kucuris.ku.dk/ws/files/142147718/sikkerhedskopi_af... · web viewmouritzen, hans and anders wivel...
TRANSCRIPT
“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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 2
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 3
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).
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 4
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 5
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.
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 6
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 7
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 8
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 9
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).
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 10
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 11
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
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 12
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.
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 13
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.
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 14
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.
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 15
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).
”Diplomatic Agency” – 2nd draft for SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy 16