Search form

By on 09 May, 2010 | From the channel/s: E-Diplomacy

Tweeter is both powerful and risky as a tool for politicians.  This is the main message in the Economist article on Twitter. Although it focuses on politicians, many aspects could apply to diplomats as well. As an illustration of the power of Twitter, the Economist starts with, what else, Obama's campaign, but it also mentions other prominent tweeters including Pinera (new Chilean president), Chavez and George Papandreou.

By on 06 May, 2010 | From the channel/s: E-Diplomacy

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in the Internet Era

by Gergő Pasqualetti, Permanent Representation of Hungary to the European Union

By on 07 Mar, 2010 | From the channel/s: E-Diplomacy

Video-conferencing was a big hype in the 1990s when it was promoted as a way to replace traditional meetings. As with much hype, it was followed by a "disillusionment" phase.

People simply preferred traditional meetings. In the meantime, video gradually entered into international conference rooms and meetings. Today, it is normal to have the keynote address delivered via video. Here is an example of one of fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, addressing the 4th Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, 2009 (video by Seiiti Arata).

By on 29 Jun, 2002 | From the channel/s: Diplo Blog

Louise Lassonde (Coping with Population Challenges, London: Earthscan Publications Limited, 1996, 7) provides the following example: "In the Cairo Programme, various formulations which were contradictory a priori were worded in such a way as to satisfy all parties. This is what happened in the controversy over abortion, which was circumvented by means of a wording that satisfied all groups. It reads as follows:

By on 29 Jun, 2002 | From the channel/s: Diplo Blog

Ambiguous formulations are used in diplomacy to allow for a degree of consensus when parties to a negotiation cannot come to an agreement. Drazen Pehar explains

By on 29 Jun, 2002 | From the channel/s: Diplo Blog

Arguments can be found both against and for the use of ambiguity in diplomacy. Opponents point out that an ambiguous formulation in a treaty or agreement does not actually resolve a problem but simply puts it off until a later time, or allows the parties to the agreement a means of avoiding their obligations. Proponents respond that in a conflict, any tactic that brings an end to actually physical violence is useful and valuable.


Scroll to Top