JAVIER, Apple Kris E. 2006-44166 Political Science 182 What is Diplomacy?

16 July 2007

Diplomacy is a broad topic to discuss. I will present it in a manner of giving general definition of diplomacy, to be followed by diplomacy through negotiation, representation and communication. Then the legal framework of Diplomatic Law in international regulation is discussed. Finally, these definitions will be challenged by postmodern interpretation of diplomacy. According to Christer Jonsson, diplomacy- the institutional framework within much of international negotiation takes place- is considerably less established field. But it will be seen that through time, there is a conscious effort of establishing diplomacy in the international relations. According to Wight as cited in Christer Jonssons Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation, diplomacy has been described as master-institution or, more ordinarily, using Cohens definition, as the engine room of international relations. This now points to the idea of diplomacy as an essential institution for the conduct of inter-state relations (Jonsson, 2006: 212). Moreover, the Oxford English Dictionary defines diplomacy as the conduct of international relations by negotiation. The core of negotiation in diplomacy is equivalent by its vitality in the study of international relations. Diplomacy, as defined by Adam Watson, as negotiations between political entities which acknowledge each others independence. G.R. Berridges definition of diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than force, propaganda, recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering information or engendering goodwill) which are directly or indirectly designed to advance negotiation (Ibid.: 217). According to Zartman as cited in Christer Jonsons work:
Negotiation can be regarded as one identifiable mode of joint decision making, distinguished from coalition, when the choice is made hierarchically by a judge who aggregates conflicting values and interests into a single decision. Regardless of formal decision rule, an element of negotiation usually precedes social decisions. In the international arena, dominated by sovereign states, negotiation is primary and predominant mode of reaching joint decisions (Ibid.: 217).

Negotiations cover an extremely wide range of international transactions and can be conducted. It may be formal, executed through an exchange of notes, or informal, through personal, occasionally unofficial contacts. The primary aim of all negotiations is to acquire from
1

other states consent to what is regarded to be in the national interest. This could be an agreement on limitation of armaments, or supporting the General Assembly of the United Nations of the conclusion of a trade contract (Frankel, 1979: 127). According to Joseph Frankel, the basic technique of negotiation is persuasion and compromise (Ibid.: 129). Contrary to that is Robert Cantors idea that diplomacy is nor persuasion and diplomats have little room to maneuver without the acquiescence of their governments. The expression of diplomatic skill is in the careful, accurate assessment of the negotiating position of other states (Cantor, 1986: 369). As diplomacy presents a way of negotiation is settling competing national interests and hence could offer the simplest method of peaceful resolution of conflicts, the outbreak of violence is less likely (Frankel, 1979: 128-129). It is still not an assurance though. The limits of diplomacy lie in the attempt to reconcile a nations interests with realities of the international system. With the diversities that are happening in the sphere of international politics such as the development of new weapon systems, a new organization of exporters of natural resources can affect the most careful plans. Diplomacy must be capable to adapt to such changes. The history of conflict among nations is more of a testimony to the dynamic quality of international politics that an indictment of diplomacy. Diplomacy must be succinctly versatile to the changing times because it cannot succeed if it is too wedded to the position. Given the idea that if international political systems of nations are altered, new international priorities arise and new interests are identified (Cantor, 1986: 378). Another generic concept in understanding diplomacy is representation. 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. The most explicit supporter of the understanding of diplomacy in terms of representation is Paul Sharp. He asserts that the practice of diplomacy and its 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 (Jonsson, 2006:213) Diplomacy is a system of representation. This goes so far as to say that diplomacy is also a system of communication. Authors who emphasize this aspect contend that communication is one of the logically necessary conditions for the existence of international relations (Ibid.:213). With this, diplomacy also carries out the functions of conveying and clarifying of messages between governments, gathering of information, the symbolic demonstration of the states
2

legitimacy and splendor, the protection of a states citizens abroad and the cultivation of cordial relations (Berridge, 1997: 186). With the legal framework of diplomacy, it has been subjected to international regulation, Diplomatic law focuses on the immunities, privileges and obligations of ambassadors and this was expected of its nature (Jonsson, 2006: 216). According to the Laws of Diplomacy (Goldstein,
2001, p. 330), diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is one of the most ancient international rules which, in spite of having been disregarded continuously, have survived until now. As written by Geoff Berridge, negotiation is not an activity fitted for everyone. The majority of international negotiations- even between allies are difficult enough without being made more so by abrasive and discourteous behavior. Minimum trust between parties is needed: trust in the truth if what is being said and trust in the promises being made. In connection to that, diplomacy as representation and communication entails the precision of language because miscommunication results in an inconsistent actions.

With all these definitions and outworking of diplomacy, the postmodernists also have their own interpretation of diplomacy. For them, diplomacy goes beyond representation and communication, and see the institution as a reflection of more existential aspect of the human condition. In the words of James Der Derian, diplomacy is defined as mediation between estranged individuals, groups or entities. His principle idea is alienation. The primeval alienation of man, from the Judeo-Christian mythology of the Fall to the estranged relations between political entities, has required mediation; the form this mediation takes, as estranged relation change, constitutes a theoretical and historical base for the study of the origins of diplomacy. In addition to that, Costas Costantinou, he asserts that the fable of diplomacy is nothing less than the story modernity, attributing a sovereign who enjoys the ius legationis and has the capacity to send embassies and messages representative of his thought (Jonsonn, 2006: 214). Finally, the effective accommodations of harmonious and conflicting interest test diplomacy (Black, 1963: 20).

References: Berridge, Geoff R. 1997. International Politics. USA: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

3

Black, Joseph E. and Kenneth W. Thompson. 1963. Foreign Policies in a World of Change. USA: Harper and Row Publishers, Incorporated. Cantor, Robert. 1986. Contemporary International Politics. Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Frankel, Joseph. 1979. International Relations in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University . Press. Goldstein, Joshua S. 2001. International Relations (4th Edition). New York: Longman. Jonsson, Christer, Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation in Carlsnaes, Walter et. Al (eds.). 2006. Handbook of International Relations. USA: SAGE Publications.