Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy – serie

Catastrophe and Conflict: Disaster Diplomacy and Its Foreign Policy Implications examines how and why disaster-related activities (disaster response and disaster risk reduction) do and do not lead to diplomatic endeavours. With respect to foreign policy implications, the main question examined here is: Under what circumstances could disaster diplomacy be actively made to succeed or not to succeed? Previous case studies are summarised followed by new case studies of disease diplomacy and climate change diplomacy. From the case studies, disaster diplomacy could succeed when those in power decide that they want it to succeed and then use their power for that goal. This situation is not likely to arise because of only disaster-related activities. Instead, pre-existing interests supporting diplomacy are needed.

Despite growing interest in digital diplomacy, few studies to date have evaluated the extent to which foreign ministries have been able to realize its potential. Studies have also neglected to understand the manner in which diplomats define digital diplomacy and envision its practice. This article explores the digital diplomacy model employed by four foreign ministries through interviews and questionnaires with practitioners.

Since the publication of Der Derian’s seminal work On Diplomacy, diplomacy has been thought of as the mediation of estrangement between separated individuals, groups or political entities. In Paradiplomacy as a Diplomatic Broker, Manuel Duran focuses on paradiplomacy, the diplomatic practices of sub-state entities. He presents paradiplomacy as a specific site of diplomatic mediation, striking a middle ground between “realist” power play and the humanist need to connect to and engage with others. Indeed, the mediating of estrangement can be situated between both extremes of a continuum, with on the one hand absolute humanist diplomacy, aimed at rescinding all forms of separation between peoples, and on the other hand absolute power play diplomacy, maximizing these differences.

If a key aspect of diplomacy is how countries are seen abroad, official diplomats are not the only actors. In contexts as diverse as Syria, Myanmar and the South China Sea, think tanks are influential actors whose impact deserves greater study. As organisations producing independent intellectual outputs to influence public policy, think tanks engage in at least four diplomatic functions: negotiation, communication, information-gathering and promoting friendly relations in international affairs. Detailed case studies show that think tanks both directly perform and indirectly support diplomatic functions: as metaphorical hired guns, charm offensive, witnesses and safe space; as a school for diplomats, personal trainers, chief knowledge officer and wise counsel. To reach their full potential, think tanks need to overcome obstacles including resource constraints and relationships with policymakers.

Diplomacy is no longer restricted to a single vocation nor implemented exclusively through interaction amongst official representatives. In exploring the challenges that these transformations produce, this work surveys firstly, the genealogy of diplomacy as a profession, tracing how it changed from a civic duty into a vocation requiring training and the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills. Secondly, using the lens of the sociology of professions, the development of diplomacy as a distinctive profession is examined, including its importance for the consolidation of the power of modern nation-states. Thirdly, it examines how the landscape of professional diplomacy is being diversified and, we argue, enriched by a series of non-state actors, with their corresponding professionals, transforming the phenomenology of contemporary diplomacy. Rather than seeing this pluralization of diplomatic actors in negative terms as the deprofessionalization of diplomacy, we frame these trends as transprofessionalization, that is, as a productive development that reflects the expanded diplomatic space and the intensified pace of global interconnections and networks, and the new possibilities they unleash for practising diplomacy in different milieus.

One of the most dominant security issues of the twenty-first century has been the US led battle against transnational terrorism – the aptly named Long War. Over the past fifteen years the Long War has been examined using multiple perspectives. However, one central mechanism is missing in current Long War analyses: defence diplomacy. Defence diplomacy enhances the diplomatic and security capacity of a state, providing the only link between executive office and the ministries of foreign affairs and defence, two vital institutions in the Long War. Using a case study of US defence diplomacy in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, the paper argues simply that the practice of defence diplomacy far outweighs current theories on what it is, how it works and why it matters. The paper aims to generate a more nuanced understanding of defence diplomacy, as well as identify it as a key component of the US CT/COIN strategy to achieve their Long War policy objectives.

In Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy: A Subtle Game of Diplomatic Slap, Alisher Faizullaev describes how states and their representatives may use manipulative practices for influencing the opponent. The author distinguishes three forms of using symbolic insult in diplomacy: by misrecognition (“diplomatic bypassing”), direct confrontation (“diplomatic punch”), and concealed verbal or nonverbal actions (“diplomatic slap”). The book focuses on “diplomatic slap” – employing obscure symbolic insult as a means of tacit manipulation. Analyzing historical and modern cases, Alisher Faizullaev shows that implicit symbolic insult usually appears ambiguously, and allows the offender to stay engaged with the victim. This work reveals vailed aspects of diplomatic practices and represents a valuable source for students and practitioners of international politics and diplomacy.

Recognising the role science plays at a national level and identifying a state’s national diplomatic style can help to construct a ‘national style’ in science diplomacy. Different national styles affect competition between major powers and their shared responsibil-ity for global problems.

Scholars are seeking to identify how to constructively integrate faith into diplomacy. Proponents of faith-based diplomacy recognise that incorporating faith into peacemaking activities assists in managing identity-based conflict and religiously motivated violence in the contemporary international system. A promising strategy within the scope of faith-based diplomacy is interfaith dialogue. The study and practice of interfaith dialogue has been reinvigorated since the advent of 9/11, and yet the link between interfaith dialogue and diplomacy remains underdeveloped. The cases of Indonesia and the United States present lessons on how states can effectively use interfaith dialogue to achieve policy objectives, while recognising that some policies are detrimental to achieving diplomatic goals. This paper seeks to provide some framework for bringing interfaith dialogue into the scope of diplomacy by illuminating how faith-based diplomacy and interfaith dialogue can be innovative diplomatic perspectives useful in addressing contemporary global issues.

In The Geopolitics of Cyberspace: A Diplomatic Perspective, Riordan explores the extent to which the key concepts of classical and critical Geopolitics can be applied to cyberspace, and how they might explain the behaviour of key state and non-state actors. Case studies seek to apply both kinds of geopolitical analysis to the US, Russia, China, the EU and internet companies, discussing what it can tell us about their past and future behaviour. Riordan then explores the implications for both the theory and, especially, the practice of diplomacy in relationship to cyberspace. He argues that foreign ministries and diplomatic services need to reform both their culture and structures to engage successfully with the challenges posed by cyberspace. Underlying the article is an attempt to rescue both diplomacy and geopolitics from popular usages that risk emptying both concepts of meaning.