the United States, and France.[9]
Ancient India, with its kingdoms and dynasties, had a long tradition of diplomacy. The oldest treatise on statecraft and diplomacy,Arthashastra, is attributed toKautilya (also known asChanakya), who was the principal adviser toChandragupta Maurya, the founder of theMaurya dynasty who ruled in the 3rd century BC. It incorporates a theory of diplomacy, of how in a situation of mutually contesting kingdoms, the wise king builds alliances and tries to checkmate his adversaries. The envoys sent at the time to the courts of other kingdoms tended to reside for extended periods of time, andArthashastra contains advice on the deportment of the envoy, including the trenchant suggestion that "he should sleep alone". The highest morality for the king is that his kingdom should prosper.[10]
A new analysis of Arthashastra brings out that hidden inside the 6,000 aphorisms of prose (sutras) are pioneering political and philosophic concepts. It covers the internal and external spheres of statecraft, politics and administration. The normative element is the political unification of the geopolitical and cultural subcontinent of India. This work comprehensively studies state governance; it urges non-injury to living creatures, or malice, as well as compassion, forbearance, truthfulness, and uprightness. It presents a rajmandala (grouping of states), a model that places the home state surrounded by twelve competing entities which can either be potential adversaries or latent allies, depending on how relations with them are managed. This is the essence of realpolitik. It also offers four upaya (policy approaches): conciliation, gifts, rupture or dissent, and force. It counsels that war is the last resort, as its outcome is always uncertain. This is the first expression of the raison d'etat doctrine, as also of humanitarian law; that conquered people must be treated fairly, and assimilated.[citation needed]
The key challenge to the Byzantine Empire was to maintain a set of relations between itself and its sundry neighbors, including theGeorgians,Iberians, theGermanic peoples, theBulgars, theSlavs, theArmenians, theHuns, theAvars, theFranks, theLombards, and theArabs, that embodied and so maintained its imperial status. All these neighbors lacked a key resource that Byzantium had taken over from Rome, namely a formalized legal structure. When they set about forging formal political institutions, they were dependent on the empire. Whereas classical writers are fond of making a sharp distinction between peace and war, for the Byzantines diplomacy was a form of war by other means. With a regular army of 120,000–140,000 men after the losses of the 7th century,[11][12] the empire's security depended on activist diplomacy.[citation needed]
Byzantium's "Bureau of Barbarians" was the first foreign intelligence agency, gathering information on the empire's rivals from every imaginable source.[13] While on the surface a protocol office—its main duty was to ensure foreign envoys were properly cared for and received sufficient state funds for their maintenance, and it kept all the official translators—it clearly had a security function as well.On Strategy, from the 6th century, offers advice about foreign embassies: "[Envoys] who are sent to us should be received honorably and generously, for everyone holds envoys in high esteem. Their attendants, however, should be kept under surveillance to keep them from obtaining any information by asking questions of our people."[14]
In Europe, early modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states ofNorthern Italy in the earlyRenaissance, with the first embassies being established in the 13th century.[15] TheRepublic of Venice,Milan andTuscany were flourishing centers of diplomacy from the 14th century onward. It was in theItalian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation of an ambassador's credentials to thehead of state.[citation needed]
From Italy, the practice was spread across Europe. Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of France in 1455. However, Milan refused to host French representatives, fearing they would conduct espionage and intervene in its internal affairs. As foreign powers such as France and Spain became increasingly involved in Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized. Soon the major European powers were exchanging representatives. Spain was the first to send a permanent representative; it appointed an ambassador to theCourt of St. James's (i.e. England) in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became customary. TheHoly Roman Emperor, however, did not regularly send permanent legates, as they could not represent the interests of all the German princes (who were in theory all subordinate to the Emperor, but in practice each independent).
Between 1500 and 1700, the rules of modern diplomacy were further developed.[16] French replaced Latin from about 1715. The top rank of representatives was an ambassador. At that time an ambassador was a nobleman, the rank of the noble assigned varying with the prestige of the country he was delegated to. Strict standards were developed for ambassadors, requiring them to have large residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court life of their host nation. In Rome, the most prized posting for a Catholic ambassador, the French and Spanish representatives would have a retinue of up to a hundred. Even in smaller posts, ambassadors were very expensive. Smaller states would send and receiveenvoys, who were a rung below the ambassador. Somewhere between the two was the position ofminister plenipotentiary.
Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more so than now. The ambassadors from each state were ranked by complex levels of precedence that were much disputed. States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign; for Catholic nations the emissary from theVatican was paramount, then those from thekingdoms, then those fromduchies andprincipalities. Representatives from republics were ranked the lowest (which often angered the leaders of the numerous German, Scandinavian, and Italian republics). Determining precedence between two kingdoms depended on a number of factors that often fluctuated, leading to near-constant squabbling.
Ambassadors were often nobles with little foreign experience and no expectation of a career in diplomacy. They were supported by their embassy staff. These professionals would be sent on longer assignments and would be far more knowledgeable than the higher-ranking officials about the host country. Embassy staff would include a wide range of employees, including some dedicated to espionage. The need for skilled individuals to staff embassies was met by the graduates of universities, and this led to a great increase in the study ofinternational law, French, and history at universities throughout Europe.
At the same time, permanent foreign ministries began to be established in almost all European states to coordinate embassies and their staffs. These ministries were still far from their modern form, and many of them had extraneous internal responsibilities. Britain had two departments with frequently overlapping powers until 1782. They were also far smaller than they are currently. France, which boasted the largest foreign affairs department, had only some 70 full-time employees in the 1780s.
The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and Russia, arriving by the early 18th century. The entire edifice would be greatly disrupted by theFrench Revolution and the subsequent years of warfare. The revolution would see commoners take over the diplomacy of the French state, and of those conquered by revolutionary armies. Ranks of precedence were abolished.Napoleon also refused to acknowledge diplomatic immunity, imprisoning several British diplomats accused of scheming against France.
After the fall of Napoleon, theCongress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system ofdiplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) were first addressed at theCongress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, but persisted for over a century until afterWorld War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. In between that time, figures such as the German ChancellorOtto von Bismarck were renowned for international diplomacy.
Diplomats and historians often refer to a foreign ministry by its address: theBallhausplatz (Vienna), theQuai d'Orsay (Paris), theWilhelmstrasse (Berlin),Itamaraty (Brasília), andFoggy Bottom (Washington, D.C.). For the Russian foreign ministry, it was theChoristers' Bridge (Saint Petersburg) until 1917, while "Consulta" referred to the Italian foreign ministry, based in thePalazzo della Consulta (Rome) from 1874 to 1922.[18][19]
The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed, underpinning the modern concept ofdiplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honor.Genghis Khan and theMongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.
Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-17th century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted orprosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country, he or she may be declared aspersona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland.
Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called "diplomatic bag" (or, in some countries, the "diplomatic pouch"). While radio and digital communication have become more standard for embassies, diplomatic pouches are still quite common and some countries, including the United States, declare entire shipping containers as diplomatic pouches to bring sensitive material (often building supplies) into a country.[20]
In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, as well as in some cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents. Ambassadors and other diplomats are sometimes recalled temporarily by their home countries as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees still remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.
Diplomacy is closely linked to espionage or the gathering of intelligence. Embassies are bases for both diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly acknowledged spies. For instance, the job ofmilitary attachés includes learning as much as possible about the military of the nation to which they are assigned. They do not try to hide this role and, as such, are only invited to events allowed by their hosts, such as military parades orair shows. There are also deep-cover spies operating in many embassies. Theseundercover individuals are given fake positions at the embassy, but their main task is to illegally gather intelligence, usually by coordinating spy rings of locals or other spies. For the most part, spies operating out of embassies gather little intelligence themselves and their identities tend to be known by the opposition. If discovered, these diplomats can be expelled from an embassy, but for the most partcounter-intelligence agencies prefer to keep these agentsin situ and under close monitoring.
The information gathered by spies plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy. Arms-control treaties would be impossible without the power ofreconnaissance satellites and agents to monitor compliance. Information gleaned from espionage is useful in almost all forms of diplomacy, everything from trade agreements to border disputes.
Nations sometimes resort tointernational arbitration when faced with a specific question or point of contention in need of resolution. For most of history, there were no official or formal procedures for such proceedings. They were generally accepted to abide by general principles and protocols related tointernational law and justice.[citation needed]
Sometimes these took the form of formal arbitrations and mediations. In such cases, a commission of diplomats might be convened to hear all sides of an issue and to come some sort of ruling based on international law.
In the modern era, much of this work is often carried out by theInternational Court of Justice atThe Hague, or other formal commissions, agencies and tribunals, working under the United Nations. Below are some examples.
TheHay–Herbert Treaty was enacted after the United States and Britain submitted a dispute to international mediation about theCanada–U.S. border.
Other times, resolutions were sought through the convening of international conferences. In such cases, there are fewer ground rules and fewer formal applications of international law. However, participants are expected to guide themselves through principles of international fairness, logic, and protocol.[21]
Some examples of these formal conferences are:
Congress of Vienna (1815) – AfterNapoleon was defeated, there were many diplomatic questions waiting to be resolved. This included the shape of the political map of Europe, the disposition of political andnationalist claims of various ethnic groups and nationalities wishing to have some political autonomy, and the resolution of various claims by various European powers.
TheCongress of Berlin (13 June – 13 July 1878) was a meeting of the European Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire's leading statesmen in Berlin in 1878. In the wake of theRusso-Turkish War, 1877–78, the meeting's aim was to reorganize conditions in the Balkans.
Sometimes nations convene official negotiation processes to settle a specific dispute or specific issue between several nations which are parties to a dispute. These are similar to the conferences mentioned above, as there are technically no established rules or procedures. However, there are general principles and precedents which help define a course for such proceedings.[21]
Some examples are:
Camp David Accords – Convened in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter of the United States, at Camp David to reach an agreement between Prime Minister Mechaem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. After weeks of negotiation, an agreement was reached and the accords were signed, later leading directly to theEgypt–Israel peace treaty of 1979.
Small state diplomacy is receiving increasing attention in diplomatic studies andinternational relations. Small states are particularly affected by developments which are determined beyond their borders such asclimate change,water security and shifts in theglobal economy. Diplomacy is the main vehicle by which small states are able to ensure that their goals are addressed in the global arena. These factors mean that small states have strong incentives to support international cooperation. With equal votes in theUN General Assembly, small state coalitions can gain traction on issues of common interest. But with limited resources at their disposal, conducting effective diplomacy poses unique challenges for small states.[22][23]
There are a variety of diplomatic categories and diplomatic strategies employed by organizations and governments to achieve their aims, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Appeasement is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid confrontation; because of its failure to prevent World War 2, appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of modern diplomacy. "The theme that "appeasement in the face of tyranny never works and always leads to conflict eventually" is based on historical lessons."[24]
Counterinsurgency diplomacy, or expeditionary diplomacy, developed by diplomats deployed to civil-military stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, employs diplomats at tactical and operational levels, outside traditional embassy environments and often alongside military or peacekeeping forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide political environment advice to local commanders, interact with local leaders, and facilitate the governance efforts, functions and reach of a host government.[25]
Debt-trap diplomacy is carried out in bilateral relations, with a powerful lending country seeking to saddle a borrowing nation with enormous debt so as to increase its leverage over it.[citation needed]
Gunboat diplomacy is the use of conspicuous displays of military power as a means of intimidation to influence others. Since it is inherently coercive, it typically lies near the edge between peace and war, and is usually exercised in the context of imperialism or hegemony.[26] An emblematic example is theDon Pacifico Incident in 1850, in which the United Kingdomblockaded the Greek port ofPiraeus in retaliation for the harming of a British subject and the failure of the Greek government to provide him with restitution.
Hostage diplomacy is the taking ofhostages by a state or quasi-state actor to fulfill diplomatic goals. It is a type of asymmetric diplomacy often used by weaker states to pressure stronger ones. Hostage diplomacy has been practiced from prehistory to the present day.[27][28]
Humanitarian diplomacy is the set of activities undertaken by various actors with governments, (para)military organizations, or personalities in order to intervene or push intervention in a context where humanity is in danger.[29] According toAntonio De Lauri, a research professor at the Chr. Michelsen Institute, humanitarian diplomacy "ranges from negotiating the presence of humanitarian organizations to negotiating access to civilian populations in need of protection. It involves monitoring assistance programs, promoting respect for international law, and engaging in advocacy in support of broader humanitarian goals".[30]
Migration diplomacy is the use ofhuman migration in a state's foreign policy.[31] American political scientist Myron Weiner argued that international migration is intricately linked to states' international relations.[32] More recently,Kelly Greenhill has identified how states may employ 'weapons of mass migration' against target states in their foreign relations.[33] Migration diplomacy may involve the use ofrefugees,[34][35]labor migrants,[36][37] ordiasporas[38] in states' pursuit of international diplomacy goals. In the context of theSyrian Civil War,Syrian refugees were used in the context of Jordanian, Lebanese, and Turkish migration diplomacy.[39][28]
Preventive diplomacy is carried out through quiet means (as opposed to "gun-boat diplomacy", which is backed by the threat of force, or "public diplomacy", which makes use of publicity). It is also understood that circumstances may exist in which the consensual use of force (notably preventive deployment) might be welcomed by parties to a conflict with a view to achieving the stabilization necessary for diplomacy and related political processes to proceed. This is to be distinguished from the use of "persuasion", "suasion", "influence", and other non-coercive approaches explored below.
Preventive diplomacy, in the view of one expert, is "the range of peaceful dispute resolution approaches mentioned in Article 33 of the UN Charter [on the pacific settlement of disputes] when applied before a dispute crosses the threshold to armed conflict." It may take many forms, with different means employed. One form of diplomacy which may be brought to bear to prevent violent conflict (or to prevent its recurrence) is "quiet diplomacy". When one speaks of the practice of quiet diplomacy, definitional clarity is largely absent. In part this is due to a lack of any comprehensive assessment of exactly what types of engagement qualify, and how such engagements are pursued. On the one hand, a survey of the literature reveals no precise understanding or terminology on the subject. On the other hand, concepts are neither clear nor discrete in practice. Multiple definitions are often invoked simultaneously by theorists, and the activities themselves often mix and overlap in practice.[42]
Public diplomacy is the exercise of influence through communication with the general public in another nation, rather than attempting to influence the nation's government directly. This communication may take the form of propaganda, or more benign forms such ascitizen diplomacy, individual interactions between average citizens of two or more nations. Technological advances and the advent ofdigital diplomacy now allow instant communication with foreign citizens, and methods such asFacebook diplomacy andTwitter diplomacy are increasingly used by world leaders and diplomats.[23]
Also known as the "softly softly" approach, quiet diplomacy is the attempt to influence the behaviour of another state through secret negotiations or by refraining from taking a specific action.[43] This method is often employed by states that lack alternative means to influence the target government, or that seek to avoid certain outcomes. For example, South Africa is described as engaging in quiet diplomacy with neighboring Zimbabwe to avoid appearing as "bullying" and subsequently engendering a hostile response. This approach can also be employed by more powerful states: U.S. President George W. Bush's nonattendance at the 2002World Summit on Sustainable Development constituted a form of quiet diplomacy, in response to the lack of UN support for the U.S.' proposedinvasion of Iraq.[citation needed]
Science diplomacy[44] is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address common problems and to build constructive international partnerships. Many experts and groups use a variety of definitions for science diplomacy. However, science diplomacy has become an umbrella term to describe a number of formal or informal technical, research-based, academic or engineering exchanges, with notable examples includingCERN, theInternational Space Station, andITER.
Soft power, sometimes called "hearts and minds diplomacy", as defined byJoseph Nye, is the cultivation of relationships, respect, or even admiration from others in order to gain influence, as opposed to more coercive approaches. Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of official diplomacy, soft power refers to non-state, culturally attractive factors that may predispose people to sympathize with a foreign culture based on affinity for its products, such as the American entertainment industry, schools and music.[45] A country's soft power can come from three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).[citation needed] A particular example of soft power is the use ofgiant panda bears by China as a diplomatic gift, a practice known aspanda diplomacy.
City diplomacy refers to cities using institutions and processes to engage relations with other actors on an international stage, with the aim of representing themselves and their interests to one another.[46] Especially today, city administrations and networks are increasingly active in the realm of transnationally relevant questions and issues ranging from the climate crisis to migration and the promotion of smart technology. As such, cities and city networks may seek to address and re-shape national and sub-national conflicts, support their peers in the achievement of sustainable development, and achieve certain levels of regional integration and solidarity among each other.[47] Whereas diplomacy pursued by nation-states is often said to be disconnected from the citizenry, city diplomacy fundamentally rests on its proximity to the latter and seeks to leverage these ties "to build international strategies integrating both their values and interests."[48]
Most countries provide professional training for their diplomats and maintain institutions specifically for that purpose. Private institutions also exist as do establishments associated with organizations like the European Union and the United Nations.
In early European diplomacy, a number of diplomatic 'manuals' were published, describing the legal aspects of early diplomacy as well as how diplomats should conduct themselves.[49] Some manuals, such as one byÉtienne Dolet, were also targeted at rulers, helping them to understand the characteristics of a good diplomat.[49]
^Leira, Halvard. "A Conceptual History of Diplomacy," in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016).
^Stagnell, Alexander (2020).Diplomacy and Ideology: From the French Revolution to the Digital Age. London: Routledge.ISBN9780367897796.
^abcGoffman, Daniel. "Negotiating with the Renaissance State: The Ottoman Empire and the New Diplomacy." In The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire. Eds. Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–74.
^Dennis 1985, Anonymous,Byzantine Military Treatise on Strategy, para. 43, p. 125
^Historical discontinuity between diplomatic practice of the ancient and medieval worlds and modern diplomacy has been questioned; see, for instance,Pierre Chaplais,English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003), p. 1online.
^Gaston Zeller, "French diplomacy and foreign policy in their European setting." inThe New Cambridge Modern History (1961) 5:198–221
^(in French) François Modoux, "La Suisse engagera 300 millions pour rénover le Palais des Nations",Le Temps, Friday 28 June 2013, page 9.
^David Std Stevenson, "The Diplomats" in Jay Winter, ed.The Cambridge History of the First World War: Volume II: The State (2014) vol 2 p 68.
^Apresentação Itamaraty, (in Portuguese) Retrieved 8 November 2021
^Weiner, Myron (1985). "On International Migration and International Relations".Population and Development Review.11 (3):441–455.doi:10.2307/1973247.JSTOR1973247.
^Greenhill, Kelly M. (2010).Weapons of mass migration : forced displacement, coercion, and foreign policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.ISBN9780801458668.OCLC726824355.
^Greenhill, Kelly M. (September 2002). "Engineered Migration and the Use of Refugees as Political Weapons: A Case Study of the 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis".International Migration.40 (4):39–74.doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00205.ISSN0020-7985.
^Musch, A. (2008).City diplomacy : the role of local government in conflict prevention, peace-building, post-conflict reconstruction. VNG International.ISBN978-90-804757-4-8.OCLC1012533034.
^abBram van Leuveren (2023). "1 - Unhappy Products of Unhappy Times: European Thought on Diplomacy and Festival Culture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries".Early Modern Diplomacy and French Festival Culture in a European Context, 1572–1615.Brill. pp. 34–35.ISBN978-90-04-53781-1.
Dorman, Shawn, ed.Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America by American Foreign Service Association, Second edition February 2003,ISBN0-9649488-2-6
Hayne, M. B.The French Foreign Office and the Origins of the First World War, 1898–1914 (1993);
Hill, Henry Bertram.The Political Testament of Cardinal Richeleiu: The Significant Chapters and Supporting Selections (1964)
Jackson, Peter "Tradition and adaptation: the social universe of the French Foreign Ministry in the era of the First World War",French History, 24 (2010), 164–96;
Kissinger, Henry.A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problem of Peace: 1812–1822 (1999)
Kurbalija J. and Slavik H. eds.Language and Diplomacy DiploProjects, Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, Malta, 2001,ISBN99909-55-15-8; papers by experts.
Macalister-Smith Peter, Schwietzke, Joachim, ed.,Diplomatic Conferences and Congresses. A Bibliographical Compendium of State Practice 1642 to 1919 W. Neugebauer, Graz, Feldkirch 2017ISBN978-3-85376-325-4
MacMillan, Margaret.Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (2003).
Rana, Kishan S.The 21st Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive DiploFoundation, 2004,ISBN99909-55-18-2
Rivère de Carles, Nathalie, and Duclos, Nathalie,Forms of Diplomacy (16th–21st c.), Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Midi, 2015.ISBN978-2-8107-0424-8. A study of alternative forms of diplomacy and essays on cultural diplomacy by Lucien Bély et al.
Ernest Satow.A Guide to Diplomatic Practice by Longmans, Green & Co. London & New York, 1917. A standard reference work used in many embassies across the world (though not British ones). In its fifth edition (1998)ISBN0-582-50109-1
Seldon, Anthony.Foreign Office (2000), history of the British ministry and its headquarters building.
Steiner, Zara S.The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914 (1969) on Britain.
Stevenson, David. "The Diplomats" in Jay Winter, ed.The Cambridge History of the First World War: Volume II: The State (2014) vol 2 ch 3, pp 66–90.
_(B%2526W).jpg)
_-_Foto_G._Dall%2527Orto_28-5-2006_dett.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Foto_G._Dall%2527Orto_28-5-2006.jpg){kind=link}