Samenvatting diplomatie
Lesson 1: Introduction.
Engine room of international relation: diplomatie één manier om internationaal op te treden (choatisch patroon).
-belangrijk om literatuur te lezen: look at revission guide (important!).
-ambassadeurs: Bill White (Amerikaan) betrokken bij gemoeid met interne politieke zaken → tweet waarin hij Belgische
overheid van antisemitisme beschuldigd.
-communicatie met publiek in buitenland: interne zaken buitenland toch wel dichte lijn bij taken ambassadeur (politiek
statuut).
-goedkeuring België: regering geeft Belgische ambassadeur goedkeuring van intrede → ambassadeurs door regering
gestuurd (politic pointes minder politieke protocollen).
• geen goedkeuring? goede relaties blijven onderhouden (praktisch moeilijk want zwaar drukkingsmiddel) →
wegsturen ambassadeur en hun implicaties politiek statement).
-militair attachees: gevoelige zaken ingemengd.
-online citizen agency: niet-statelijker actoren burgers in diplomatie.
Interdisciplinary field: innovation in diplomatic practice.
-conservative convection: no productionable + practices are adapted circumstances.
-societisation of diplomacy: integration in all day life matter (interfere with domestic affairs).
-diplomacy = master of international politic: where states are not rivals but collaborate.
Lesson 2: History of diplomacy (before the modern era).
Introduction.
-diplomacy emerged outside the west.
-purpose: narratives, disconnected from patterns, see influence and impotances, lacked concepts, understanding
creation of collectives and relations, continuity, practice in ways that are decoupled from the states (not invented yet),
chance over time and differenced places (relations and fluctuations), experiences, etc.
-three millennia before the common area.
Research challenge revision guide.
-the main characteristics of diplomatic practice in the Ancient Near East and Greece shed light on changing perceptions
of what we now call diplomacy, across different "diplomatic systems". It is also interesting to note diplomatic
experimentation with democratisation, as well as representation and other functions of diplomacy in Ancient Greece,
Venice, and Renaissance Italy.
-the literature on the diplomatic practices of city-states on the Italian peninsula offers different views of the Renaissance
as a turning point in the history of diplomacy. We now have a better understanding of the actual roles and functions of
resident ambassadors and other diplomatic actors.
-transformations in European diplomacy before 1800, as well as after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, reveal the
formalisation and professionalization of diplomacy, as well as the early modern origins of gendered diplomatic practice.
Recent academic work in "New Diplomatic History" is an important contribution to the field.
Diplomacy provisionally defined: the institutions are processes by which actors on the international scene represent
themselves and their interests to one another.
-prominent interests: changes in international changes (not for the good).
10 points on the history of diplomacy: mechanism, representation and medium more than the meaning.
-not just history of international relations.
-broader than a history of foreign policy.
-diplomacy as regulating mechanism of the society of states: not static in time but evolving.
-a social institution reflecting the world in which it operates: religion important (but not in diplomacy).
-different diplomatic worlds in one world: even when there are not directly in contact by creating the same.
-no linear history towards a particular outcome is influenced by chance, conflicts, human choices, and different possible
directions.
-diplomacy as cumulative learning process: trial and error = try different things and see what works and what doesn’t.
-diplomacy as the most complex institution (Wight).
-how do notions about diplomacy travel geographically:
-can awareness of diplomacy be taken for granted.
Necessary conditions for diplomacy in the ancient world.
-rise of urban culture: directive bureaucracy on the peoples behaves.
-spread of literacy:
-the development of administrative capacity:
-telecommunication: going from one place through the other by feet or animals (storage devices).
Evidence of diplomacy in action from the letter from Syria to Iran.
-bonds like brothers: relationship between kings and brotherhood (= identifying with one another as equals with a lot of
repeating long oral traditions stored + already a network when trough use brotherhood because it is unbreakable).
-asking for something and in return giving something back: negations → exchange of gifts.
-messenger (Cohen): envoys where messengers but gaining more responsibility (effort and time) and gave more
functions (communicators, representatives, etc.).
-working relationships between kingdoms: interdependence.
,-recognition of equal status: polyculture.
-lingua franca: what are the other options in diplomacy.
-embryonic foreign policy bureaucracy.
-archiving diplomatic documents: agreements and treaties.
-protocol: what purpose does it serve.
Attention to diplomacy in the ancient world: continuity and differences in diplomacy.
-business of states not true: diplomacy before the states were born (not state related).
-power of the west trough colonialization: diplomacy develop en codified in the West but no wester invention → slow
processes how current practices are changed by different powers in different ways.
Ancient near Eastern diplomacy: so what?
-diplomacy is not a western invention.
-diplomatic practice thrives in a polyculture environment.
-in the beginning trade was already at the heart of diplomacy.
Diplomacy in ancient Greece (simplified).
-diplomacy in a single context.
-rivalry among city-states: emphasis on strategy (no trust).
-separate units do not see themselves as entities in a larger international structure, system or society.
-endemic instability instead of durable relationships.
-imperial pattern of relations: dominance of the powerful states, punishment of the weak or disobedient.
Democratic experiment: diplomacy in ancient Greece.
-negotiations were not secret (ex. Woodrow Wilson’s New Diplomacy with open covenants, openly arrived at).
-no resident ambassadors but ad-hoc special envoys.
-ambassadors did not have a mandate for negotiation.
-envoys represented different domestic political factions at home.
-diplomatic envoys were mistrusted at home and abroad.
-rhetorical skills seemed to matter more than anything else.
-special envoys accountable to the people (risked punishment).
-no clear conceptual distinction between domestic and foreign relations.
-public diplomacy avant la letter (more examples in history).
-democratic decision-making was found to interfere with the effectiveness of diplomacy.
Demosthenes (384-322 BCE) on diplomatic methods in Ancient Greece.
-ambassadors have no battleships at their disposal, or heavy infantry, or fortresses; their weapons are words and
opportunities. In important transactions opportunities are fleeting; once they are missed they cannot be recovered. It is
a greater offence no deprive a democracy of an opportunity than it would be thus to deprive an oligarchy or autocracy.
-nor do you seem conscious of the elaborate methods by which your country is slowly being undermined.
-Narold Nicolson – The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (1954).
Diplomatic experimentation in Greece: Proxenoi (inhabited of another state).
-native citizen of the host state representing the sending state.
-peacetime tasks: trade promotion.
-the proxenos as diplomat: involved in pre-negation.
-very limited mandate.
-a degree of diplomatic immunity.
-consul-like representatives.
Diplomacy in Renaissance Italy relevant?
-independent of time and place studying diplomacy: system interdependence in the Italian peninsula.
-turning point = seeing the diplomatic world in another way.
Ancient Roman diplomacy for dummies.
-no reciprocity in relations with inferior polities.
-good faith: fides Romana.
-no lingua France but interpreters: no equality within diplomacy (step backwards not the way to analyse history but more
a process of learning).
-safe conducts but little respect for envoys.
-importance of protocol in Romes imperial context.
-centralization of power in diplomacy.
Thousand years of Byzantine methods in diplomacy (5-1500 BCE).
-diplomacy was secondary to warfare.
-diplomacy of central importance to keep a large empire and expensive.
-difficult to keep it al together: not only warfare but need of diplomacy (foreign complex operation need organization).
-the idea of empire was not universally shared and did not generate the required cohesion ad loyalty.
-imperial ceremonial was important (ex. on occasion of visits to the emperor).
-the complexity of foreign political operations required a bureaucracy for foreign affairs.
-byzantine methods’ as psychological mechanism.
,The diplomacy of Venetian Republic: Cosmopolitan (pragmatic).
-trade as the principal driving force of diplomacy.
-interests of the state as guiding principle of diplomacy (no ideology).
-relations across cultures, based on different norms (capitulations).
-diplomacy represented the interests of different factions within Venice (no consensus on the national interest).
-no perception of an international system or society of states.
-envoys write reports were shared thought diplomatic system with others: knowledge shared throughout the system.
-not ideological state busines beyond Islamitic world (agreements that regulated businesses).
-professionalization diplomacy: gaining a sharing knowledge within the whole world.
Organizational breakthrough: a Venetian national diplomatic system.
-first diplomatic service → professionalization.
-first diplomatic state archive → systematic information storage.
-ongoing information gathering → continuous activity.
-detailed reporting → whole-of-government interest.
-measures against going native or localities → rotational posting
-trust in own representatives and ambassadors: rotating system and no permeant appointment (rotational posting).
-diplomacy incredibly slow important features that complicated activities.
Renaissance diplomacy: making a complex institution.
-diplomacy as necessity: the management of change.
-experience of balance of power: international politics on a peninsula.
-perception of Interdependence: diplomacy as nucleus of collective system.
-systemization of thought: logic and grammar of politics and diplomacy (Machiavelli, Principe and Guiccardini, Ricordi).
-diplomacy as representation: the rise of the resident ambassador (mid-15th century).
-a crowded and complex diplomatic field with overlapping authorities: permanent and occasional diplomats.
-diplomacy as a permanent activity: continuous negotiation.
-multiple functions: awareness of diplomacy’s multidimensionality.
-the nursery of Early Modern European diplomacy?
Early Modern diplomacy up to 1800: the rise of the concept of diplomacy in early Modern Europe.
-no international system as of 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) but 17th-18th international society of princes, courts and
armies.
-the concepts of diplomacy became accepted in late 18th century Europe.
-diplomacy meaning of treaties and agreements between communities organized within system of states in 18th century.
-emergence of the term corps diplomatique in 18th century.
-late 18thcentury and after diplomacy associated with absolutism, aristocracy, secrecy, duplicity, wars and alliances.
-what else can we learn about diplomacy in Early Modern Europe from Windler and Pohilig.
Gendered reading of the diplomatic classics.
-but seeing the qualifications and learning that are necessary for the forming of good ministers are of a very large extent,
they are sufficient of themselves to take up a man’s whole time, and their functions are of importance enough to make
a profession by itself; so that those that set themselves apart for that service ought not to be distracted by other
employment.
-women excluded from this profession and from learning: not the wright people to be included → new diplomatic history
that shows that women’s been there but this is not observed.
Towards a new diplomatic history.
-conventional definitions and assumptions of diplomatic practice to be questioned and tested by historical research.
-history of multiple diplomatic actors (ex. non-sovereign, non-state) with a variety of roles rather than looking at past
trough binary lenses of the present.
-greater historical interest in diplomacy as a practice in diverse and evolving contexts, including non-western and
interaction between the West and the Rest.
-global diplomatic practices and extra-European encounters (de-centering IR as a field of study).
-a fresh look at the processes of professionalization and institutionalization of diplomacy in a global perspective.
-evolving research priorities in new diplomatic history: new methods of research, evolving research priorities, cross-
fertilization with social sciences.
Some items on modern diplomacy to do list.
-managing secrecy, creating trust.
-tackling inefficient ceremonial and protocol.
-treaty practice and multilateral diplomacy.
-a legal basis for diplomatic relations.
-the organization of foreign ministries.
-the politics of European diplomatic dominance.
-confronting the revolutionary challenge.
, Literature
Raymond Cohen: Diplomacy Through the Ages’, in Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman, Diplomacy in the Age of
Globalization: Theories and Practices, 15-29.
1.Introduction.
The chapter presents diplomacy as a historically continuous yet adaptive practice, emphasizing that its core functions
(negotiation, representation and communication) have remained remarkably stable over time, despite major
transformations in political organization and technology. The author stresses that diplomacy is often mistakenly
perceived as a modern and highly sophisticated invention, while in reality its rudimentary forms already existed
thousands of years ago. Early societies developed basic mechanisms to manage relations between political entities,
even in the absence of formal institutions. At the same time, diplomacy is described as a dynamic and evolving
institution shaped by:
-political changes: rise of empire and nation-states.
-technological innovations: writing and communication tools.
-cultural and social transformations
Diplomacy combines historical continuity with constant adaptation, making it both stable and flexible acrosstime.
2.Ancient near Eastern diplomacy.
Diplomacy in the ancient Near East constitutes one of the earliest known organized systems of international relations,
particularly among major civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Hittite Empire. What is striking is that,
despite the absence of modern state structures, these societies developed a relatively coherent and rule-based
diplomatic system
A) Development of structured diplomatic practices
One of the most important features of this early diplomacy was the emergence of written communication. Diplomatic
correspondence was often conducted through cuneiform tablets, which allowed rulers to exchange detailed messages
across long distances. This marked a significant step toward the formalization and continuity of diplomatic interaction.
In addition, these societies concluded formal treaties, which regulated:
-peace agreements after conflict.
-alliances between rulers.
-trade relations and obligations.
Such treaties often included specific clauses, oaths, and sanctions, demonstrating an early understanding of binding
international agreements. Furthermore, diplomatic interaction was governed by standardized protocols, including:
-fixed forms of address.
-rules of etiquette.
-hierarchical recognition between rulers.
This indicates that early diplomacy operated according to shared norms and expectations, rather than arbitrary behavior.
B) Ritualized and symbolic nature of diplomacy.
Diplomacy in this period was deeply embedded in religious beliefs and royal authority. Political power was often seen
as divinely sanctioned, and diplomatic exchanges reflected this worldview. Envoys were not independent negotiators, but
rather extensions of the ruler’s authority. They acted as:
-messengers of the sovereign’s will.
-symbols of the ruler’s prestige and status.
As a result, diplomatic communication was highly ritualized and ceremonial, emphasizing: hierarchy between rulers,
respect and honor and symbolic gestures of recognition.
C) Key diplomatic practices
Several recurring practices illustrate how diplomacy functioned in practice:
The exchange of gifts served not merely as generosity, but as a strategic tool to express goodwill, establish trust, and
signal equality or hierarchy. Dynastic marriages were used to create long-term alliances, linking ruling families and
stabilizing political relationships. The use of formalized and ceremonial language reinforced mutual recognition and
adherence to diplomatic norms. → These practices show that diplomacy was not only practical, but also deeply symbolic
and performative.
D) Limitations of the system
Despite its sophistication, ancient Near Eastern diplomacy had several important limitations.
-it was largely confined to elite interactions between rulers, with no involvement of broader populations or non
state actors.
-there were no permanent diplomatic institutions or professional diplomatic corps. Envoys were typically sent on
temporary missions and did not maintain continuous representation abroad.
-communication was slow and logistically constrained, relying on physical transportation of messages over long
distances, which limited the speed and flexibility of diplomatic interaction.
These constraints meant that diplomacy, although structured, remained limited in reach, continuity, and efficiency.
3.Classic diplomacy.
In the classical period, diplomacy developed differently in the Greek and Roman worlds. Greek diplomacy was relatively
decentralized and pragmatic, relying on temporary envoys and often closely linked to warfare and alliance-building
among city-states. In contrast, Roman diplomacy was more formalized and legalistic, reflecting the administrative nature
of the Roman state. However, Roman diplomacy was frequently subordinated to imperial expansion, serving as a tool to
manage conquered territories and enforce Roman authority rather than to facilitate equal negotiation between
independent actors.
Lesson 1: Introduction.
Engine room of international relation: diplomatie één manier om internationaal op te treden (choatisch patroon).
-belangrijk om literatuur te lezen: look at revission guide (important!).
-ambassadeurs: Bill White (Amerikaan) betrokken bij gemoeid met interne politieke zaken → tweet waarin hij Belgische
overheid van antisemitisme beschuldigd.
-communicatie met publiek in buitenland: interne zaken buitenland toch wel dichte lijn bij taken ambassadeur (politiek
statuut).
-goedkeuring België: regering geeft Belgische ambassadeur goedkeuring van intrede → ambassadeurs door regering
gestuurd (politic pointes minder politieke protocollen).
• geen goedkeuring? goede relaties blijven onderhouden (praktisch moeilijk want zwaar drukkingsmiddel) →
wegsturen ambassadeur en hun implicaties politiek statement).
-militair attachees: gevoelige zaken ingemengd.
-online citizen agency: niet-statelijker actoren burgers in diplomatie.
Interdisciplinary field: innovation in diplomatic practice.
-conservative convection: no productionable + practices are adapted circumstances.
-societisation of diplomacy: integration in all day life matter (interfere with domestic affairs).
-diplomacy = master of international politic: where states are not rivals but collaborate.
Lesson 2: History of diplomacy (before the modern era).
Introduction.
-diplomacy emerged outside the west.
-purpose: narratives, disconnected from patterns, see influence and impotances, lacked concepts, understanding
creation of collectives and relations, continuity, practice in ways that are decoupled from the states (not invented yet),
chance over time and differenced places (relations and fluctuations), experiences, etc.
-three millennia before the common area.
Research challenge revision guide.
-the main characteristics of diplomatic practice in the Ancient Near East and Greece shed light on changing perceptions
of what we now call diplomacy, across different "diplomatic systems". It is also interesting to note diplomatic
experimentation with democratisation, as well as representation and other functions of diplomacy in Ancient Greece,
Venice, and Renaissance Italy.
-the literature on the diplomatic practices of city-states on the Italian peninsula offers different views of the Renaissance
as a turning point in the history of diplomacy. We now have a better understanding of the actual roles and functions of
resident ambassadors and other diplomatic actors.
-transformations in European diplomacy before 1800, as well as after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, reveal the
formalisation and professionalization of diplomacy, as well as the early modern origins of gendered diplomatic practice.
Recent academic work in "New Diplomatic History" is an important contribution to the field.
Diplomacy provisionally defined: the institutions are processes by which actors on the international scene represent
themselves and their interests to one another.
-prominent interests: changes in international changes (not for the good).
10 points on the history of diplomacy: mechanism, representation and medium more than the meaning.
-not just history of international relations.
-broader than a history of foreign policy.
-diplomacy as regulating mechanism of the society of states: not static in time but evolving.
-a social institution reflecting the world in which it operates: religion important (but not in diplomacy).
-different diplomatic worlds in one world: even when there are not directly in contact by creating the same.
-no linear history towards a particular outcome is influenced by chance, conflicts, human choices, and different possible
directions.
-diplomacy as cumulative learning process: trial and error = try different things and see what works and what doesn’t.
-diplomacy as the most complex institution (Wight).
-how do notions about diplomacy travel geographically:
-can awareness of diplomacy be taken for granted.
Necessary conditions for diplomacy in the ancient world.
-rise of urban culture: directive bureaucracy on the peoples behaves.
-spread of literacy:
-the development of administrative capacity:
-telecommunication: going from one place through the other by feet or animals (storage devices).
Evidence of diplomacy in action from the letter from Syria to Iran.
-bonds like brothers: relationship between kings and brotherhood (= identifying with one another as equals with a lot of
repeating long oral traditions stored + already a network when trough use brotherhood because it is unbreakable).
-asking for something and in return giving something back: negations → exchange of gifts.
-messenger (Cohen): envoys where messengers but gaining more responsibility (effort and time) and gave more
functions (communicators, representatives, etc.).
-working relationships between kingdoms: interdependence.
,-recognition of equal status: polyculture.
-lingua franca: what are the other options in diplomacy.
-embryonic foreign policy bureaucracy.
-archiving diplomatic documents: agreements and treaties.
-protocol: what purpose does it serve.
Attention to diplomacy in the ancient world: continuity and differences in diplomacy.
-business of states not true: diplomacy before the states were born (not state related).
-power of the west trough colonialization: diplomacy develop en codified in the West but no wester invention → slow
processes how current practices are changed by different powers in different ways.
Ancient near Eastern diplomacy: so what?
-diplomacy is not a western invention.
-diplomatic practice thrives in a polyculture environment.
-in the beginning trade was already at the heart of diplomacy.
Diplomacy in ancient Greece (simplified).
-diplomacy in a single context.
-rivalry among city-states: emphasis on strategy (no trust).
-separate units do not see themselves as entities in a larger international structure, system or society.
-endemic instability instead of durable relationships.
-imperial pattern of relations: dominance of the powerful states, punishment of the weak or disobedient.
Democratic experiment: diplomacy in ancient Greece.
-negotiations were not secret (ex. Woodrow Wilson’s New Diplomacy with open covenants, openly arrived at).
-no resident ambassadors but ad-hoc special envoys.
-ambassadors did not have a mandate for negotiation.
-envoys represented different domestic political factions at home.
-diplomatic envoys were mistrusted at home and abroad.
-rhetorical skills seemed to matter more than anything else.
-special envoys accountable to the people (risked punishment).
-no clear conceptual distinction between domestic and foreign relations.
-public diplomacy avant la letter (more examples in history).
-democratic decision-making was found to interfere with the effectiveness of diplomacy.
Demosthenes (384-322 BCE) on diplomatic methods in Ancient Greece.
-ambassadors have no battleships at their disposal, or heavy infantry, or fortresses; their weapons are words and
opportunities. In important transactions opportunities are fleeting; once they are missed they cannot be recovered. It is
a greater offence no deprive a democracy of an opportunity than it would be thus to deprive an oligarchy or autocracy.
-nor do you seem conscious of the elaborate methods by which your country is slowly being undermined.
-Narold Nicolson – The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (1954).
Diplomatic experimentation in Greece: Proxenoi (inhabited of another state).
-native citizen of the host state representing the sending state.
-peacetime tasks: trade promotion.
-the proxenos as diplomat: involved in pre-negation.
-very limited mandate.
-a degree of diplomatic immunity.
-consul-like representatives.
Diplomacy in Renaissance Italy relevant?
-independent of time and place studying diplomacy: system interdependence in the Italian peninsula.
-turning point = seeing the diplomatic world in another way.
Ancient Roman diplomacy for dummies.
-no reciprocity in relations with inferior polities.
-good faith: fides Romana.
-no lingua France but interpreters: no equality within diplomacy (step backwards not the way to analyse history but more
a process of learning).
-safe conducts but little respect for envoys.
-importance of protocol in Romes imperial context.
-centralization of power in diplomacy.
Thousand years of Byzantine methods in diplomacy (5-1500 BCE).
-diplomacy was secondary to warfare.
-diplomacy of central importance to keep a large empire and expensive.
-difficult to keep it al together: not only warfare but need of diplomacy (foreign complex operation need organization).
-the idea of empire was not universally shared and did not generate the required cohesion ad loyalty.
-imperial ceremonial was important (ex. on occasion of visits to the emperor).
-the complexity of foreign political operations required a bureaucracy for foreign affairs.
-byzantine methods’ as psychological mechanism.
,The diplomacy of Venetian Republic: Cosmopolitan (pragmatic).
-trade as the principal driving force of diplomacy.
-interests of the state as guiding principle of diplomacy (no ideology).
-relations across cultures, based on different norms (capitulations).
-diplomacy represented the interests of different factions within Venice (no consensus on the national interest).
-no perception of an international system or society of states.
-envoys write reports were shared thought diplomatic system with others: knowledge shared throughout the system.
-not ideological state busines beyond Islamitic world (agreements that regulated businesses).
-professionalization diplomacy: gaining a sharing knowledge within the whole world.
Organizational breakthrough: a Venetian national diplomatic system.
-first diplomatic service → professionalization.
-first diplomatic state archive → systematic information storage.
-ongoing information gathering → continuous activity.
-detailed reporting → whole-of-government interest.
-measures against going native or localities → rotational posting
-trust in own representatives and ambassadors: rotating system and no permeant appointment (rotational posting).
-diplomacy incredibly slow important features that complicated activities.
Renaissance diplomacy: making a complex institution.
-diplomacy as necessity: the management of change.
-experience of balance of power: international politics on a peninsula.
-perception of Interdependence: diplomacy as nucleus of collective system.
-systemization of thought: logic and grammar of politics and diplomacy (Machiavelli, Principe and Guiccardini, Ricordi).
-diplomacy as representation: the rise of the resident ambassador (mid-15th century).
-a crowded and complex diplomatic field with overlapping authorities: permanent and occasional diplomats.
-diplomacy as a permanent activity: continuous negotiation.
-multiple functions: awareness of diplomacy’s multidimensionality.
-the nursery of Early Modern European diplomacy?
Early Modern diplomacy up to 1800: the rise of the concept of diplomacy in early Modern Europe.
-no international system as of 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) but 17th-18th international society of princes, courts and
armies.
-the concepts of diplomacy became accepted in late 18th century Europe.
-diplomacy meaning of treaties and agreements between communities organized within system of states in 18th century.
-emergence of the term corps diplomatique in 18th century.
-late 18thcentury and after diplomacy associated with absolutism, aristocracy, secrecy, duplicity, wars and alliances.
-what else can we learn about diplomacy in Early Modern Europe from Windler and Pohilig.
Gendered reading of the diplomatic classics.
-but seeing the qualifications and learning that are necessary for the forming of good ministers are of a very large extent,
they are sufficient of themselves to take up a man’s whole time, and their functions are of importance enough to make
a profession by itself; so that those that set themselves apart for that service ought not to be distracted by other
employment.
-women excluded from this profession and from learning: not the wright people to be included → new diplomatic history
that shows that women’s been there but this is not observed.
Towards a new diplomatic history.
-conventional definitions and assumptions of diplomatic practice to be questioned and tested by historical research.
-history of multiple diplomatic actors (ex. non-sovereign, non-state) with a variety of roles rather than looking at past
trough binary lenses of the present.
-greater historical interest in diplomacy as a practice in diverse and evolving contexts, including non-western and
interaction between the West and the Rest.
-global diplomatic practices and extra-European encounters (de-centering IR as a field of study).
-a fresh look at the processes of professionalization and institutionalization of diplomacy in a global perspective.
-evolving research priorities in new diplomatic history: new methods of research, evolving research priorities, cross-
fertilization with social sciences.
Some items on modern diplomacy to do list.
-managing secrecy, creating trust.
-tackling inefficient ceremonial and protocol.
-treaty practice and multilateral diplomacy.
-a legal basis for diplomatic relations.
-the organization of foreign ministries.
-the politics of European diplomatic dominance.
-confronting the revolutionary challenge.
, Literature
Raymond Cohen: Diplomacy Through the Ages’, in Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman, Diplomacy in the Age of
Globalization: Theories and Practices, 15-29.
1.Introduction.
The chapter presents diplomacy as a historically continuous yet adaptive practice, emphasizing that its core functions
(negotiation, representation and communication) have remained remarkably stable over time, despite major
transformations in political organization and technology. The author stresses that diplomacy is often mistakenly
perceived as a modern and highly sophisticated invention, while in reality its rudimentary forms already existed
thousands of years ago. Early societies developed basic mechanisms to manage relations between political entities,
even in the absence of formal institutions. At the same time, diplomacy is described as a dynamic and evolving
institution shaped by:
-political changes: rise of empire and nation-states.
-technological innovations: writing and communication tools.
-cultural and social transformations
Diplomacy combines historical continuity with constant adaptation, making it both stable and flexible acrosstime.
2.Ancient near Eastern diplomacy.
Diplomacy in the ancient Near East constitutes one of the earliest known organized systems of international relations,
particularly among major civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Hittite Empire. What is striking is that,
despite the absence of modern state structures, these societies developed a relatively coherent and rule-based
diplomatic system
A) Development of structured diplomatic practices
One of the most important features of this early diplomacy was the emergence of written communication. Diplomatic
correspondence was often conducted through cuneiform tablets, which allowed rulers to exchange detailed messages
across long distances. This marked a significant step toward the formalization and continuity of diplomatic interaction.
In addition, these societies concluded formal treaties, which regulated:
-peace agreements after conflict.
-alliances between rulers.
-trade relations and obligations.
Such treaties often included specific clauses, oaths, and sanctions, demonstrating an early understanding of binding
international agreements. Furthermore, diplomatic interaction was governed by standardized protocols, including:
-fixed forms of address.
-rules of etiquette.
-hierarchical recognition between rulers.
This indicates that early diplomacy operated according to shared norms and expectations, rather than arbitrary behavior.
B) Ritualized and symbolic nature of diplomacy.
Diplomacy in this period was deeply embedded in religious beliefs and royal authority. Political power was often seen
as divinely sanctioned, and diplomatic exchanges reflected this worldview. Envoys were not independent negotiators, but
rather extensions of the ruler’s authority. They acted as:
-messengers of the sovereign’s will.
-symbols of the ruler’s prestige and status.
As a result, diplomatic communication was highly ritualized and ceremonial, emphasizing: hierarchy between rulers,
respect and honor and symbolic gestures of recognition.
C) Key diplomatic practices
Several recurring practices illustrate how diplomacy functioned in practice:
The exchange of gifts served not merely as generosity, but as a strategic tool to express goodwill, establish trust, and
signal equality or hierarchy. Dynastic marriages were used to create long-term alliances, linking ruling families and
stabilizing political relationships. The use of formalized and ceremonial language reinforced mutual recognition and
adherence to diplomatic norms. → These practices show that diplomacy was not only practical, but also deeply symbolic
and performative.
D) Limitations of the system
Despite its sophistication, ancient Near Eastern diplomacy had several important limitations.
-it was largely confined to elite interactions between rulers, with no involvement of broader populations or non
state actors.
-there were no permanent diplomatic institutions or professional diplomatic corps. Envoys were typically sent on
temporary missions and did not maintain continuous representation abroad.
-communication was slow and logistically constrained, relying on physical transportation of messages over long
distances, which limited the speed and flexibility of diplomatic interaction.
These constraints meant that diplomacy, although structured, remained limited in reach, continuity, and efficiency.
3.Classic diplomacy.
In the classical period, diplomacy developed differently in the Greek and Roman worlds. Greek diplomacy was relatively
decentralized and pragmatic, relying on temporary envoys and often closely linked to warfare and alliance-building
among city-states. In contrast, Roman diplomacy was more formalized and legalistic, reflecting the administrative nature
of the Roman state. However, Roman diplomacy was frequently subordinated to imperial expansion, serving as a tool to
manage conquered territories and enforce Roman authority rather than to facilitate equal negotiation between
independent actors.
