Hassan marked it as to-read Mar 01, Lizzie marked it as to-read Mar 22, Humayun Mahmood marked it as to-read Dec 13, Keith Johnstone marked it as to-read Aug 22, Idil Erdogan marked it as to-read Oct 17, Emmi Aman added it Apr 26, Mohamed Fareed is currently reading it Oct 25, Akanduhura added it Nov 14, Jayde marked it as to-read Nov 14, Fernando Lopes marked it as to-read Dec 27, Davis Barons marked it as to-read Apr 21, Andreea Smerea marked it as to-read Mar 13, Ivanzivotic marked it as to-read Jun 06, Che Tarrarra marked it as to-read Jun 27, Refonda marked it as to-read Sep 25, Meseret Niguse added it Jan 18, Aleksandar Velickovski marked it as to-read Apr 25, Yaw Bonsu marked it as to-read Aug 14, There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Trivia About Essence of Diplomacy. The academic interest in ritual began with a prolonged and influential debate on the origins and eternal essence of religion,13 but has gradually spread to social scientists, in particular sociologists and anthropologists. Some authors have been at pains to distinguish between religious and secular ritual; others find such a distinction more a hindrance than a help in understanding the role of ritual in social and political life. With the variety of scholarly interest, it is only natural that there is no one definition of ritual.
Common denominators of most definitional attempts are the symbolic and repetitive nature of ritual. Rituals speak of, and to, their basic values, creating or confirming a world of meaning shared by members of the group.
Such practical knowledge is not an inflexible set of assumptions, beliefs, or body postures; rather, it is the ability to deploy, play, and manipulate basic schemes in ways that appropriate and condition experience effectively. It is a mastery that experiences itself as relatively empowered, not as conditioned or molded. Decorum does indeed characterize interaction between diplomats, and state visits as well as international conferences have their share of ceremony.
Institutionalization normally includes elements of ritualization. Rituals are part of the social space into which individual diplomatic agents are socialized. Ritualization can be related to our basic categories of representation, communication and reproduction. Most observers view ritual as a mode of human communication,28 and ritualization applies first and foremost to diplomatic communication in its various forms.
Yet rituals can also be understood in terms of representation of ideas. Yet ritualization is primarily linked with communication. Sir Julian Huxley from his ethological perspective maintains that ritual- ization among animals — and by extension among humans — serves to secure more effective communication or signaling and to reduce intra- group damage and to facilitate bonding. Institutionalization and Ritualization 45 Shared symbols and references: diplomatic protocol A shared language and shared codes of interpretation, as we have seen, are prerequisites for diplomatic communication.
The institutionalization of mutually understood phrases and expressions as well as rules govern- ing the external forms of intercourse, include significant elements of ritualization. Protocol, in this wider sense, probably goes as far back as there have been contacts between polities. We find examples of ritualized phrases and an acute sense of protocol already in the Amarna Letters. The address and greeting phrases of the tablets constituted symbolic expressions of status. Only if the sender was superior or equal to the addressee did he name himself first.
Deviations were noted and given sinister interpretations, as in this exchange: And now, as to the tablet that you sent me, why did you put your name over my name? And who now is the one who upsets the good relations between us, and is such conduct the accepted practice?
My brother, did you write to me with peace in mind? And if you are my brother, why have you exalted your name …? The phrase appears to refer to the thrusting back of a hand outstretched in friendship or previously clasped in friendship, and indicates that agree- ments were confirmed by the perennial handshakes. Moreover, the format of written and oral diplomatic communications has always been subject to strict conventions.
Already sixteenth-century BC Hittite treaties follow a set pattern of preamble, historical introduction, provisions, deposition, list of divine witnesses and, finally, curses and blessings. The body of the letter consists of varying combinations of declarations of friendship, discussions of gifts associated with this friendship, proposals of marriage, and list of goods exchanged at the time of marriage.
Explicit rules of oral and written presentation were formulated in the medieval art of composing diplomatic discourses for public delivery, ars arengandi. Eighth-century BC descriptions of the reception of envoys in the multistate system of Ancient China detail the formalities of offering and declining gifts. The extreme formality of diplomatic relations required a lot from the emissaries. For example, they could not attend any ceremonies to which their rank did not enti- tle them; at banquets in their honor, they had to be able to respond appropriately to toasts, which usually involved the ability to select for the occasion a fitting verse from the well-known songs of the time; and practically all the major events in the life of a ruling family required some sort of diplomatic representation.
In fact, one emperor, Constantine Porphyogenius wrote a detailed Book of Ceremonies, which apparently served as a manual for his successors. The close relationship between Byzantium and Venice provided a channel of transmission of such attention to ceremonial to the Western world. This served as a manual for the ritual treatment of future guests.
For each visitor a raft of ceremonial decisions had to be made: how far into the lagoon must the senators and how many senators go to meet the visiting dignitary; should the doge — the Venetian head of government — rise from his seat or come down from his daise in the Collegio in order to greet an ambassador; how valuable should the gold chain be that was the customary gift to foreign representatives; and what were the Venetian officials to wear at the reception?
The death of a friendly prince or a member of his family was another of those climactic events surrounded with solemn pageantry and calling for an embassy to share the grief and offer condolences. While much less elaborate and significant, some ceremonials remain in modern diplomacy. For instance, the reception of a new ambassador is still surrounded by ritu- als. And state visits have retained time-honored ceremonial forms, including the exchange of gifts and banquets.
The number of deities assembled as treaty witnesses was often substantial, in some cases approaching one thousand. Moreover, the conclusion of treaties was accompanied by sacrifice and other gestures symbolic of the punishment that would follow a breach of the treaty.
Several letters refer to the sacrifice of an animal, most often the foal of an ass. Thus the sacrifice of a donkey stressed, by its costly and spectacular nature, the importance of the consecrated event. There, too, an animal — usually a calf or an ox — was sacrificed. The treaty document was bound to the sacrificial animal, whose left ear was cut off. Both the document and the lips of the principals were smeared with blood from the ear. The document, one copy of which was buried with the sacrificial animal while the signatories kept one copy each, con- tained an oath invoking the wrath of the gods upon anyone who violated the covenant.
Both terms came to be used figuratively to refer to treaties. The practice of uttering religious oaths as part of the ceremony of signing treaty documents is found in early Byzantine diplomacy as well. The Byzantines accepted non-Christian oaths of validation, in a way reminiscent of the Ancient Near East practice of invoking multiple deities as witnesses. Reciprocity, precedence and diplomatic immunity If protocol provides shared references and an understanding of appropriate behavior, another level of institutionalization involves the specification and refinement of diplomatic norms and rules.
In this section we will take a closer look at symbolic expressions of reciprocity rules, the troubled history of precedence rules, and the evolution of the procedural rule of diplomatic immunity. Reciprocity We have identified coexistence and reciprocity as central normative themes running through all diplomatic practice. The other side of the same coin is that in eras when the dominant polities are not prepared to acknowledge equal rights and to negotiate on the basis of reciprocity, diplomacy will not flourish or develop.
This applies, in particular, to the all-embracing Roman Empire. In the diplomacy of the Ancient Near East they figured prominently. Sometimes, due to differences in age, the image of a father—son relationship was invoked instead. This was obvious in the exchanges of gifts.
Kinship pleas applied to relations not only between Greek city-states but also between Greeks and non-Greeks, such as the Persian Empire. For the panhellenic ambitions of Philip and Alexander, for example, it was important to invoke the myth that a descendant of Heracles founded the royal line of Macedon. In its origins, kinship diplomacy took con- cepts of the household, the family, and the clan, and applied them to relations between polities. Two historical transformations tended to erode the use of family metaphors in diplomacy: the rise of Rome to the status of a world empire, and the rise of Christianity with its competing vision of kinship based on religion.
As mentioned earlier, the practice among states of retaliating the expulsion of their diplomats for espionage by expelling an equivalent number of diplomats from the initiating state is a clear-cut case of specific reciprocity. In short, the few examples given above indicate different ways of expressing reciprocity in symbolic, ritualized ways. At the same time, they illustrate the field of tension between specific and diffuse reci- procity that has characterized diplomatic relations throughout history.
Precedence Whereas diplomacy has always rested on notions of coexistence and reciprocity, great importance has been attached to the precedence, or order of importance, of individual polities. Small kings received protection from great kings in exchange for their loyalty. Although unbalanced, the relationship entailed reciprocal favors and interdependence.
Though formalized, the evaluation of rank was not ascribed once and for all but could be changed as a result of wars and new power relations. By inviting representatives of several countries, they ensured that all tokens of respect shown for the emperor by foreign notables were witnessed and duly reported. Sometimes this had absurd consequences. Although the emperor wanted to honor Charles by riding side-by-side with him into the city, the duke refused, preferring to observe protocol by riding respectfully behind his superior.
As the wrangling wore on, it began to rain, drenching everyone including the emperor who put on a cloak for protection, but Charles refused to cover himself because pride would not allow the obscuring of his jewels. Since their master remained uncovered none of the members of the Burgundian party could put on their cloaks either.
In a memorandum of the Pope placed himself first, followed by the Emperor and his heir-apparent.
Then followed the kings of France, Spain, Aragon and Portugal. When the outraged French envoy did not receive the unqualified assurance of precedence he demanded, he announced his recall, to be followed by an ultimatum and, possibly, war. In the end, the French government did not go that far, and the Spanish ambassador retained the precedence he had gained.
When the Spanish envoy learned of it, he adroitly averted an open clash by absenting himself from the wedding ceremony, on a plea of urgent business elsewhere. After a three-hour dispute, the envoys devised a mutual face-saving plan. A fence was removed, so that the French carriage had the honor of remaining on the regular pave- ment while the Spanish carriage could pass on the preferred position at the right. As was customary then, other foreign envoys sent their gala coaches to add magnificence to the procession.
However, the festive moment turned into a fracas, as told by Harold Nicolson: The Swedish envoy landed, entered the royal coach which had been sent to meet him, and drove off. A struggle ensued which since each coach had been accompanied by some armed men assumed serious proportions. The French coachman was pulled from his box, two of the horses were hamstrung, and a postilion was killed.
Louis XIV thereupon severed diplomatic rela- tions with Spain, and threatened to declare war unless a full apology were given and the Spanish Ambassador in London were punished. The King of Spain, anxious to avoid hostilities, agreed to make the necessary apologies and reparation. In case both arrived on the same day, the French ambassador was to have precedence. For instance, the Thirty Years War was prolonged and the Treaty of Westphalia delayed as a result of quarrels over status and precedence, which reflected the competing principles of hierarchy vs.
Treaty signatures were long ordered according to precedence, which invited controversies. Sir Thomas Roe, a seventeenth-century English ambassador at Constantinople, has described his quandary in signing a treaty in view of the ongoing quarrel over precedence between England and France.
Precedence was indicated by signing on the left-hand side of the docu- ment in the Christian tradition, on the right-hand side according to Turkish custom. While disputed at first, this principle has been institutionalized to the extent that it is still adhered to today. The alternat did not solve problems of precedence altogether, as it did not prescribe the order in which other signatures were to follow. Thus, the ambassador who has served longest at a post is considered doyen or dean. As spokesman of the diplomatic corps the doyen has certain rights and duties as well as an amount of influence.
While it may raise issues of language politics, alphabetical order can also be used creatively. Yet even after the Congress of Vienna notions of prece- dence among states lingered. Petersburg and Constantinople — were considered worthy of receiving British ambassadors.
While issues of precedence may still arise, they do not carry the same significance and can be resolved creatively and pragmatically. The Japanese were delighted when the United States president, George Bush, announced that he would attend. As Bush had only just taken office, he would be the most junior in the seating arrangements. This resulted in placing the American president at the centre of the front row of attendant heads of state. For instance, the president of the United States and the prime minister of the United Kingdom are never seen in the back row of group photographs taken at the end of multilateral conferences.
Encounters between the Chinese Middle Kingdom and Europe entailed conflicts of precedence. Diplomatic immunity It is reasonable to assume, as Nicolson does, that the principle of diplomatic immunity was the first to become established in prehistoric times. Anthropoid apes and savages must at some stage have realized the advantages of negotiating understandings about the limits of hunting territories. With this must have come the realization that these negotia- tions could never reach a satisfactory conclusion if emissaries were killed and eaten. Messengers, in fact, faced two kinds of perils.
First, they might be attacked, robbed and even killed by brigands or nomads during the journey, especially if they had to travel alone through remote areas. The frequency of letters condemning such practices, requesting either intervention to punish violators and compensate for losses or the release of detained messengers, speak to the validity of the norm of immunity despite its frequent viola- tion.
Firstly, Biryawaza robbed him, and secondly Pamahu, your own governor over a region [that is] your tributary, robbed him. My brother should take up this case. As soon as this messenger of mine speaks to the presence of my brother, Salmu should likewise speak to the presence of my brother.
One should give him back his objects and one should compensate him for the losses he suffered. As soon as he lets my messengers go and present their report to me, I will let Mane go and I will send Keliya back to my brother as before. As long as my brother detains my messengers, I will do as I have planned. In Ancient India, as in the Ancient Near East, kings were held respon- sible for the safety of envoys.
According to Sanskrit classics, envoys were immune from killing, and the king who killed an envoy was sure to go to hell with all his ministers. Moreover, such an act would involve his forefathers in the sin in the same way as did the killing of an embryo. Heralds did not risk being seized and often preceded embassies to demand safe-conduct for their reception. In Rome, immunity was extended to include the staffs of foreign envoys. However, their diplomatic correspondence was exposed to scrutiny by the Roman postal officers. If members of a visiting embassy acted against the law, they were, as a rule, sent back under guard to where they came from.
In addition, the Roman Senate could refuse to receive a visiting embassy, in which case the envoys lost their diplomatic immunity, were denounced as spies or speculators and were similarly expelled. This immunity did not shield ambassadors from punishment for misbehavior, whether espionage, homicide, theft or the non-payment of debts.
Embassy staffs ranged from grave secretaries and young aristocrats through tough couriers and lackeys down to horse-boys and turn- spits. They were not always carefully selected. Usually they included nationals of the country of residence. As such groups began to realize that their immunity from local prosecution could be extended by the insistence of the ambassador they served, it is not surprising that municipal authorities and city mobs responded to their provocations with violence.
Embassy servants were attacked in the streets. Violence was by no means one-sided. Embassy servants with drawn swords swarmed into the streets to rescue comrades. Peace officers were mauled and maltreated. The territorial state claimed sovereignty over all who dwelt within its limits. In , Hugo Grotius, in his De iure belli ac pacis, developed the legal theory of extraterritorial- ity or exterritoriality, as it is alternately called. In a period of bitter religious strife, the embassy chapel question became a prominent test of, and enhanced interest in, the idea of extraterritoriality.
Could Protestant ambassadors have private chapels and attend services of their own faith in Catholic countries?
This created great problems for local authorities. If you cannot arrest any person within the embassy or even search the embassy, ambassadors can protect not only their own households but anyone who takes refuge there. This was a controversial aspect of extraterritoriality among legal experts and governments alike. There were several cases of authorities violating the immunity of embassies in search of criminals or political enemies.
Still the right of asylum persisted in practice, underpinned by the extraterritoriality of the embassy. Mutual allegations of espi- onage haunted diplomatic relations. The emphasis placed on national security in the age of nuclear insecurity accounted for some of the pres- sures and harassments. At the same time, the growing size and varie- gated personnel of the diplomatic missions of the Cold War protagonists raised questions concerning the extent of immunities. Diplomatic privileges and immunities can, of course, be abused, and are among the public often associated with exemption from tax on liquor and luxury goods, unpaid parking fines and unpunished crimes.
Yet, on balance, the risks of diplomatic personnel hiding behind the cloak of diplomatic privileges and immunities are outweighed by the risks of receiving states and zealous groups harassing and harming diplomats representing disliked states. In sum, we find expressions of rules and customs of diplomatic immunity, more or less institutionalized, in different historical eras and geographical areas.
The justifications may have varied. For example, the US government did not appoint ambassadors until late in the nineteenth century, partly because of the widespread perception that ambassadors were personal representatives of monarchs. Diplomatic ranks In the beginning there were messengers. In his book Arthasastra, Kautilya classifies diplomatic envoys into four categories, which, according to one observer, correspond roughly to the classifications adopted both at the Vienna Congress of and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of At the apex were heralds kerykes , who were regarded as the offspring of Hermes.
Heralds were considered inviolable, protected by the gods, and therefore enjoyed what amounted to a form of diplomatic immunity. Other representative agents were envoys presbeis and messengers angeloi , who were dispatched on diplomatic missions without these privileges. Unlike the herald, who functioned alone, the latter generally worked in larger numbers, often representing different parties and points of view, and were selected from the politically active circles. A proxenos was a citizen of the city-state in which he resided, representing the interests of another city- state.
Among the privileges enjoyed by the proxenoi was that of immu- nity in peace and war, both by land and by sea. If the proxenoi had to leave their own city-state as a result of war or broken alliances, they were often granted asylum in the alien polis with which they were associ- ated. For example, Demosthenes, the famous orator who was also entrusted several diplomatic missions, was the proxenos of Thebes at Athens, and the most celebrated Athenian proxenos was the poet Pindar in Thebes. Another duty was to promote commercial relations. Xenia shared with kinship the assumption of perpetuity, and in several ways this ritualized friendship mimicked aspects of kinship relations.
Yet, beginning in the fourth century, a kind of specialization developed, insofar as Rome not only sent the same envoy repeatedly to the same destination, but would also dispatch members of the same family on subsequent embassies in order to capitalize on established goodwill and utilize family expertise. Chapter 5. As custodians of the medieval codes of chivalry, these minor officials were supposed to make dignified appearances at public ceremonies, confer honors to foreign rulers, convey warnings, ultimatums and defiances, and arrange truces and parleys. Heralds, as a rule, lacked the training, experience and social position of ambassadors.
On the other hand, embassies are today increasingly populated by various national special- ists catapulted into diplomatic roles. New forms of international coop- eration have raised the number of government personnel stationed abroad who are not employed by the traditional foreign affairs agencies. For instance, more than 60 per cent of those under the authority of US ambassadors and other chiefs of mission are not State Department employees.
Hence, questions of diplomatic rank may arise anew. Concluding remarks Processes of institutionalization and ritualization can be found in different eras and different parts of the world. In early diplomacy, these were grounded in religion and kinship or friendship metaphors. Thus, the whole vocabulary of Ancient Near Eastern diplomacy was rooted in the vocabulary of sacred rite and ritual.
The power of these symbolic realms is suggested by the vestiges of ancient rituals in modern diplomacy. Rituals and ceremonial were no doubt more important in the earlier stages of diplomacy than today, but ritualization appears to be a perma- nent feature of diplomacy. This chapter has also demonstrated the timelessness of problems concerning the norms, rules and organization of diplomacy. Apart from the evolution from religious to secular terms of reference, we do not see any unilinear pattern of development. Questions concerning protocol, reciprocity, precedence, diplomatic immunity and diplomatic ranks have always arisen.
The issues may not have been the same at different times, the solutions may have varied, and there have been differing degrees of institutionalization; but the need to maintain, strengthen and develop key pillars of the institution of diplomacy remains constant. Whenever communication ceases, the body of interna- tional politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is violent conflict or atrophy. There has never been a good diplomat who was a bad communicator. Stearns, Talking to Strangers 2 Observers and practitioners alike testify to the vital role of communica- tion in diplomacy.
Symbolic representations of diplomacy, too, tend to highlight its communicative aspects. Sixteenth-century theorists argued that the first diplomats were angels, messengers between deities and human beings. In short, diplomats are messengers and diplomacy involves commu- nication between polities. Today the need to communicate is most graphically demonstrated, paradoxically, when diplomatic relations are broken and the parties almost always look for, and find, other ways of communicating.
In doing so, we rely on a perspective on communication that emphasizes its constructive elements. All social communication involves the transmission of messages to which certain meanings are attached. The traditional approach to the study of communication highlights the process, in which senders and receivers encode and decode messages, while treating the meaning of these messages as given. Meaning does not reside in the message itself but is produced in interactive processes. Context and cognition enter into the production of meaning. In the constructivist perspective, therefore, communication is far from effortless and success is by no means automatic.
Next we turn to negotiations, processes of back-and-forth communication, as key instruments to solve issues in ways acceptable to the involved polities. We will identify two important dimensions of choice or options in the diplomatic repertoire: verbal vs. Finally, we will focus on technological developments as vehicles of change in diplomatic communication. Diplomacy usually involves communication among polities that are separated by different languages. The search for shared meanings is then facilitated by the existence of a common diplomatic language.
The notion of a common language has two different connotations: language in a purely linguistic sense, and language in a broader sociological sense. The linguistic aspect may seem trivial but has to be taken seriously. Since the dawn of history, the use of different languages in international communication has been a source of misunderstanding and discord. To mention but one early example: Artaxerxes of Achaemenid Persia sent to Sparta a special messenger, named Artaphernes, with a complaint that he was unable to under- stand the many ambassadors who had been dispatched to his court, and urged the Spartans to choose someone who could speak plainly and be understood by him.
Of interest, perhaps, is the highly complicated method involved in the transmittal of the above communication: it was prepared in Aramaic, written in Assyrian script, and in order to be acted upon by the Spartans required trans- lation into Greek. It is puzzling that Akkadian was adopted as the diplomatic language by kings as powerful and differ- ent as the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Hurrian, the Hittite or the Elamite.
Akkadian, like Sumerian, used cuneiform script that could be easily used by speakers of other tongues. Egyptian scripts, by contrast, were intended for the use of Egyptian only. Furthermore, it was obviously much easier to transport and storage tablets made of dried or baked clay than tablets made of rock and ebony. When Akkadian ceased to exist as a living language, it was superseded by Aramaic as the leading diplomatic language.
The native tongue of the Arameans in Syria, Aramaic made its way into the polyglot society of Persia and became a lingua franca along the caravan routes of the desert. The great advantage of Aramaic was that, by the tenth-century BC, it had adopted the best writing technique hitherto known to mankind — the alphabet. Chinese, like Akkadian script, had the qual- ity of being understood by speakers of different tongues and was thus useful as the diplomatic language for empire-building in Asia.
The choice between Greek and Latin became an issue in Byzantine diplomacy. By the end of the sixth century, Constantinople abandoned Latin and used only Greek as the language of diplomacy, whereas Latin dominated in Rome. Without skillful translation, mutual incompre- hension could occur. Most treaties were written in Latin, and Latin was used in conversations between diplomats.
For instance, in Lord Grenville conducted his relations with for- eign diplomats accredited to the Court of St. James in English instead of French. British Foreign Secretary George Canning in instructed his diplomats to use English in official international relations. And Lord Palmerston in insisted that every country was entitled to use its own language in official communications. The predominance of French as the official language of diplomacy suffered a severe setback at the Paris Peace Conference following World War I, where two of the Big Four — Wilson and Lloyd George — could not speak the language, and Clemenceau could speak English as well as French.
Much of the discussion therefore took place in English. Following the Conference, with the establishment of the League of Nations, English was elevated to the stature of French as a coordinate language of diplomacy. For instance, a constructive distinction between working languages and official languages was introduced at the San Francisco Conference. Then English, Russian, Chinese, French and Spanish were granted the status of official languages of the conference, whereas only English and French were accepted as working languages.
Successful commu- nication requires more than a mutually understood language. According to semioticians, it presupposes a common code, a certain often uncon- scious preknowledge that is necessary for understanding a message. A common code establishes what German hermeneutic philosophers call Interpretationsgemeinschaft, initial commonality with respect to interpretation.
This harks back to what we referred to as the first, cog- nitive level of institutionalization in Chapter 3, and is in line with the constructivist perspective on communication, alluded to earlier, which treats the meaning of messages as the result of interactive processes. Although semiotics is rarely part of their formal education, diplomats are by training and experience experts at weighing words and gestures with a view to their effect on potential receivers.
The diplomatic dialogue, therefore, can be seen to be based on a code that is shared by members of the diplo- matic community. Courtesy, nonredundancy and constructive ambiguity are prominent features of diplomatic language. Circumlocution, such as understatements and loaded omis- sions, permits controversial things to be said in a way understood in the diplomatic community but without needless provocation. Policy formulation requires the gathering and assessment of information about the external environment.
Thus, the introduction of resident ambassadors — one of the most important innovations of Renaissance diplomacy — flowed from the growing need not only to send messages but to gather information about neighbors among vulnerable yet ambitious Italian city-states. In the words of one textbook: Gathering information on the local scene and reporting it home has long been recognised as one of the most important functions of the resident embassy.
The state of the economy, foreign policy, the morale of the armed forces, scientific research with military implications, the health of the leader, the balance of power within the government, the likely result of any forthcoming election, the strength of the oppo- sition, and so on, have long been the staple fare of ambassadorial dispatches. Two out of the three letters sent from the Pharaoh to another Great King refer to intelligence matters.
The Empire was poorly equipped for, and thus wanted to avoid, war. Therefore, the Byzantine considered information- gathering crucial and saw it as the chief purpose of all diplomatic exchanges. Several states, such as the United States and Britain, spend more on intelligence than on diplo- macy.
Not only does most of the information reaching governments about developments throughout the world come from the media, but a large portion of diplomatic reporting consists of analyses based on the work of journalists. The common coun- terargument is that the information available via various media, includ- ing Internet, will remain significant complements to, but no substitute for, information gathered through diplomatic channels.
Diplomats have always cultivated private sources as a supplement to official sources. This is as true of Ancient Near East diplomacy,55 as it is of diplomacy in Renaissance Italy56 or diplomacy today. Reasons to Study International Relations and Diplomacy 1.
Curiously, both these scholars have found it necessary to depart from their ES roots and instead work within a post-structuralist or constructivist frame, respectively. An IPE agenda that includes analysis of current diplomatic practice with its emphasis on agency will better expose the connections between human agency and systemic transformation and stability — and thus add to debates about the relationship between structure and agency in IPE. The other side of this, of course, is that an actor must also be able to do without diplomacy. Embassy servants with drawn swords swarmed into the streets to rescue comrades. Reified entities, such as states, societies, classes, ethnici- ties and cultures, can be self-propelled agents as well in the substantialist tradition.
In addition to gaining specialized knowledge related to intercultural theory and approaches, students graduating from an international relations program will typically develop and refine the following skills: Research and analytical skills to help evaluate complex problems and synthesize data to tell compelling stories. Interpersonal skills to aid in building relationships and goodwill with stakeholders, which is especially important when working in a multicultural or cross-cultural setting. You can make an impact. They may, for example, work to coordinate counterterrorism efforts provide aid during natural disasters and other crises promote the rights of women and children address issues like food insecurity and nutrition On the other hand, those who use their degree to enter the business world can similarly affect change.
Related Articles. Did You Know? Bureau of Labor Statistics. Professional Degree vs. Follow us: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn. Graduate Programs Open House. Sunday, Oct 6, 9am. Register Now. Faculty Spotlight: Ed Powers. September 20, - Faculty Insights. September 18, - Industry Advice. Why Get an MBA?