The Missing Link in the Study of Diplomacy: The Management of the Diplomatic Service and Foreign Policy (original) (raw)
Related papers
The paper summarily explores the relationship between dynamics of foreign policy and diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy and international relations. It defines the concept of foreign policy and locates the concept of state power in the articulation of a State's foreign policy. It also distinguishes foreign policy as the substance -articulated objectives of a State -and highlights diplomacy as the central technique of foreign policy, which utilises other tools to drive the national interest of a State as well. Further, it defines the concept of diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy, briefly recognizing others, i.e. economic and financial aid, military and technical assistance, propaganda, etc., and focuses on the nature of diplomacy, functions of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy, new trends in diplomacy and foreign policy.
The series was launched in 1994. Its chief purpose is to encourage original scholarship on the theory and practice of international diplomacy, including its legal regulation. The interests of the series thus embrace such diplomatic functions as signalling, negotiation and consular work, and methods such as summitry and the multilateral conference. Whilst it has sharp focus on diplomacy at the expense of foreign policy, therefore, the series has no prejudice as to historical period or approach. It also aims to include manuals on protocol and other aspects of diplomatic practice which will be of immediate, day-today relevance to professional diplomats. A final ambition is to reprint inaccessible classic works on diplomacy.
The Importance of Diplomacy for the Foreign Policy and Modern Diplomacy Challenges
2020
This paper analyses the importance of diplomacy for the foreign policy of the states. The paper is analysing evolution of diplomacy from a new and innovative perspective. The key element in the analysis is a concentration on the relationship between the diplomacy and foreign policy, and between states’ needs and the functioning of the foreign policy. Also its related to the history of diplomacy and the ways in which modern diplomacy is conducted. In the paper we clarify the relations between diplomacy and foreign policy. The terms are often confused, but they are not synonymous. Diplomacy is the most important, but not the only instrument of foreign policy. Diplomacy as a method deals with the articulation of foreign policy. It is about the means, not the ends, of foreign policy. Diplomacy thus serves as an great instrument of implementing foreign policy. In recent times, due to the deepening level of globalization and transnational activities, states also have to interact with nons...
Connectivity between Diplomacy, Foreign Policy and Global Politics
International journal of humanities and social sciences, 2016
Studies in international relations offer a mix of subjects tackling global politics, diplomacy and foreign policy. Diplomacy and foreign policy are central features of global politics. They capture our imagination and their conduct affects our lives through their impact on war, peace, the global economy, human rights, international law, global institutions and the norms that govern relationships between states. Foreign policy and diplomacy provide an opportunity to examine and critically evaluate issues of contemporary global politics with a particular emphasis on the political, economic and decisional dynamics underpinning foreign policy and diplomacy. Diplomacy is the medium for the achievement of the specific foreign policy objectives of nation-states. Diplomacy is the central technique of foreign policy because other techniques of foreign policy revolve around it. The use of tactics plays a major role in this regard so as not to jeopardize the interests of these states and main...
Diplomatic Services Today: Between Political Decisions and Administrative Criteria
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 2015
As a highly specialized and relatively small sized public service (in terms of staff and budget), diplomacy has always been in a particular position within the administrative system of most countries. Not only does diplomacy attract the pretended 'elites' of the public sector's employees but also a lot of popular criticism with regard to its performances, transparency, dedication to public interest, procedures of recruitment, privileges, and sometimes moral exigencies. This paradoxical ambivalence of 'elitism' and public distrust coexists with variable degrees of tension between politicization and the need of effective technocracy. This article explores the concepts, delimitations and functioning of the political-ideological vs. administrative components of diplomatic systems, in the wider context of the administrative paradigms and political cultures to which they belong. While the theoretical distinction between foreign policy and diplomacy is way more developed in European classical approaches, though with controversial results, the American authors and officials traditionally use the two concepts interchangeably. Notwithstanding this theoretical flexibility, the borderline between the political level of diplomatic representation and the professional diplomatic and consular corps is clearer and better regulated in the U.S. system than in most of the European countries. A case study focused on the reform of the Romanian diplomatic service, in the pre-and post-EU accession years, serves as empirical analysis of this demarche.
International Relations (IR) is a continuously popular subject. It concerns peoples and cultures all over the world. The scope and complexity of the interactions between the various groups makes IR a challenging subject to master. IR is new and dynamic and has a special appeal to everybody. However, some people perceive IR as a distant and abstract ritual conducted by a small group of people like presidents, generals and diplomats. This assumption is not accurate because despite the fact that leaders play a major role in international affairs, many other people participate as well. For instance, students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote in an election or watch the news. In fact, the choices we make in our daily lives ultimately affect the world we live in.
It gives me great pleasure to inaugurate this international meeting organised by the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies. The main theme of the conference -modern diplomacy -is as topical as it is challenging. We are living through a period of rapid transition in international relations and impressive developments and achievements in the field of communication technology. Besides, new concepts and definitions have evolved over the years of what we mean and understand when we refer to threats to peace, and when we speak of security.
Since its much publicized deployment in the wake of the September 11 th attacks and during the subsequent so-called -War on Terror,‖ public diplomacy has generated a substantial body of critical discourse emanating from both the professional and academic spheres. These analyses, however, have been for the most part empirical studies, aimed at strengthening the efficiency of the practice by identifying potential flaws or weaknesses in its current conception or application and offering possible correctives. Significant enquiries into the conceptual origins and evolution of the practice, on the other hand, have generally been rare and limited. This thesis proposes to remedy, in part, this lack by situating public diplomacy within a broader and deeper conceptual context.