kucuris.ku.dk/ws/files/142147718/Sikkerhedskopi_af... · Web viewMouritzen, Hans and Anders Wivel (2012) Explaining Foreign Policy: International Diplomacy and the Russo-Georgian

“Diplomatic agency”

Forthcoming in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, edited by Costas M. Constantinou,

Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp, London: Sage.

Rebecca Adler-Nissen

Word count: 6100

ABSTRACT:

Diplomatic agency is intriguing. On the one hand, diplomats are crucial to the management of day-to-day

international relations and the negotiation of war and peace. On the other hand, most diplomatic action is

highly constrained or invisible. This chapter provides an overview of the ways in which diplomatic agency

has been conceptualized in International Relations theory (English School, game theory, Foreign Policy

Analysis, constructivism, practice theory, post-positivism) before presenting and exemplifying major and

overlapping types of diplomatic agency, including communication, negotiation and advocacy. It analyzes

how professionalization, legalization, personalization and popularization of diplomacy have shaped

diplomatic agency including how international law, bureaucracy, public diplomacy and new information

technologies have impacted the scope and content of diplomatic agency. Finally, it discusses how diplomatic

agency is linked to conceptions of diplomatic representation and legitimacy in its actual, functional and

symbolic forms.

KEY WORDS: Agency; Communication, Negotiation; Advocacy; Personalization; Popularization;

Professionalization, Legalization, Representation; Public Diplomacy; Theories of Diplomacy; Social Media;

Structure; Citizen Diplomacy; International Relations Theories

Introduction

Politicians often complain about the passivity of diplomats. Winston Churchill once remarked that all he ever

got from his advisors was a subtotal of their fears. John F. Kennedy grumbled that US diplomats never came

up with any new ideas, “the State Department is a bowl of jelly” (Sofer 2001: 107). In contrast to military

and political leaders, diplomats are often portrayed as “pathetic heroes” (Sofer 2001). Meanwhile, diplomats

tend to find politicians irresponsible and ignorant of world politics, hindering diplomatic work. Can

diplomats be considered agents? If so, what does diplomatic agency imply?

Clearly, diplomatic agency is constrained. The diplomat acts “within a restricted repertoire, but

remains an object of public wrath and may be a target of aggression as a symbolic representative of his or her

”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 1

nation” (Sofer 2001: 110). Yet, as this chapter will show, there is room for different kinds of agency in

diplomatic affairs. To analyze diplomatic agency, the chapter will: firstly provide an overview of the ways in

which diplomatic agency has been conceptualized; secondly, present and exemplify major and overlapping

types of diplomatic agency, including communication, negotiation and advocacy; thirdly, examine how

diplomacy has developed as a profession from envoys of kings to trained career diplomats; fourthly, analyze

how the personalization and popularization of diplomacy has shaped diplomatic agency with the rise of

public diplomacy and new media technologies ; and finally discuss how diplomatic agency is linked to

conceptions of diplomatic representation in its actual, functional and symbolic forms.

Conceptualizing diplomatic agency

Traditionally, diplomacy is “the organized conduct of relations between states” (Henrikson 2013: 118),

making states the principal agents in diplomatic affairs. However, states cannot act on their own in the

international arena, instead they operate through organizational agencies (foreign services) and individual

agents (diplomats) (Faizullaev 2014: 279). Moreover, new actors have begun to crowd the diplomatic scene.

Among the rapidly expanding types of actors, we find sub-national and regional authorities such as

Catalonia, multinational corporations such as Nestlé, celebrities such as George Clooney who is a UN

Messenger for Peace as well as non-governmental organizations including Independent Diplomat and

Transparency International and regional and intergovernmental organizations such as the World Health

Organization (WHO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and ASEAN. All of these institutions,

organizations and individuals are involved in diplomacy, but what do we mean when we talk of diplomatic

agency?

Structural limits to diplomatic agency

An agent can be understood as an individual or collective unit that commits an act of consequence upon its

environment (Kelley 2014: 4). Agency is thus the capacity of an agent (a person or other entity, human or

any living being in general) to act in a world. In the social sciences, agency is generally conceptualized as the

opposite of structure, which is seen as a force that organizes the actors so that their actions fall in a certain

social order. Structure is, to borrow John G. Ruggie’s notion “what makes the world hang together” (Ruggie,

quoted in Kelley 2014: 4).

Diplomatic agency, whether performed by individuals or groups, is thus necessarily constrained by

structure. This structure may take both material and ideational forms. For instance, foreign office staff works

in multi-organizational settings that usually comprise a presidential administration, other governmental

agencies, a parliament, a ministry of foreign affairs, an embassy, affecting foreign policy decision-making


and implementation. Foreign policy activities increasingly concentrate around prime ministers and

presidents, directly instructing or side-lining the foreign ministries. Written and unwritten rules regulate

relations between these groups of individuals and institutions. Because such rules are often locally

negotiated, the scope for diplomatic agency cannot easily be put on abstract formula.

In poorer countries, the lack of trained personnel, resources and national stability limits the room for

diplomatic maneuver considerably, both in terms of the number of diplomatic staff and missions and in the

actual conduct of diplomacy (Anda 2000: 124). Also in richer countries, diplomatic agents often find

domestic interactions and negotiations, including the fight for resources and money, to be even more

complex and cumbersome than international ones. Last, but not least, increased involvement of broader

society and the 24/7 live media coverage of foreign policy events put structural limits on diplomatic agency.

Previously, decision-makers and leaders had more time to understand a crisis situation, examine the

evidence, explore various options, and reflect before choosing among them. As Graham T. Allison writes,

looking back at the Cuban Missile Crisis: “In 1962, one of the first questions Kennedy asked on being told of

the missile discovery was, How long until this leaks? McGeorge Bundy, his national security adviser,

thought it would be a week at most” (Allison 2012: 16). Today, confidentiality is measured not in days, but

in hours. This puts enormous pressure on political leaders and diplomats to act fast - sometimes too fast.

Diplomatic agency in international law

The particularity of diplomats is that they act on behalf of the state: “This does not mean that the state and

the individual becomes one, but rather by, for example, representing France to a foreign state or an

international organization, a French diplomat performs as France” (Adler-Nissen 2014a: 62-63). One of the

challenges in conceptualizing diplomatic agency is therefore to distinguish diplomatic agency of a foreign

minister or ambassador from the agency of the foreign ministry, embassy or country he or she represents. In

diplomacy, individuals are often institutionalized (a head of state, minister, or ambassador is not just an

individual but an institution, too), and institutions are individualized (they may function differently when

headed or presented by different individuals). Any new foreign minister or ambassador inevitably brings

personality to the job (think of the difference between Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell) while also

functioning within a certain organizational framework, having to use particular diplomatic tact and manners,

and carrying the state’s identity, values, and interests (for a discussion of diplomatic agency, see Faizullaev

2014).

Diplomatic agency is thus distinctive because the diplomat (still) represents the sovereign (“L’Etat

c’est moi”). This sovereignty logic has been formalized in international law, including in the Vienna

Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which specifies the privileges that enable diplomats, ministries

of foreign affairs, embassies, governments and envoys to perform their functions (Gardiner 2003: 339). The


Vienna Convention also clarifies the institution of diplomatic immunity, which is crucial for diplomatic

agency because it ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are not susceptible to lawsuit or

prosecution under the host country’s laws. Diplomatic immunity thereby allows the maintenance of

diplomatic agency during periods of strained relationship or even armed conflict.

Diplomatic immunity also makes it possible for individual diplomats to take exceptional forms of

action. For instance, during the 1970s, the Swedish ambassador Harald Edelstam who was posted in Chile

helped thousands of Cuban diplomats, Uruguayan refugees and Chilean political activists escape prosecution

by Augusto Pinochet. Following the 1973 coup, the ambassador took a Swedish flag in hand and marched up

to the Cuban embassy that was under fire by tanks and fetched refugees out of the embassy, took them to the

Swedish embassy and got them out of the country safely. Similar examples of exceptional diplomatic agency

(indeed heroism) can be found across the globe. Chiune Sugihara was a Japanese diplomat who served as

Vice-Consul for the Empire of Japan in Lithuania. During World War II, Sugihara wrote travel visas that

facilitated the escape of more than 6,000 Jewish refugees from Lithuania to Japanese territory, risking his

career and his family’s lives (Hillel 1996). This is a form of diplomatic agency made possible by diplomatic

privileges codified in international law, but it may require disregarding instructions (or exploiting lack of

instructions). Both Edelstam and Sugihara did what they found morally right, not what their states had

instructed them to do.

Theorizing diplomatic agency

Most IR scholars, including neo-realist and neo-liberalists, do not accord diplomats much attention. For them

material resources tend to define much of what goes on in world politics. However, IR theory features at

least five exceptions to this dismissal of diplomatic agency: the English School, rationalist game theory,

foreign policy analysis, the practice turn and post-structuralism.

In contrast to most of mainstream IR, the English School has always granted diplomacy a key role.

Hedley Bull (1977) highlighted diplomacy as one of the five institutions integral to international society.

Without diplomacy there would be no communication between states and without communication, no

international society. Other English School theorists elevated diplomatic agency to a (potentially) virtuous

art. Most prominently Paul Sharp suggests that there are particular diplomatic values of charity and self-

restraint, which can help political leaders who ”work under terrible pressures and have to respond to multiple

constituencies and considerations, and whose motives are not always of the finest” (Sharp 2004: 875).

Political decision-makers therefore need to be “surrounded by virtuous advisers and agents embodying and

advocating the values of diplomacy.” (Sharp 2004: 875).


In contrast, game theory assumes that each state is a rational actor concerned with promoting its

national interests, and diplomatic agency is understood as tactical moves in a game, which are calculated by

the players or negotiators. In Putnam’s (1988) perspective, the two-level game gives the diplomat-negotiator

leverage and possibility of pursuing the chief negotiator’s interest, but that room for maneuver is constrained

by structure (i.e. role of domestic preferences and coalitions, domestic political institutions and practices, the

strategies and tactics of negotiators, uncertainty, the domestic reverberation of international pressures). Other

diplomatic scholars have borrowed ideas from principal-agent theory (first developed by economists in the

1970s, see Miller 2005: 205) to understand diplomatic agency. Diplomats, as Christer Jönsson and Martin

Hall note, “whether in bilateral or multilateral forums, always negotiate on behalf of others, in the sense that

they are agents of a principal with ultimate authority, be it an individual king or a collective government”

(Jönsson & Hall 2005: 84). A principal and an agent are considered individuals who enter into a specific

relationship: the first gives instructions and the second executes them in order to achieve the goals set by a

superior. Accordingly, diplomatic agency is studied as actions, which determines the payoff to the principal.

To analyze the agency of diplomats in this way, one can for instance focus on information asymmetry, which

prevents the principal (e.g. government, president or Congress) from successfully monitoring the agent (e.g.

ambassadors or diplomats).

Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) explicitly puts emphasis on diplomatic agency. Valery Hudson has

argued that FPA constitutes the very micro-foundation for international relations because “foreign policy

analysis is characterized by an actor-specific focus, based upon the argument that all that occurs between

nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in group” (Hudson 2005:

1). What FPA brings to the study of diplomatic agency is particularly the idea that the cognition and

information processing of decision-makers are crucial. Graham T. Allison’s (1971) work on the Cuban

Missile Crisis and Robert Jervis’ (1976) research on perceptions and misperceptions in foreign policy are

pioneering in this respect. Today, FPA scholars build on political psychology, examining leader types,

cognitive constraints etc. while also taking geopolitics, bureaucratic politics and organizational culture into

account (e.g. Mouritzen & Wivel 2012).

IR constructivists argue that diplomatic agency, as any other social activity, is not a product of

immutable scientific laws, but are rather the result of learning and social interactions that create

relationships, identities and perceptions that condition the actions taken by actors in world politics (Jackson

2004). This leads to an understanding of diplomatic agency, which sees negotiation not just as bargaining,

but also as changing perceptions and constant interaction, learning and adaption (Checkel 2005). In other

words, diplomacy is where beliefs about states interests and capacities are enacted, reproduced and changed.

More recently, scholars engaged in the practice turn of IR have accorded diplomatic agency a much

larger role than IR scholars normally do. They have argued that diplomatic practice is constitutive of world


politics (Sending, Pouliot and Neumann eds. 2015). Practice scholars focus on everyday habits and

professional codes that are central to diplomacy. They have analyzed how diplomats identify competent and

incompetent behavior, building on participant observation and interviews (Neumann 2012, Adler & Pouliot

2011; Adler-Nissen & Pouliot 2014). In practice theory, the logic of diplomatic agency is neither one of

consequence, nor of appropriateness, but of practicality (Pouliot 2008). For instance, officials engaged in

multilateral diplomacy of the UN will tacitly come to know their place in the international “pecking order”

despite the formal sovereign equality of all member states (Pouliot 2011). Similarly, national diplomats

working in Brussels will experience, in an embodied sense, that new proposals need to be framed as

European interests to carry weight at the Council of Ministers (Adler-Nissen 2014a).

Post-positivists such as James Der Derian (1987) and Costas Constantinou (1996) build on post-

structuralist insights on subjectivitiy and identitet and have problematised the ability of diplomatic

representatives to speak fully for the sovereign. A diplomatic representative can never be regarded as an

authentic surrogate for the sovereign. Departing from a conceptualisation of diplomacy as the mediation of

estrangement, they have explored how representatives, as ‘go-betweens’, are influenced or ‘captured’ by

their host nation. They promote what they call ‘sustainable diplomacy’ that emphasize practices of self-

knowledge and are open to identity transformation’ (Constantinou and Der Derian 2010: 2). Constantinou

has argued that:

‘Diplomacy changes face, posits a different ontology, whenever its practitioners conceive themselves as

being on the side or in the middle […] when the diplomat sees him or herself as being in the middle, they

promote mediation or activity that brings different sides together […] in a constructive “relationship.”’

(Constantinou 2013: 145).

Accordingly, two-sided diplomats or ‘double-agents’ gain their legitimacy from the ‘interstitial’ – from the

international or intercommunal – making the most of not taking sides or by functionally distancing oneself

from the sides. Practical experiences with conflict-mediation show how difficult it is to preserve the

legitimacy from the interstitial and not be drawn into the conflict.

Notwithstanding these important advances in the theorization of diplomatic agency, much work

remains to be done to excavate the agency involved in the conduct of diplomacy.

Summary of section:

IR theories have generally bracketed diplomacy, concentrating instead on the material distribution of

resources, norms and ideas, thereby assuming that diplomatic agency is limited and unproblematic.


The English School claims that diplomacy is one of the constitutive institutions of international

society; rationalist game theory argues that bargaining and negotiation are crucial for world politics;

foreign policy analysis insists on individuals role in the making of foreign policy decisions;

poststructuralists argue the practice turn points to the crucial role of diplomats in the everyday

performance of world politics.

The study of diplomatic agency will benefit from more explicit and systematic theorizing as it is still

dominated by case studies, anecdotal accounts and historical treaties with limited attention to theory.

Types of diplomatic agency: Communication, negotiation, advocacy

Diplomatic agency as communication

Communication is probably the most fundamental form of diplomatic agency. Following the invention of the

institution of residential diplomacy in 15th century’s Italian city-states, a nation’s diplomat is required to

function as his or her country’s eyes, ears and voice abroad (Cooper et al. 2013: 2). Gathering information on

the local scene and reporting it home is still seen as one of the most important functions of the resident

embassy (Jönsson & Hall 2003: 197). However, the job as a communicator is not just about reporting home

or gathering intelligence, but also delivering the message and being aware of national interests, influencing

foreign governments and publics through meetings, workshops, interviews to the local media, dinners,

receptions, cultural events and parties. In other words, the main activity involved in the role as communicator

is message-delivery, which requires intelligence, networking, tact, discretions, team-work, creative

imagination etc.

In ancient times, when direct consultations and back-and forth communications were not feasible, the

monarch or republic was far more dependent on the ambassador’s skills and judgments when it came to

communication. When the first telegram landed on the British foreign minister Lord Palmerson’s desk in the

1840s, he reportedly declared: “My God, this is the end of diplomacy” (Dizard 2001: 5). The telegraph did

indeed change diplomatic practices, but it did not make the diplomat as communicator obsolete. Today,

cheap flights, communication technology, including e-mail, telephones, Skype and video calls, have limited

the autonomy of the residual diplomat. Information overload and new actors have made monitoring of

diplomats by the capitals more difficult, as the chapter will explore further below.

Diplomatic agency as negotiation


Negotiation is the second major type of diplomatic agency. When diplomacy takes the form of negotiation –

be it bilateral or multilateral – diplomats become more explicit agents. They are involved in a back-and-forth

process, requiring a different set of skills than that of the communicator. Numerous studies have

demonstrated the importance of personal leadership for negotiation processes. For example, it is apparent

from the correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis that they (and

their advisors) were trying to figure out how they could both retain personal and national honor in relation to

each other and globally (Ting-Tooney 1990). But behind-the-scenes negotiations are rarely subjected to

direct observation and remain under-theorized.

The advent of more open and multilateral diplomatic negotiation does not detract from the importance

of skillful negotiation techniques. Effective diplomatic negotiation is still often undertaken in private,

without the intrusion of competing preoccupations and loyalties. In a study of the negotiations in the UN

Security Council and NATO that led to the international intervention in Libya in 2011, Rebecca Adler-

Nissen and Vincent Pouliot (2014) found that in crisis negotiation, countries may rely on their permanent

representatives whose positions emerge from mutual trust and local moves in New York and Brussels just as

much as from national instructions.

A particular type of negotiation is linked to conflict resolution. Here, those in conflict seek the

assistance of or accept an offer of help from an outsider to mediate (Ahtisaari & Rintakoski 2013: 338). The

UN has been a principal actor in the peace-making scene, using the Secretary-General and his

representatives. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold was known to play up his agency. For instance,

Hammarskjold engaged in extensive coalition-building, creating alliances between member states through

intensive travelling to capitals, building trust and access and operated at several levels of diplomacy.

Diplomatic agency as advocacy

It is not new that diplomats focus on the broader public and try to achieve change through persuasion. In the

18th century, an increasing sense developed among statesmen of a “public” below the state whose opinion

mattered for diplomacy (Mitzen 2005). More recently, the increased visibility of foreign policy made

possible by new communication technologies has led to a focus on soft power (Nye 2011), public diplomacy

(Melissen et al. 2005), nation-branding (Van Ham 2001) and social media in diplomacy (Seib 2012). The

diplomatic scene is increasingly on public display as interrelated revolutionary changes in politics,

international relations and mass communication have greatly expanded the role of publics in foreign policy.

Advocacy can take many forms. Former US ambassador to the UN, John R. Bolton finds that

diplomats engage in diplomacy for its own sake while losing sight of the promotion of national interests and

advocacy (Bolton 2007). Advocacy, however, can also mean more sophisticated promotion of national


interests through strategic partnerships or public diplomacy. Many countries now team up with NGOs,

companies and individuals engaged in various forms of lobbying and advocacy, from the Red Cross to the

International Campaign to Ban of Landmines, in ways that also favor particular national interests.

Summary of section:

Diplomatic agency takes three generic forms: communication, negotiation and advocacy. On the one

hand, cheap transportation and communication technology have limited the communicative

autonomy of the residual diplomat, on the other hand, information overload and new actors have

made monitoring by capitals more difficult.

When negotiating or mediating – be it bilaterally or multilaterally – diplomats become more explicit

agents. Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of personal leadership for negotiation

processes, not just in bilateral but also in multilateral negotiations in the UN, WTO, EU, NATO etc.

Advocacy involves the promotion of national interests through strategic partnerships with NGOs and

companies and through public diplomacy. Many countries now team up with NGOs, companies and

individuals engaged in various forms of lobbying.

Professionalization, Personalization and Changing Conceptions of Representation

The fundamental question regarding the professionalization of diplomacy is who gets to be considered as a

diplomat. Traditionalists cling to the view that only official state representatives are diplomats, but a lot of

diplomatic action is taking place outside traditional diplomatic institutions such as embassies and foreign

services. Non-state actors, from private companies to non-governmental organizations, and other parts of the

state apparatus increasingly engage in their own separate diplomatic activities. Today, most ministries have

their own skilled international secretariats that uphold relations with their peers in other states and they send

their own personnel on diplomatic missions. These tendencies imply that international relations are no longer

the exclusive preserve of foreign ministries.

As all other professions, diplomacy has a history of gradual and non-linear developments. In fact, the

distinctions that make diplomacy as a profession possible are relatively recent. The differentiation between

“domestic” and “foreign” was only gradually institutionalized (Neumann 2012: 53). The first diplomats were

personally appointed envoys, acting for the King or republic, often belonging to the aristocratic elite.

Gradually, diplomacy gained its status as a meritocratic profession, starting in France in the 16 th century –

with an academy, secretariat, archives and manuals (Weisrode 2003: 14).

One of the particularities of diplomacy is that it has never accepted the distinction between official and


private life. Being stationed abroad and having to attend and organize social gatherings, diplomats have

relied on their (female) spouses in their work. Yet as Cynthia Enloe (2014) notes, the role of diplomatic

wives (and women’s role in international politics more generally) is still misrepresented by practitioners and

scholars. Indeed, the agency of diplomatic partners (female or male) are unofficial and under-appreciated.

Yet, diplomatic partners can have remarkable influence also on state-to-state relations, exploiting their

transversal agency. They not only oil the machinery and shape the conditions for good conversations during

dinner parties, they also take strategic and agenda-setting roles during foreign postings (Dommet 2005).

Today, state agents – and more specifically national foreign services – have acquired a dominant

position in diplomatic affairs. This is largely due to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called

“symbolic power”, which is the imposition of particular perceptions upon social agents who then take the

social order to be just (see Adler-Nissen 2014b). Symbolic power requires the constant performance of social

distinctions. For instance, when France inaugurated a new diplomatic academy in 2001, French foreign

minister Hubert Vedrine explained: “we are creating a diplomatic institute to further demarcate the

amateurism from the professionalism, which is ours” (Vedrine, quoted in Colson 2009: 74). Many countries

have adopted formal training programmes and diplomatic schools. Some countries such as Germany, Chile

and Peru require all new employees to go through one year at a diplomatic academy before they start

working (Rana 2007). Notwithstanding the formalization of diplomatic training, most diplomats still acquire

their skills and status mainly by experience and patronage. Indeed, national diplomats have generally been in

a position to rebuff challengers, they have largely been able to affirm their mastery over the art of diplomacy

(for a discussion, see Adler-Nissen 2014b).

One of the major developments in diplomatic agency is personalization. The formal codes of conduct,

including courtesy calls and presentation of credentials, have not disappeared (Bjola & Kornprobst 2013:

70), but such ritualized performances are supplemented with informal interactions diplomat-to-diplomat and

diplomat-to-foreign-publics. States (and their leaders) seek to present themselves as favorably as possible,

both proactively through public diplomacy and nation branding, and more reactively by trying to manage

media coverage. Media handling often takes place simultaneously – and interferes directly – with closed-

door negotiations. Foreign ministers and diplomats interact and monitor each other electronically as during

the “propaganda war” between the West and Russia over Ukraine in 2014. Texting, emailing, Facebooking

and Tweeting may seem like more private ways of interacting, requiring its users to present themselves as

“someone” like’ their audiences. EU’s Foreign Policy Representative Federica Mogherini might choose to

reveal personal details on Facebook, but personalization may also produce embarrassment. For instance, one

US diplomat used her professional Twitter profile to mention purchasing a bathing suit in the midst of a

meltdown in the Middle East (Cull 2011: 5).


There are both critics and defenders of the transformations and increased visibility of diplomatic

agency. One key critic includes Paul Sharp who insists on an ethos of representing (not creating) national

interests. As Sharp puts it:

“Diplomacy has an important role to play relative to the policy process, but it is limited and should be

specifically defined. To expect it to contribute more is not only to offend the democratic ethic, but also

obscures the true location of the policy-making responsibility, which is with the political leaders.”

(Sharp 2003: 565)

Accordingly, diplomatic agency is to be limited to the interpretation and translation of different cultures to

political leaders. Yet such self-restraint may be difficult when the diplomatic profession is under pressure.

For instance, export-oriented companies increasingly requires a wide variety of professional diplomatic

services as markets and productive operations expand globally and non-governmental organizations expect

diplomats to advice and assist them when they operate across cultures.

Former diplomat and scholar Daryl Copeland (2009) has a completely opposite take on diplomatic

agency than Sharp. If nation-based diplomacy is to remain relevant in a globalized and interlinked world,

Copeland argues, it must transform itself into “Guerilla Diplomacy”. The guerrilla diplomat interacts with

people outside the embassy walls. He or she is comfortable with risk and has an affinity for outreach.

Standard operating procedures, awaiting instructions and doing things “by the book” will rarely be sufficient

in resolving the complex problems which characterize the sorts of fast-paced, high-risk environments of

modern world politics (Copeland 2009: 146). When for instance the Danish ambassador to Pakistan

organizes a rock concert with other ambassadors from the diplomatic corps in Islamabad, including the

Bosnian ambassador on guitar, Japanese ambassador on drums and Australian ambassador on flute and

vocals, he signals more than musicality. By engaging in such informal and “non-diplomatic” activities

outside the embassy walls (and later sharing it on Facebook), the Danish ambassador displays mutual

understanding within the diplomatic corps and informality as modern diplomatic values. However, many

diplomats and international policy managers lack the skills and experience to combine formality and

informality (Bjola & Holmes eds 2015). Diplomatic scholars also lack theoretical and methodological tools

to grasp how social media affects diplomatic agency.

Four decades ago, Raymond Aron wrote: “the ambassador and the solider live and symbolize

international relations which, insofar as they are inter-state relations, concern diplomacy and war” (Aron

quoted in Cooper et al 2013: 6-7). Today, however, the rise of non-state actors ranging from transnational

companies to global media, over non-governmental organizations to multilateral organizations, challenge the

image of national diplomats as “custodians of the idea of international society” (Bull 1977: 176).

Symbolically, new articulations of collective representation, differing from the traditional promotion of


national interests, such as the Occupy movement and various attempts to create a transnational public sphere

challenge territorial-based diplomacy.

Changes in diplomatic representation also happen through formal or functional delegation as states

choose to delegate or open up diplomacy. For instance, the member states of the European Union have

delegated their trade policy to the supranational level. As a consequence, the European Commissioner is the

sole representative of European trade interest in negotiations of trade agreements with the US, Japan or

Canada. Moreover, international organizations such as the UN and OSCE invite new actors such as NGOs

inside, partly to solve problems that the traditional intergovernmental diplomacy cannot solve, partly to

increase legitimacy as international organizations engages in far-reaching cooperation with real life

implications for citizens across the globe (Tallberg et al. 2013). Interestingly, this process of opening up

multilateral diplomacy has to a large extent been controlled by states (Tallberg et al. 2013: 256). Diplomacy

largely still takes place within a field of rules and roles established over hundreds of years where states

officially communicate with each other. We should thus avoid looking at diplomatic agency in isolation, and

instead ask how it adapts, transforms or undermines international interactions.

Summary of section

Personalization is a strategy used by diplomats to promote a range of values and national interests

off- and online. Yet, such activities involve more risk-taking as well-tried diplomatic rituals are

discounted and the traditional boundary between the private and public is transgressed.

Diplomatic scholars lack theoretical and methodological tools to grasp how public diplomacy and

social media affects diplomatic agency.

Critics of the transformations of diplomatic agency insist that diplomacy should stick to an ethos of

representation of the sovereign to remain legitimate while proponents argue that diplomats should

embrace informality, social media and networking beyond the embassy walls.

Conclusion

Diplomatic agency is constrained and criticized. Diplomats have gained a dominant position in international

relations, inscribed in past negotiations (e.g. treaties), material resources (e.g. embassies), institutions (e.g.

diplomatic immunity) and symbolic rituals (e.g. presentation of credentials), recorded and canonized by

professionals in conversation along with scholars and journalists. Behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations

are rarely subject to direct observation due to their confidentiality. This limits our empirical knowledge and

theorization of diplomatic agency. Scholars disagree on whether it is individual and cognitive, social and

normative or legal, institutional and material structures that shape the room for maneuver of diplomats, but

they agree that individual and groups of diplomats play a crucial role in both communicating, negotiating and


advocating national and organizational interests. The personalization and popularization of diplomacy related

to the emergence of new information technologies and request for more transparency have made diplomatic

agency more visible and challenging, requiring additional and creative skills as diplomats interact more

actively and informally with a broader transnational public. Whether this strengthens or weakens the

legitimacy of diplomats depends on how attached one is to the idea of diplomat as representative of the

sovereign and as custodian of a system of sovereign states.

References

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca (2014a) Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European

Integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca (2014b) Symbolic Power in European Diplomacy: The Struggle Between National

Foreign Services and the EU's External Action Service. Review of International Studies, 40(4), 657-

681.

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca and Vincent Pouliot (2014) Power in Practice: Negotiating the International

Intervention in Libya, European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 889-911.

Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent (eds.) (2011) International Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ahtisaari, Maarti and Kristina Rintakoski (2013) ’Mediation’. Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine and Ramesh

Thakur (eds) Oxford Handbook of Diplomacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 337-351.

Allison, Graham T. (1971) The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman.

Allison, Graham T. (2012) The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy Today, Foreign

Affairs, 91(4), 11-16.

Anda, Michael (2000) International Relations in Africa. Landham: University of America Press.

Bjola, C. & Kornprobst, M. (2013) Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics.

London: Routledge.

Bjola, Corneliu, and Marcus Holmes (2015) Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Bolton, John R. (2007) Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations. New York:

Simon and Schuster.

Bull, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia

University Press.


Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework.

International Organization, 59(4), 801-826.

Constantinou, C. M. (1996). On the way to diplomacy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Constantinou, C. M. (2013). Between Statecraft and Humanism: Diplomacy and Its Forms of

Knowledge. International Studies Review, 15(2), 141-162.

Constantinou, C. M., & Der Derian, J. (2010). Sustaining global hope: sovereignty, power and the

transformation of diplomacy’. Constantinou, C. M., & Der Derian, J. (eds). Sustainable diplomacies.

Palgrave Macmillan,1-22.

Cooper, Andrew F., Jorge Heine and Ramesh Thakur (2013) Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century

Diplomacy, Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine and Ramesh Thakur (eds) Oxford Handbook of

Diplomacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-31.

Copeland, Daryl (2009) Guerrilla diplomacy. Rethinking International Relations, Boulder, Co: Lynne

Rienner.

Cull, N. J. (2011) WikiLeaks, public diplomacy 2.0 and the state of digital public diplomacy, Place Branding

and Public Diplomacy, 7(1), 1-8.

Der Derian, J. (1987). On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dizard, Wilson P. (2001) Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age, Washington DC:

Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Domett, T. (2005). Soft power in global politics? diplomatic partners as transversal actors. Australian

Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 289-306.

Enloe, Cynthia (2014) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (2nd

ed), Berkeley: University of California Press.

Faizullaev, Alisher (2014) Diplomatic Interactions and Negotiations Negotiation Journal 30(3), 275-299.

Gardiner, Richard (2003) International Law, Essex: Pearsons.

Henrikson, Alan K. (2013) ‘Sovereignty, Diplomacy, and Democracy: The Changing Character of

“International” Representation— from State to Self?’, The Flethcer Forum of World Affairs, 37(3),

111-140.

Hudson, Valery M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International

Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1-30.

Jackson, Patrick T. (2004). Bridging the Gap: Toward A Realist-Constructivist Dialogue. International

Studies Review, 6(2), 337-337.


Jervis, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Jönsson, Christer and Hall, Martin (2003) Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy. International

Studies Perspectives,4(2), 195–210.

Kelley, John Robert (2014) Agency Change: Diplomatic Action Beyond the State, London: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Levine, Hillel (1996) In search of Sugihara: the elusive Japanese diplomat who risked his life to rescue

10,000 Jews from the Holocaust. New York: Free Press.

Melissen, Jan (ed.) (2005) The new public diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations, Houndmills:

Palgrave.

Miller, Garry (2005) The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models, 8, Annual Review of Political

Science, 203-225.

Mitzen, J. (2005) Reading Habermas in anarchy: multilateral diplomacy and global public spheres, American

Political Science Review, 99(3), 401-417.

Mouritzen, Hans and Anders Wivel (2012) Explaining Foreign Policy: International Diplomacy and the

Russo-Georgian War, Coulder Bo: Lynne Rienner.

Neumann, Iver B. (2007) ‘‘A speech that the entire ministry may stand for,’ or: why diplomats never

produce anything new’, International Political Sociology, 1(2), 183-200.

Neumann, Iver B. (2008) The body of the diplomat, European journal of international relations, 14(4): 671-

695.

Neumann, Iver B. (2012) At home with the diplomats: inside a European foreign ministry. New York:

Cornell University Press.

Nye, Joseph S. (2004) Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Pouliot, Vincent (2011) Diplomats as permanent representatives The practical logics of the multilateral

pecking order, International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis 66(3), 543-561.

Rana, K. (2007) ‘Diplomatic Education’. Kamali, T (ed.) An Anthology Celebrating the Twentieth

Anniversary of the Higher Colleges of Technology. Abu Dhabi: HCT Press.

Sending, Ole Jacob, Vincent Pouliot and Iver B. Neumann (eds.) (2015) Diplomacy and the Making of World

Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seib, P. (2012). Real-Time diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era. Houndmills: Palgrave

Macmillan.


Sharp, Paul (2003) Herbert Butterfield, The English School and the Civilizing Virtues of Diplomacy,

International Affairs, 79(4),855-878.

Sofer, S. (2001) Being a ‘pathetic hero’ in international politics: The diplomat as a historical actor.

Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12(1), 107-112.

Tallberg, Jonas, Thomas Sommerer and Theresa Squatrito (2013) The opening up of international

organizations: transnational access in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ting-Toomey, Stella (1990) A Face Negotiation Perspective Communicating for Peace. London: Sage

Van Ham, P. (2001) The rise of the brand state: the postmodern politics of image and reputation, Foreign

Affairs, 80(5): 2-6.

Weisrode, Kenneth (2013) Old Diplomacy Revisited: A Study in the Modern History of Diplomatic

Transformations. Palgrave. [Online] Available at:

http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137393081. (Accessed: 15 May 2015).


Documents

kucuris.ku.dk/ws/files/142147718/Sikkerhedskopi_af... · Web viewMouritzen, Hans and Anders Wivel (2012) Explaining Foreign Policy: International Diplomacy and the Russo-Georgian