Diplomacy

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
International diplomacy
)

Winston Churchill (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States) and Joseph Stalin (General Secretary of the Soviet Union) at the Yalta Conference, 1945

Diplomacy comprises spoken or written communication by representatives of state, intergovernmental, or nongovernmental institutions intended to influence events in the international system.[1][2]

Diplomacy is the main instrument of foreign policy which represents the broader goals and strategies that guide a state's interactions with the rest of the world. International treaties, agreements, alliances, and other manifestations of international relations are usually the result of diplomatic negotiations and processes. Diplomats may also help shape a state by advising government officials.

Modern diplomatic methods, practices, and principles originated largely from 17th-century European custom. Beginning in the early 20th century, diplomacy became professionalized; the 1961

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]

Etymology

The term diplomacy is derived from the 18th-century French term diplomate ("diplomat" or "diplomatist"), based on the ancient Greek diplōma, 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 the French Revolution. [5][6][additional citation(s) needed]

History

Ger van Elk, Symmetry of Diplomacy, 1975, Groninger Museum
Hittite Empire of Anatolia

Western Asia

Some of the earliest known diplomatic records are the

Hittite Empire created one of the first known international peace treaties, which survives in stone tablet fragments, now generally called the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty.[citation needed
]

The

proxenos, 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 the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, through it was ultimately conquered by Alexander the Great of Macedon. Alexander was also adept at diplomacy, realizing that the conquest of foreign cultures would be better achieved by having his Macedonian and Greek subjects intermingle and intermarry with native populations. For instance, Alexander took as his wife a Sogdian woman of Bactria, Roxana, after the siege of the Sogdian Rock, in order to placate the rebelling populace. Diplomacy remained a necessary tool of statecraft for the great Hellenistic states that succeeded Alexander's empire, such as the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Seleucid Empire, which fought several wars in the Near East and often negotiated peace treaties through marriage alliances.[citation needed
]

Ottoman Empire

A French ambassador in Ottoman dress, painted by Antoine de Favray, 1766, Pera Museum, Istanbul

Relations with the Ottoman Empire were particularly important to Italian states, to which the Ottoman government was known as the Sublime Porte.[7] The maritime republics of Genoa and Venice 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 and statecraft. 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 other sovereigns 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]

East Asia

One of the earliest realists in international relations theory was the 6th-century BC military strategist Sun Tzu (d. 496 BC), author of The Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay less attention to traditional respects of tutelage to the Zhou 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 the

Hellenistic Greek areas.[citation needed
]

Qiuci
, and Wo (Japan)

The Koreans and Japanese during the Chinese

Tibetan 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 the

Western Xia dynasty to the northwest of Song China (centered in modern-day Shaanxi). After warring with the Lý dynasty of Vietnam from 1075 to 1077, Song and Lý made 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, and

Arabia, East Africa, and Egypt. Chinese maritime activity was 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 the Mongol Empire (1206–1294) the Mongols created something similar to today's diplomatic passport called paiza. The paiza were 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 can ask for food, transport, place to stay from any city, village, or clan within the empire with no difficulties.[citation needed]

In the 17th century, the

Aigun Treaty and the Convention of Peking in the mid-19th century.[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 the First Opium War, the Chinese diplomat Qiying gifted intimate portraits of himself to representatives from Italy, England, the United States, and France.[9]

Ancient India

India's diplomatic personnel

Maurya 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, and Arthashastra 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]

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]

Europe

Byzantine Empire

The key challenge to the Byzantine Empire was to maintain a set of relations between itself and its sundry neighbors, including the

Avars, the Franks, the Lombards, and the Arabs, 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
]

(Madrid Skylitzes, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid).

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 honourably 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]

Medieval and early modern Europe

In Europe, early modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of

Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other city states of Northern Italy. Tuscany and Venice were also flourishing centres of diplomacy from the 14th century onwards. It was in the Italian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation of an ambassador's credentials to the head of state.[citation needed
]

Modernity

French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord is considered one of the most skilled diplomats of all time.

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 the

Court of St. James's (i.e. England) in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became customary. The Holy 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 rules of modern diplomacy were further developed.

minister 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 the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms, then those from duchies and principalities. 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.

The First Geneva Convention (1864). Geneva (Switzerland) is the city that hosts the highest number of international organizations in the world.[17]

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 of international law, French, and history at universities throughout Europe.

Frontispiece of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna

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 the French 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, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system of diplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) were first addressed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, but persisted for over a century until after World War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. In between that time, figures such as the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck were renowned for international diplomacy.

Diplomats and historians often refer to a foreign ministry by its address: the Ballhausplatz (Vienna), the Quai d'Orsay (Paris), the Wilhelmstrasse (Berlin); Itamaraty (Brasília); and Foggy Bottom (Washington, D.C.). For the Russian foreign ministry, it was the Choristers' Bridge (Saint Petersburg) until 1917, while "Consulta" referred to the Italian foreign ministry, based in the Palazzo della Consulta (Rome) from 1874 to 1922.[18][19]

Immunity

The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed, underpinning the modern concept of diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols 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 1961

prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country he or she may be declared as persona 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.

Espionage

Diplomacy is closely linked to espionage or gathering of intelligence. Embassies are bases for both diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly acknowledged spies. For instance, the job of

counter-intelligence
agencies prefer to keep these agents in 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 of reconnaissance 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.

Resolution of problems

Various processes and procedures have evolved over time for handling diplomatic issues and disputes.

Arbitration and mediation

Victoria of the United Kingdom
, 16 March 1895.

Nations sometimes resort to international 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 to international 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 the International Court of Justice at The Hague, or other formal commissions, agencies and tribunals, working under the United Nations. Below are some examples.

  • The
    Hay–Herbert Treaty was enacted after the United States and Britain submitted a dispute to international mediation about the Canada–U.S. border
    .

Conferences

Anton von Werner, Congress of Berlin (1881): final meeting at the Reich Chancellery on 13 July 1878

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) – After Napoleon 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 and nationalist claims of various ethnic groups and nationalities wishing to have some political autonomy, and the resolution of various claims by various European powers.
  • The Congress 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 the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78, the meeting's aim was to reorganize conditions in the Balkans.

Negotiations

Anwar El Sadat

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, agreement was reached and the accords were signed, later leading directly to the Egypt–Israel peace treaty of 1979.
  • Treaty of Portsmouth – Enacted after President Theodore Roosevelt brought together the delegates from Russia and Japan, to settle the Russo-Japanese War. Roosevelt's personal intervention settled the conflict, and caused him to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Small states

Czech (originally Czechoslovak) Embassy in Berlin

Small state diplomacy is receiving increasing attention in diplomatic studies and

global 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. But with limited resources at their disposal, conducting effective diplomacy poses unique challenges for small states.[22][23]

Types

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

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.[citation needed]

Counterinsurgency

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.[24]

Debt-trap

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]

Economic

Economic diplomacy is the use of aid or other types of economic policy as a means to achieve a diplomatic agenda.[citation needed]

Gunboat

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.

Don Pacifico Incident in 1850, in which the United Kingdom blockaded the Greek port of Piraeus
in retaliation for the harming of a British subject and the failure of Greek government to provide him with restitution.

Hostage

Hostage diplomacy is the taking of

hostages 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.[26][27]

Humanitarian

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.[28] According to Antonio 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".[29]

Migration

Migration diplomacy is the use of

Syrian refugees were used in the context of Jordanian, Lebanese, and Turkish migration diplomacy.[38][27]

Nuclear

Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme
(30 March 2015).

Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy related to preventing

Preventive

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.[41]

Public

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 as

Facebook diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy are increasingly used by world leaders and diplomats.[23]

Quiet

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.[42] 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 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development constituted a form of quiet diplomacy, in response to the lack of UN support for the U.S.' proposed invasion of Iraq.[citation needed]

Science

Science diplomacy[43] 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 including CERN, the International Space Station, and ITER.

Soft power

Soft power, sometimes called "hearts and minds diplomacy", as defined by Joseph 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.[44] 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 of giant panda bears by China as a diplomatic gift, a practice known as panda diplomacy.

City

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.[45] 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.[46] 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."[47]

Training

The Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation at 53/2 Ostozhenka Street, Moscow

Most countries provide professional training for their diplomats and maintain institutions specifically for that purpose. Private institutions also exist as do establishments associated with organisations like the European Union and the United Nations.

See also

Notes and references

  1. ISSN 1094-2939
    .
  2. ^ Ronald Peter Barston, Modern Diplomacy, Pearson Education, 2006, p. 1
  3. ^ "The Diplomats" in Jay Winter, ed. The Cambridge History of the First World War: Volume II: The State (2014) vol 2 p 68.
  4. ^ "diplomacy | Nature, Purpose, History, & Practice". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
  5. ^ 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).
  6. .
  7. ^ a b c Goffman, 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.
  8. . Retrieved 1 September 2011. The writings that preserve information about the political history of the [Warring States] period [...] define a set of idealized roles that constitute the Warring States polity: the monarch, the reforming minister, the military commander, the persuader/diplomat, and the scholar.
  9. .
  10. ^ See Cristian Violatti, "Arthashastra" (2014)
  11. .
  12. .
  13. ^ Antonucci, Michael (February 1993). "War by Other Means: The Legacy of Byzantium". History Today. 43 (2): 11–13.
  14. ^ Dennis 1985, Anonymous, Byzantine Military Treatise on Strategy, para. 43, p. 125
  15. ^ 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. 1 online.
  16. ^ Gaston Zeller, "French diplomacy and foreign policy in their European setting." in The New Cambridge Modern History (1961) 5:198–221
  17. ^ (in French) François Modoux, "La Suisse engagera 300 millions pour rénover le Palais des Nations", Le Temps, Friday 28 June 2013, page 9.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ Apresentação Itamaraty, (in Portuguese) Retrieved 8 November 2021
  20. ^ "Diplomatic Pouches". www.state.gov. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  21. ^ .
  22. ^ Corgan, Michael (12 August 2008). "Small State Diplomacy". e-International Relations.
  23. ^ a b Tutt, A. (23 May 2014). E-Diplomacy Capacities within the EU-27: Small States and Social Media. Retrieved 17 September 2015 – via www.grin.com.
  24. ^ Green, Dan. "Counterinsurgency Diplomacy: Political Advisors at the Operational and Tactical levels", Military Review, May–June 2007. Archived 14 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  25. ^ Rowlands, K. (2012). "Decided Preponderance at Sea": Naval Diplomacy in Strategic Thought. Naval War College Review, 65(4), 5–5.
  26. S2CID 154979218
    .
  27. ^ a b Rezaian, Jason. "Iran's hostage factory". The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  28. ^ Rousseau, Elise; Sommo Pende, Achille (2020). Humanitarian diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
  29. ^ Lauri, Antonio De (2018). "Humanitarian Diplomacy: A New Research Agenda". Cmi Brief. 2018 (4).
  30. S2CID 158073635
    .
  31. .
  32. .
  33. .
  34. .
  35. .
  36. .
  37. .
  38. .
  39. ^ Mutual Assured Destruction Archived 3 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine; Col. Alan J. Parrington, USAF, Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, Strategic Doctrine in Question Archived 2015-06-20 at the Wayback Machine, Airpower Journal, Winter 1997.
  40. JSTOR 3183553
    .
  41. ^ Collins, Craig; Packer, John (2006). "Options and Techniques for Quiet Diplomacy" (PDF). Edita Stockholm: 10.
  42. ^ Kuseni Dlamini, "Is Quiet Diplomacy an Effective Conflict Resolution Strategy?", SA Yearbook of International Affairs, 2002/03, pp. 171–72.
  43. ^ "Diplomacy". www.diplomacy.edu. Retrieved 2 February 2023.
  44. ^ Nye, Joseph (2006). "Think Again: Soft Power". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
  45. ^ "City Diplomacy: the expanding role of City diplomacy in International Politics" (PDF).
  46. .
  47. .

Bibliography

External links