In 2022, ten trends will impact digital diplomacy across three main areas:
Changes in the political, social, and economic ENVIRONMENT in which diplomacy is conducted: digital and redistribution of power in international relations, new types of conflicts, digital interdependence and sovereignty, etc.
The use of digital TOOLS in the practice of diplomacy: social media, online conferencing, big data and AI analysis, etc.
Specific Issue Areas: Digital foreign policy | Social media and public diplomacy | Online meetings and conferences | Digital geopolitics | Diplomacy in tech hubs | Literature and research | Courses and training | Data and diplomacy | AI and diplomacy | Cybermediation | History of technology and diplomacy
Before you embark on the digital (and) diplomacy journey, make sure you clarify any terminological ambiguities……
Should it be ‘digital’, ‘cyber’, ‘tech’, ‘net’, ‘virtual’, or ‘e-‘ diplomacy?
The use of different adjectives and prefixes to describe the digitalisation of diplomacy tends to create confusion in discussions and policies in this field. This confusion could be reduced by having clearer instructions on what certain terms, such as ‘cyber’, ‘digital’, and ‘tech’ diplomacy cover.
For example, does ‘digital diplomacy’ refer to negotiations about digital policy issues or the use of Twitter and Facebook for public diplomacy?
You can find more insights on how to reduce the terminological confusion around the digitalisation of diplomacy in our blog post Different prefixes, same meaning: cyber, digital, net, online, virtual, e-.
Geo-political and geo-economic ENVIRONMENT for diplomatic activities
Digital dependence makes countries highly vulnerable to any disruption of data flows. Maintaining data flows worldwide is vital to the social stability, economic well-being, and the growth of countries. For example, the disruption of e-commerce, e-banking, and platform services, such as Airbnb and Uber, could cause great economic disruption.
Global geopolitics depends heavily on access to the main internet cables carrying internet traffic between countries and continents. Presently, more than 90% of all global internet traffic flows through submarine cables which mostly follow the old geographical routes used by telegraph cables in the nineteenth century.
Internet cables are a tangible aspect of data geopolitics. Damage to cables can disconnect an entire country from the internet, which can have profound economic and political consequences. In 2008, the cutting of the main internet cables near Alexandria (Egypt) gave us the first glimpse of the consequences for users and businesses in the Gulf region and India.
Key strategic points, such as the Suez Canal and Melaka (Malaysia), remain as relevant today as they were in the past. For example, most of the data traffic between Asia and Europe goes via Egypt (Alexandria, the Suez Canal). Other critical points include Luzon island (Philippines) and Hormuz island (Irania).
The diversity of data traffic routes has increased via terrestrial cables. Submarine cables are increasingly being supplemented by terrestrial ones. The Digital Silk Road (DSR), part of China’s One Belt – One Road initiative, aims to span Eurasia with fibre-optic cables laid along newly built railroads and energy pipelines.
You can learn more about internet traffic hubs and digital geopolitics in out post ‘The impact of (big) data on geopolitics, negotiations, and the diplomatic modus operandi’.
Digitalisation triggers a new distribution of economic and societal power. For example, Apple’s market capitalisation at the end of 2020 (US$2.23 trillion) was similar to the total 2019 GDP of the entire African continent (US$2.33 trillion), and is close to the GDPs of the UK (US$2.81 trillion), France (US$2.79 trillion), and India (US$2.69 trillion).
You can compare your country’s GDP with the economic might of tech companies via our Compare Countries to Tech Companies tool.
Following the increasing economic and social power of tech companies, many countries have started establishing representation in tech hubs, such as Silicon Valley. For more on this shift towards tech diplomacy, you can consult Diplo’s studies on diplomatic representation in Silicon Valley and Boston.
Diplomacy in the tech hubs
New digital policy centres have emerged around the fast-growing tech industry. In the USA, digital economic dynamism is based in the San Francisco Bay Area which hosts most leading tech companies. As the Diplo study The rise of TechPlomacy in the Bay Area shows, more than 50 countries have been developing their representation in the Bay Area either via traditional consulates in San Francisco or via new types of representation such as the Swissnex hub. While the presence in the Bay Area is important for understanding what is coming next and for attracting investment, tech companies, on the other hand, station most of their governance units in Washington DC or Boston, highlighting the growing interdependence between governments and Big Tech.
Note: For additional information, read Diplo’s research paper Science & Diplomacy: How Countries Interact with the Boston Innovation Ecosystem.
In China, most of the digital dynamism is happening in the Shenzhen area, while Beijing acts as the regulatory and policy centre for digital issues.
A new TOPIC on the diplomatic agenda & Digital foreign policy
Diplomats have to deal with a new set of digital policy issues when promoting the interests of their countries. In many countries, digital foreign policy is emerging as analysed on our dedicated Digital Foreign Policy page. Digital foreign policy has to address – according to Diplo’s taxonomy – more than 50 digital policy issues organised in 7 baskets: Technology, Security, Human rights, Economy, Development, Legal, and Sociocultural.
Most of these issues are addressed in the context of the internet and digital governance. Anyone navigating this field should be aware of potential terminological confusion.
In our illustration on digital governance below, you can find a mapping of digital policy issues where each basket is presented as one subway line, while the issues are displayed as stops. The map also depicts the various interplays between them.
As visualised above, Diplo’s digital governance taxonomy has been developed through iterative processes over the last 20 years, relying on inputs from policy processes (such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)), and research and teaching activities. Diplo’s taxonomy is a classification of internet governance adopted in the only official classification of digital policy that was prepared by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD) in 2014: The Mapping of International Internet Public Policy Issues.
You can learn more about internet and digital governance in Diplo’s certified online course, the Introduction to Internet Governance , as well as Dr Jovan Kurbalija’s book An Introduction to Internet Governance (DiploFoundation, 7th edition).
Digital policy and the UN
The UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation (June 2020) provides an entry point to digital policy at the United Nations. Specific implementation activities are listed in the summary of the Roadmap.
The Roadmap builds on the report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation (Panel) titled ‘The Age of Digital Interdependence’.
The report, published in June 2019, provides five sets of recommendations:
- build an inclusive digital economy and society
- develop human and institutional capacity
- protect human rights and human agency
- promote digital trust, security, and stability
- foster global digital cooperation
One of the key recommendations on digital governance outlines three proposed models for digital governance: co-governance, IGF Plus, and Digital Commons.
A new digital TOOL for diplomacy
Diplomats use digital tools in their daily work, from negotiations and representation, to communication and policy analysis. Although the most focused is the use of social media for public diplomacy (e.g. Twitter diplomacy, Facebook diplomacy), digital tools have a much more substantial impact on other functions of diplomacy as described below.
‘Zoom diplomacy’: Online meetings and e-participation
During the COVID-19 pandemic, diplomacy has shifted online to conferencing platforms such as Zoom. However online meetings are not as new as one might think.
The first online participation session in multilateral diplomacy was held by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 1963. Since then, the availability of the internet in conference rooms has made remote participation a reality for more inclusive and open international negotiations.
Online meetings come with many pros and cons. As the pandemic crisis has shown, they provide business continuity. They also increase inclusion by allowing participation without being physically present, which is often conditioned by travel and other expenses. Among the major cons of online meetings is the lack of physical contact, which is important for building trust and empathy that are essential for dealing with, in particular, controversial and political issues.
As the illustration shows, in addition to traditional physical and remote meetings, there will be the emergence of ‘hybrid (blended)’ meetings that will combine in situ and online participation. Hybrid meetings will require new techniques for planning and running meetings, as you can see on our ConfTech page.
Social media for public diplomacy
Twitter and Facebook are currently the most popular e-tools used by diplomatic services globally.
Twitter is used as a tool for public diplomacy in many countries. It remains to be seen if and how the current controversies around Twitter will affect diplomacy. For more information, consult our publication Twitter for Diplomats (2013).
Other social media tools used in public diplomacy include Facebook, YouTube, FlickR, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Instagram.
The 5 core e-competences
The specific value of e-tools lies in the set of core skills, i.e., the five core e-competences (5Cs) that diplomats need to harness:
- Curate: Listening is the first step. It is done by curating information and knowledge.
- Collaborate: While you curate, you gradually start collaborating both within your organisation and with outside communities. You start developing your community by sharing resources, asking questions, etc.
- Communicate: It is time to start communicating. This skill represents the ability and knowledge to extend your outreach and visibility.
- Create: After curating, collaborating, and communicating, you are much more comfortable in social media. You have a solid following. It is time to focus more on creating your online content.
- Critique: By now you should have gained more social visibility. This also exposes you to more critical comments and discussions. You need to engage in critical discussions and learn how to manage criticism.
In the context of digital diplomacy, these competencies represent the skills and knowledge needed by professionals to perform optimally in the digital world. Effective social media campaigns are also based on these core skills. Nevertheless, the development of competencies in digital diplomacy requires time.
On social media, we estimate that a practitioner requires:
- One day to get acquainted with e-tools for digital diplomacy
- One month to become a good e-listener and to actively follow the core resources
- One year to become an active e-diplomat, i.e., to contribute and develop a stable following.
These timeframes are not fixed, but they do demonstrate the ratio and proportion of time needed for an e-diplomat to acquire and employ core e-competences.
Learn more about these skills by joining Diplo’s E-Diplomacy accredited online course.
Geneva Engage is an initiative of the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP), supported by the Republic and State of Geneva, and DiploFoundation. Through its annual event, Geneva Engage awards the most engaging use of social media and online meetings by international organisations, non-governmental, and non-profit organisations, as well as permanent representations to the United Nations Office in Geneva.
Read also: 2020: The year of online participation
AI and big data for policy analysis
Data has a lot of potential to be used for diplomacy and evidence-based policymaking, as analysed in the report Data Diplomacy: Updating Diplomacy to the Big Data Era (2018). The report maps the main opportunities of big data and lists their practical applications. Read our executive summary and the full report.
Apply for our online courses on digital (and) diplomacy:
To view the full list of Diplo’s courses and training, visit our Course Catalogue.
20+ years of digital diplomacy
Back in 1992, there were two early digital diplomacy developments. At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, civil society activists used emails and mailing lists for the first time to coordinate their position in lobbying and negotiations. At the same time, in Malta, the first Unit for Computer Applications in Diplomacy was established at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies. The unit later evolved into DiploFoundation, which, over the last 20+ years has conducted research and trained thousands of diplomats on how computers and the internet impact diplomacy.
A summary of 20+ years of e-diplomacy would include the introduction of email, the use of websites by diplomatic services and international organisations, the arrival of computers in conference rooms (with the introduction of notebooks and Wi-Fi) and, most recently, the intensive use of social media such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. The introduction of each new e-tool challenged the way things were done traditionally and opened up new opportunities for diplomats and diplomacy.
In 2010, Diplo launched the 2010 E-diplomacy Initiative, consisting of awareness building and the launch of events in main diplomatic centres, including the International Conference on E-diplomacy (June 2010, Malta). The E-diplomacy Initiative created momentum for courses, research, and community discussions on e-diplomacy. Many of the issues discussed during the events and the conference (social media, security, openness vs discretion in diplomacy) became quite topical during the public discussions on WikiLeaks and diplomacy.
FAQs on Digital Diplomacy
by Jovan Kurbalija and Artificial Intelligence
These FAQs were created using both human and artificial intelligence. Jovan represents human. He is a pioneer in digital diplomacy education & research. In 1996, he invented the three-partite methodology for digital diplomacy consisting of: Digital Geopolitics shaping the environment for diplomacy, Digital Topics on diplomatic agenda and Digital Tools for diplomatic activities.
Following this methodology, he has published dozens of publications and led Diplo’s training on digital diplomacy and diplomacy. The training involved more than 6000 diplomats and other officials representing 202 territories and countries since 1996.
Artificial intelligence use machine learning to process thousands of pages on digital diplomacy and distil answer to your question. Jovan (expert), and AI will provide new insights and nurture enhanced intelligence as you can follow here.
They can often be interchanged. There are however some patterns emerging in their usage. Cyber diplomacy is used more to refer to diplomatic activities related to cyber security issues. There is more confusion about digital diplomacy being used to implement digital foreign policy (new topics in diplomatic agenda) and the use of new tools in diplomatic practice like social media, websites and online meeting platforms.
It is possible to avoid confusion in the current, transitory phase of terminology settling.
– The evolving geopolitical ENVIRONMENT for diplomacy: impact of digital technology on sovereignty distribution of power, and global interdependence among other issues.
– The emergence of new TOPICS in diplomatic agenda: cybersecurity. internet governance, e-commerce, online human rights, and more than 50 other policy topics.
– Use of new TOOLS in diplomatic practice: social media, AI, big data, online meetings, virtual and augmented reality.
You can read more on terminological confusion and other aspects of digital diplomacy.
The future of the metaverse is still not clear.
Facebook has the network, financial and technical capabilities to make this happen. The government should be ready to address data protection, cybersecurity, digital identity, and other digital policy issues. These issues need to be addressed in a way that balances “real” reality (physical), virtual realities, and augmented realities.
It all comes down to semantics and context usage. These prefixes are frequently used in interchangeable ways. It is crucial to determine if a specific usage of cyber diplomacy/digital diplomacy or even e-diplomacy refers only to digital geopolitics, topics, or tools. You can learn more about different usages of prefixes in digital diplomacy.
The Vienna convention (1961) on diplomatic relations does not specify how countries will be represented. They are typically represented in another country by an embassy or other types of diplomatic missions. However, there are many other options available such as rowing (nonresident Ambassadors). Online diplomatic representation can be considered legal. It is yet to be seen if this practice will increase in popularity over the next few years.
Some approaches subsume science diplomacy under public diplomacy. In this sense, science diplomacy is about winning hearts and minds; it is about creating a positive image of one’s country.
For clarity, let us look at a definition of public diplomacy. According to the USC Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD), it is defined as ‘the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals. […] The concept of soft power coined by international relations scholar Joseph Nye has, for many, become a core concept in public diplomacy studies. Nye defines soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments”‘.
From this description and the examples on this page, we can see that science diplomacy is much more than public diplomacy and the one should not be reduced to the other. Having said this, it is important to recognise that for many countries, and in particular the USA, the practice of science diplomacy often has strong elements of public diplomacy.
Science diplomacy is not a new practice. Yet, the term itself only came into general use relatively recently. While there is not one specific point at which the term emerged in its current use, its prominence in publications and various discourses began around 2005 (Flink and Rüffin, 2019).
Yet, examples of science diplomacy can be identified much earlier. Scholars Flink and Rüffin trace science diplomacy, understood as ‘scientific cooperation across borders’, back to the 17th century and the emergence of ‘modern’ science (Flink and Rüffin, 2019). They argue that communication and collaboration among scientists across borders finds its origin there. For example, in 1723, the British Royal Society created the position of ‘foreign secretary’ of the Royal Society.
This person was ‘to maintain regular correspondence with scientists overseas to ensure that the Society’s Fellows remained up-to-date with the latest ideas and research findings’ (Royal Society, 2010, p. 1). The emergence of modern nation states in the 19th century and rising nationalism, however, challenged cooperation across borders. Some scientific cooperation across borders, for example in the field of astronomy, still flourished during that time. Nationalism also gave new impetus to scientific progress as a means to foster a nation’s reputation 17and thus emphasised competition.
If we focus on science diplomacy as a set of activities and policies pursued by state actors, then the practice of sending representatives abroad to act as ‘science envoys’ or ‘science attachés’ can be traced back to at least the late 19th century (Linkov et al., 2014). In 1898, the USA stationed a science attaché, the zoologist Charles Wardell Stiles, at its Berlin embassy. As part of US diplomacy, science attachés became more prominent in the 1950s and 1960s.
3 writings of diplomacy illustrate different ways in which diplomacy is perceived today:
diplomacy – written in lower-case letters – reflects our daily experience. At home, at work, and on the street, we deal with conflicts through negotiations, engagement, and ultimately, compromise. In addition, we represent our family, our communities, and our companies. We often speak on behalf of others. This is what diplomacy is about. Most people would not use the term ‘diplomacy’ to describe these activities. Yet, these activities are at the core of diplomacy.
Diplomacy – with a capital ‘D’ – is a profession and a system of representation for states. This is how diplomacy is seen in the news. It is about negotiations and international treaties, among other elements. Traditionally, Diplomacy is performed by diplomats and international officials working in embassies, ministries of foreign affairs, and international organisations. A lot has been written about Diplomacy; and you can read more about it on Diplo’s website.
DIPLOMACY – fully written in upper-case letters – is how diplomacy is often perceived by the general public. This is the diplomacy of flags, receptions, black limousines, and protocol. DIPLOMACY looks glamorous and aristocratic. This perception can be traced back to the history of diplomacy, when it was a profession reserved for aristocrats.
Cybersecurity is a protection of the Internet and other information systems from malicious threats, misuse and malfunctioning. Cybersecurity covers wide area including protection from cyberwar, terrorist attack and cybercrime, among others. Cybersecurity is implemented through policies, procedures and technical solutions.
Digital diplomacy refers to the impact of digital technology on diplomacy in three realms:
- changing digital geopolitical and geoconomic ENVIRONMENT for diplomatic activities (sovereignty, power redistribution, interdependence)
- emerging digital TOPICS on diplomatic agenda (e.g. cybersecurity, e-commerce, privacy protection, and
- new TOOLS for diplomatic activites (e.g. social media, big data, AI).
Digital divide refers to social inequalities created by the introduction of computers and the Internet into human society. It is manifested in differences in number of computers, access to the Internet and available applications. Digital divide is most commonly used to describe the difference between developed and developing countries in the use of digital technology and the Internet. However, divides exists on various levels, including between young and old, urban and rural, and among different professions.
In its broadest sense, diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by peaceful means.
More restrictive is this definition: diplomacy is the peaceful conduct of international relations by official agents of states, international organisations, and other international actors.
Even more restrictive is the definition of diplomacy as the conduct of relations between sovereign states by members of their respective foreign services. There are also a wide range of definitions based on functions of diplomacy:
Representation is one of the most important functions of diplomacy. Costas Constantinou blends the concepts of representation and communication in his definition:
“At its basic level, diplomacy is a regulated process of communication between at least two subjects, conducted by their representative agents over a particular object.”
The next set of definitions is focused on communication and the sharing of information. In The International Law of Diplomacy, B.S. Murthy defines diplomacy as,
“the process of transnational communication among the elites in the world arena.” Brian White defines diplomacy, both as “a communication process between international actors that seek through negotiation and dialogue to resolve conflicts” and as “one instrument that international actors use to implement their foreign policy”.
Tran Van Dinh’s most concise explanation of the importance communication has for diplomacy is:
“Communication is to diplomacy as blood is to the human body. Whenever communication ceases, the body of international politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is violent conflict or atrophy.” Constantiou describes diplomacy as “a regulated process of communication” (Constantinou) and James Alan as “the communication system of the international society”.
The third approach focuses on the definition of diplomacy as negotiation. Quincy Wright defines diplomacy as:
“the art of negotiation, in order to achieve the maximum of group objectives with a minimum of costs, within a system of politics in which war is a possibility.”
Hendely Bull defines diplomacy as
“the management of international relations by negotiations.”
Join wide range of courses on diplomacy
Unfortunately, online politeness is declining. Language is divisive and offensive.
It’s possible to regain your e-politeness with careful language usage. Sarcasm should be avoided as it can easily lead to offence.
Internet governance is defined by the World Summit on Information Society (Tunis Agenda, 2005) as “the development and application by Governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”
Term online diplomacy is loosing its relevance and traction.
E-politeness is about online behaviour that reflects respect and courtesy, just as it should be in real life.
Public diplomacy only covers one aspect of digital diplomacy related to the use of TOOLS for diplomacy including Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Other aspects of digital diplomacy include new TOPICS on diplomatic agenda and changing geopolitical or geo-economic ENVIRONMENT.
However, digital diplomacy may sometimes be seen as just public diplomacy because of high media visibility of the use of Twitter and Facebook in international politics.
Science and technology are both considered the foundations of modern society. These terms are often used in modern parlance. The fundamental difference between science and technology is that it can be viewed as “disinterested knowledge and research” but not necessarily aimed at solving a practical problems. Technology is commonly referred to in this way as “applied science”.
But, it’s difficult to discern such clear distinctions in practice. Technology and science are often interconnected. It is not easy to tell the difference between scientific discoveries in mathematics, and the development of computers. Science and technology have been complementing one another. This distinction has become more blurred in the last ten years.
In the complex interplay of multiple issues and actors in diplomacy, the key challenge is to place certain issues on global diplomatic agendas. Similarly to the media in general and the world of the Internet, a fight for attention takes place, in this case diplomatic attention. Kehone and Nye suggest that states “struggle to get issues raised in international organisations that will maximise their advantage by broadening or narrowing the agenda.”
Currently, there are many unresolved issues related to Internet governance. As a result, extensive manoeuvring by different actors trying to place their own issues on emerging Internet diplomatic agendas is taking place.
Science attachés played an important role in the response to COVID-19. In the cases of France and the UK, the science attaché network was particularly important as part of the initial crisis response. This included supporting repatriation efforts and giving advice in the area of medical technologies to colleagues from other fields, such as trade. Later, science attachés were important in collecting information on initiatives and publications in their geographic region.
It is interesting to observe, though, that they mainly supported national efforts while Unsurprisingly, science attachés played an important role in the response to COVID-19. In the cases of France and the UK, the science attaché network was particularly important as part of the initial crisis response. This included supporting repatriation efforts and giving advice in the area of medical technologies to colleagues from other fields, such as trade.
Later, science attachés were important in collecting information on initiatives and publications in their geographic region. It is interesting to observe, though, that they mainly supported national efforts while struggling to maintain contact and collaborate with colleagues from other countries.
Based on this experience, a number of suggestions have been made on how to improve the work of science attachés. You can read more in the article Science Attachés in a Post-COVID-19 World: Taking Stock of the Crisis from Science & Diplomacy.
Digital geopolitics and geoeconomics
New Topics on the Diplomatic Agenda
6. Economy and development in 2022 will be shaped around digital trade negotiations and initiatives to regulate the enormous power of tech companies via antitrust, fiscal, data, and other instruments.
New Tools for Diplomatic Activities
From our blog
03 June 2022
In France, a strike is not news. Diplomats going on strike? Now that is news. French diplomats\' strike against the Quai d\' Orsay reform signals existential concerns about diplomacy in France and beyond. Macron\'s di...
From a governmental perspective, national champions are usually private-led companies seen as vital to promoting the interests of the nation. Often, this recognition translates into governmental policies that support ...
15 April 2022
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, US intelligence agencies were fundamentally reformed in order to address fragmentation and policy silos as major reasons for their failure to prevent these attacks. It is now the ...
In 2021, I participated in the Artificial Intelligence online course offered by Diplo. In one of our online sessions, a passionate debate flared on the topic of the day: AI’s ethical and human rights implications. T...
31 Jan 22 - 31 Jan 22
07 Jan 22 - 17 Jan 22
11 Nov 21 - 11 Nov 21
18 Oct 21 - 18 Oct 21
07 Sep 21 - 07 Sep 21
08 Jun 21 - 08 Jun 21
06 Apr 21 - 06 Apr 21
02 Mar 21 - 02 Mar 21
23 Nov 20 - 23 Nov 20
12 Oct 20 - 12 Oct 20
08 Oct 20 - 08 Oct 20
30 Jun 20 - 30 Jun 20
04 May 20 -
06 Nov 19 - 08 Nov 19
18 Sep 19 -
10 Sep 19 - 11 Sep 19
02 Jul 19 -
01 Jul 19 - 05 Jul 19
20 May 19 -
06 May 19 -
22 Oct 18 - 24 Oct 18
United Arab Emirates
12 Jul 18 -
17 Apr 18 - 18 Apr 18
28 Feb 18 - 01 Mar 18
08 Feb 18 -
05 Feb 18 - 06 Feb 18
20 Dec 17 - 21 Dec 17
05 Dec 17 -
09 Nov 17 -
09 Oct 17 -
30 Aug 17 - 01 Sep 17
17 May 17 - 19 May 17
02 May 17 -
27 Apr 17 -
05 Apr 17 -
21 Oct 16 - 21 Oct 16
28 Aug 15 - 29 Aug 15
26 Jun 15 -
11 May 15 - 12 May 15
02 Feb 15 -
10 Dec 13 -
02 Nov 13 -
10 Oct 13 -
30 Jun 13 -
06 May 13 -
24 Apr 13 - 26 Apr 13
16 Apr 13 -
12 Apr 13 -
08 Mar 13 -
28 Nov 12 -
19 Nov 12 - 20 Nov 12
16 Nov 12 -
25 Jun 12 - 26 Jun 12
Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 Jun 12 -
07 May 12 - 15 Jul 12
19 Mar 12 - 22 Mar 12
13 Mar 12 - 14 Mar 12
04 Feb 12 -
25 Oct 11 - 26 Oct 11
06 Apr 11 -
13 Dec 10 - 14 Dec 10
13 Dec 10 - 16 Dec 10
03 Jun 10 - 04 Jun 10
25 May 10 -
19 May 10 -
29 Apr 10 - 30 Apr 10
27 Apr 10 -
26 Apr 10 -
14 Apr 10 -
17 Jun 08 - 18 Jun 08
14 Jun 07 - 15 Jun 07
22 May 07 -
International Conference – Challenges for Foreign Ministries: Managing Diplomatic Networks and Optimising Value
31 May 06 - 01 Jun 06
EU's Council Conclusions on Digital Diplomacy introduce a holistic approach including cybersecurity, standardisation, human rights, and other digital topics. There is also a prominent link between green and digital/cyber diplomacy. ... Read more...
Journal of Moral Theology dedicated special issue on 'artificial intelligence'.... Read more...
This study analyses the capacity development of cyber diplomacy, including training opportunities, tools, and other resources, and looks at their reach, take-up, and what should come next. Why? Because although cyber diplomacy, the conduct of diplomacy with respect to ... Read more...
Cyber diplomacy, the conduct of diplomacy with respect to a state’s interests in cyberspace, is too important to ignore. Yet, the participation of countries is far from ideal.... Read more...
The Enterprise Data Strategy (EDS) aims to ensure that State Department’s workforce is equipped with the timely and relevant data necessary to make informed management decisions.... Read more...
While digital tools, in particular social media, have been gradually introduced to the practice of diplomacy, many open questions remain regarding the impact of digitisation on foreign policy and the environment in which diplomacy is practised. This is where digital fo... Read more...
As the theme of this issue, ‘foreign policy for the 4th industrial revolution’, suggests, diplomats and foreign ministries are faced with tremendous changes brought about by digitalisation. The ability to respond to these changes appropriately and effectively deter... Read more...
International cyber security diplomatic negotiations: Role of Africa in inter-regional cooperation for a global approach on the security and stability of cyberspace
This research paper examines African countries cybersecurity readiness and how Africa can play a role in shaping international negotiations and discussions on global cybersecurity governance.... Read more...