Essence of diplomacy

Politics and Culture in International History.

The mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO in 1993 signalled a major shift in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This study examines, both theoretically and empirically, the basic question of how meaning of conflict may change and how conflict may be resolved. The broad aims are: first, to analyse and empirically improve knowledge of the transitional processes from conflicting interaction to cooperation in the Israeli-Palestinian case; and second, to develop conflict research by advancing theoretical ideas concerning these processes. Three analytical concepts constitute the core of the research problem: (i) meaning, (ii) reframing and (iii) resolving. These concepts are advanced throughout this study by an adaptive interplay between theoretical concepts and empirical analysis. The meaning of conflict highlights the dominant frames of political actors and the international and domestic normative and behavioural structures of conflict. The reframing of conflict is linked to negotiation by an emphasis on such concepts as turning point, motivation, opportunity and focal point. The resolving of conflict, which is the subject of the most extensive part of the study, focuses on frame, strategy, structural characteristics, and processes of negotiation. Drawing theoretical insights from constructivism, conflict research, negotiation theory and social psychology, the author advances a dynamic theoretical model, using an agent-structure approach. The single-case study of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict covers a period of eleven years, 1988-98. The author presents an in-depth analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations during this period, which constitutes one of the first major studies to cover the entire interim period. The empirical analysis centres on the implications of the intifada for the level of agent and structure, and the behavioural turning point, constituted by the 1991 Madrid Conference. The official negotiation process from 1991 to 1998 is then analysed and categorised in three phases: public diplomacy, two-track diplomacy, and trilateral diplomacy. The negotiation process was characterised by an oscillation between competitive and problem-solving frames of negotiation, a diversity of mediation and negotiation strategies, major structural restraints emanating from the domestic arenas, and various obstacles to communication. These phases of negotiation highlight the cyclical, transformative nature of conflict.

/pdf/reframing-and-resolving-conflict-israeli-palestinian-2h79fm69ed.pdf

Reframing and Resolving Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations 1988-1998

Diplomatic recognition is an essential tool of statecraft but remains largely unanalyzed by political scientists. Two recent trends in diplomatic practice raise notable puzzles: (i) use of diplomatic ties to signal (dis)approval of a regime or its policies, based largely on cues from diplomatic partners, and (ii) reliance on diplomatic missions as a means of securing prestige in the international system. I argue that both trends are the result of network influences. States face resource constraints and must choose diplomatic partners wisely, but they lack complete information about the risks and benefits of extending diplomatic recognition. To solve this informational dilemma, they condition recognition on the diplomatic activity of others. First, states send missions to countries that host missions from their own diplomatic partners, which increases the strength of diplomatic signals and reduces political risks. Second, states send missions to countries that host large numbers of missions in general (that is, “prestigious” countries), which increases their capacity for information gathering. In general, a state's decision to extend or retract diplomatic recognition depends heavily on the decisions of other states. Employing novel network methodologies, I show that these endogenous network influences are among the most consistent and substantively powerful determinants of diplomatic recognition.

/pdf/dependent-diplomacy-signaling-strategy-and-prestige-in-the-2aymu8oijf.pdf

Dependent diplomacy: : signaling, strategy, and prestige in the diplomatic network

/pdf/paths-to-democracy-the-post-cold-war-and-21st-century-new-41icaabel7.pdf

Paths to Democracy, the Post-Cold War and 21st Century New Standard of Civilization, the New Wave Expansion of International Society: China, South Korea and Iraq

There are two popular claims about diplomacy in the modern history of international relations. According to the first, World War One constituted a decisive turning point in the modern era, marking the emergence of a new diplomacy, distinct in both essence and style from that which had existed previously. The second maintains that diplomacy is in a state of continuous decline. This study proposes that the distinction between old and new diplomacy is simplistic and inaccurate, and that the argument regarding the decline of diplomacy is not a valid one. Raymond Aron's observation that 'diplomacy, in the traditional sense of the term, functions up to a certain degree between allies, but hardly any longer among enemies, or even between the blocs and the neutral nations,'1 is only partially correct, and reflects its time of writing at the height of the cold war. The analysis will emphasize continuity and evolution, rather than revolution, in the development of diplomacy. While routines, procedures, and settings have been modified, the basic principles of diplomacy as the basis for negotiations between nation states have an enduring validity. Moreover, the resilience of the diplomatic system has been remarkable in the twentieth century which has seen such change in technology and in the structure of world order. The very term 'new diplomacy' is problematic. Diplomacy is a modern phe nomenon. The establishment of a resident embassy and a separate bureaucracy for foreign policy constitutes one of the most important innovations of European civilization. Resident embassies were first introduced in the mid-fourteenth century. Foreign ministries evolved at a later stage; the initial codification of diplomatic protocol was consolidated in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna.2 It may be seen, there fore, that the 'old diplomacy' is a relatively new development, despite the tendency to dismiss it as part of a defunct culture associated with a privileged minority. The article will first identify the sources of the concept of new diplomacy, examin ing whether it possesses foundations distinct from those of traditional diplomacy. A detailed analysis of the elements referred to in the literature as characteristic of the new diplomacy will follow, particularly cultural and ideological influences, the expansion of international society and the challenge of a multitude of new states, the significance of open diplomacy, and the changes which have occurred in inter national relations since the onset of multilateral diplomacy and summit conferences. The final section will discuss the argument about the decline of diplomacy. Definitions of diplomacy abound; that of Hedley Bull is precise and complete, 0260-2105/88/03/0195-17/S03.00 ? 1988 Review of International Studies

Sasson Sofer

Papers

Old and new diplomacy: a debate revisited