In theory, the diplomat is the agent of the principal – the state, tasked with pursuing the goals of the state with respect to other states, within the framework of international relations. In the best sense of the word, diplomats are golems. The agent has no independent agency.
In practice, diplomats formulate policy for the principal and execute it after approval. They are active both internally and externally. Though subsidiary, their dynamic role arises from the fact that diplomats know the context – both factual and legal – in which states interact.
Diplomacy, then, is twice a practice (see Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger by G. R. Berridge). First, because diplomats carry out diplomatic tasks at the direction or sufferance of the principal or sovereign – the theory, if there is one, is in the mind of the principal, not the agent. (Giorgio Agamben, following Carl Schmitt, defines ‘sovereignty’ as the right of exception. In this worldview, the diplomat is not allowed to make an exception: he reverts to the principal ‘for instructions’.) Second, in executing policy, diplomats embed their actions in the context. They act as demiurges, adjusting the rules of international relations to the circumstances. Theirs is the art of the possible, not the right.
Rituals, uniforms and the diplomatic guild
In approaching their external tasks, diplomats have set down diplomatic rituals – rules of correct behaviour – to ensure that actors properly understand diplomatic messages. Rituals are conventions that signify meanings – e.g. respect for the other principal, or self-affirmation. Rituals suggest and sharpen emotions and their intensity: they codify the non-verbal and make it legible, more explicit, or agreeable. It has not escaped my attention that diplomats are also a guild. Rituals, uniforms, pomp, and circumstance are signifiers of their unique (or monopolistic) role.
As part of their training, diplomats have established ‘diplomatic academies’. Unsurprisingly, a severe bout of ‘theory envy’ has emerged – both among professionals in international relations and in the exact sciences more generally.
Questioning diplomatic theories
Recently, I had access to a PhD dissertation on diplomatic theory (Reordering Diplomatic Theory for the Twenty-First Century: A Tripartite Approach by Stuart Murray). The author argues the need to question the relevance and adequacy of existing diplomatic theories to account for the complexity of the modern diplomatic environment. The challenges are:
In a grand finale reminiscent of the fourth movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the author produces a ‘comprehensive body of theory of modern diplomacy, where the reconciliation of the three diplomatic theories is paramount’. As they say, it is all done with mirrors.
In international relations, the tension between power-based and rule-based approaches has existed since time out of mind (in Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth, Peter Urchin argues causality from brute power to rules.). Though in ever-changing degrees, in my view, both worldviews have influenced history. International commerce in particular, but also national rule-setting, has given increasing impetus to rule-setting at the international level. (Power favours mercantilism. Democracies need free markets and free trade. These two worlds meet in the international arena. This interrelationship has been little studied, in part because Marxism pre-empted it. For a sober presentation, see To Have and To Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War by Jonathan Marshall.)
Wilsonianism set the stage for a major bout that is still ongoing.
While states have (up to a point) the monopoly on brute power, rules emerge spontaneously in many places, seeking legitimacy in ‘the consent of the governed’. Rules have many parents and often begin with dissenters and non-conformists asking for the ‘disestablishment’ of the state. (Non-conformist groups, Quakers, and missionary societies led the fight for the abolition of slavery – see Abolitionism.) NGOs are similar to such groups. The ‘information revolution’ adds to the problem. The internet offers rules that might apply in a particular context for premature discussion as universals. Emotionalism and populism interfere.
One could go on. The first point is that it would be too early for prescriptive (and predictive) ‘theory’. We do not even have an adequate ‘body of knowledge’ that allows us to understand what is going on. The second point is that this has much to do with international relations, but little with diplomacy as such. Therefore, talk of ‘diplomatic theory’ triggers in me an urge for Ockham’s Razor.
Is there nothing to be researched in the field of diplomacy? Indeed – if one knows where to look. In the next blog, I shall sketch a research programme that might address issues central to the future of diplomacy.
The post was first published on DeepDip.
Explore more of Aldo Matteucci’s insights on the Ask Aldo chatbot.
Click to show page navigation!
