What is diplomacy? The term covers considerable territory, but the key element is that it deals with international relations, broadly understood. In the Encyclopédie Larousse, for example, there are at least three meanings attached to the word “diplomacy.” First, diplomacy refers to the “action and (the) manner of representing one’s country to a foreign nation and in international negotiations.” Second, diplomacy is concerned with the “external policy of a country, of a government.” Finally, diplomacy is the “branch of political science which concerns international relations.” Therefore, it refers to at least three distinct realities: It is, simultaneously, a particular activity, a sector of state intervention, and a subspecialty of political science. Yet, within public service, the word may also serve to designate the career devoted to representing a country or the group of individuals who fulfill this undertaking.
Be that as it may, the ordinary use of the term remains unaccounted for. In general, the term “diplomacy” is often employed metaphorically, to refer to the tact and skill considered to define diplomatic action. Here, the term applies to all behavior or attitudes which correspond to this way of conducting oneself. Nonetheless, we will see below that the etymology of the concept reveals an entirely different story.
This textbook aims to define the particular field of diplomacy, starting with an examination of its nature and its functions. Thus, we will attach a contextual importance to different usages of the term, with content varying from one chapter to another. Accordingly, the objective of this introduction is to further clarify the concept of “diplomacy,” notably through explaining its connection to foreign policy.
This introduction proceeds in three parts. First, it traces the historical evolution of practices defined as “diplomatic,” taking issue with conventional accounts that single out Greece as the starting point. Our interpretation breaks with the most common approach in the literature (Berridge 2015), while reflecting the latest work done on the historical archives of diplomacy. In the second section, we explore debates about the theorization of diplomacy. Finally, the introduction proposes a fresh examination of the concept of diplomacy, to further explain both its nature and content. We hope such a counterintuitive approach will encourage new engagement with both the theory and practice of diplomacy today.
The Diplomatic Phenomenon in History
When texts on diplomacy seek to explain how it has evolved, they often begin with an omission: The norms, institutions, and instruments of diplomacy (protocol, notes and treaties, etc.) existed well before the Greek or Florentine periods that laid claim to them. Indeed, for almost two thousand years, that is between approximately 2500 and 609 B.C.,1 the Middle East experienced exchanges similar in form to what is currently understood as diplomacy. Consequently, recent research on the history of diplomacy argues for a recognition of the diversity of its origins, in fact, of its decentering (Sharlach 2005). Cohen (2001), for example, suggests that there is a “grand tradition” in diplomacy that runs from the Mesopotamian period to the Roman epoch, through ancient Greece. In support of this thesis, Cohen stresses that from one historical perspective to another—with more or less significant variations—one may detect a series of ideas, norms, practices, and roles structuring the relationships between sometimes sovereign political entities, which still characterize diplomatic interactions today (Weinfeld 1993). In this reorientation of the history of diplomacy, classical and modern forms (still referred to as European by some) are preceded by a Middle Eastern touch, which in many respects renews the interpretation previously made of the other two forms. What follows will explain exactly how this occurs.
Diplomacy in the ancient Middle East is associated with a collection of norms, instruments, and institutions settled over time, thanks, in particular, to the practices of various successive dynasties in what now constitutes the territory of Iraq. Some documents dating from 2500 B.C. refer to the existence of kings’ envoys or messengers. Here, there is often mention of cuneiform diplomacy, insofar as the medium of communication is writing of this type developed in lower Mesopotamia, between 3400 and 3200 B.C. Besides a shared system of royal envoys, a language (Sumerian) and writing, cuneiform diplomacy includes an entire complex network of relations between kings linked by fraternity, the obligations of reciprocity, an embryonic form of protocol, the bases of an ethical system of negotiation, the exchange of gifts, and the rudiments of a bureaucracy responsible for processing and attributing assignments to envoys, of managing correspondence and of archiving documents (Cohen 2017, 22). Nonetheless, during this period, there was no diplomatic immunity, as such. However, envoys were protected against any form of attack on their person.
We owe our knowledge of many diplomatic practices from the ancient Middle East to clay tablets discovered at various sites. Two collections constitute the core of the material. The first, the Royal Archives of Mari (1700–1670 B.C.), was brought to light in Syria. In these tablets, the norms, instruments, and organizations responsible for diplomacy are developed. For example, envoys are henceforth differentiated as a function of their rank. Some are mere messengers, while others can negotiate and sign treaties in the name of their sovereign, which is, in fact, the current equivalent of plenipotentiary ambassadors. The latter are recognized in the texts as representatives of kings and, thus, receive the honors due to the sovereigns whose agents they are. Some of these new diplomats reside in a foreign location for many years. It seems that this period also saw the emergence of “letters of accreditation” and what came to be known—much later—as “diplomatic passports.”
The Amarna Archives, discovered in Egypt, provide additional clues.2 The cornerstone of the system of Amarna is the emissary, endowed with exceptional diplomatic talents. In the name of their sovereigns, emissaries negotiated various types of agreements, marriages, and commercial treaties. At the same time, the archives confirm the interweaving of ritual and diplomacy, reciprocity as a basic principle of interactions between kingdoms, the significant role of protocol in the conduct of diplomatic affairs, and the crucial place of the exchange of gifts in both the construction and consolidation of diplomatic ties.
Classical diplomacy brings us back to the legacy of ancient Greece 3 as much as to that of the Roman Republic (509–27 B.C.) and the Roman Empire (27 B.C.–641 A.D., corresponding to the fall of the Roman Empire of the East). The extraordinary interconnection of the two worlds, as the works of Paul Veyne (2005) have demonstrated, should not overshadow the singular identity of the diplomatic processes of each space. Greek diplomacy of the time was, in some ways, essentially turned inward since its main preoccupation was to regulate interactions among city-states. There, diplomacy was not considered an important domain for government action. Decisions concerning the relationships with other entities were taken in public. Moreover, contrary to the Mesopotamian period, diplomacy in classical Greece was especially distinguished by minimal, in fact, nonexistent, protocol. The diplomats sent to Athens were not protected, and it was not uncommon for them to be executed.
That being said, ancient Greece, especially during the Hellenistic period, contributed to the development or reinforcement of certain diplomatic institutions. For example, in the seventh century B.C., Sparta invented the multilateral alliance mechanism as a security guarantee and to preserve the common peace. The diplomatic phenomenon is distinguished by two other institutions of this period. On the one hand, there is the recourse to arbitration as a means of settling differences. On the other hand, there is the reliance upon the proxenos, a citizen of the state in which he resides, responsible for protecting the interests of citizens of the state whose representative he is. However, the proxenos remains loyal to the state to which he belongs and not to the one whose interests he has agreed to defend. Finally, it seems that the title of proxenos was often inherited (Gerolymatos 1986).
Despite its rudimentary practices, diplomacy in ancient Greece provided some elements that inspired the Roman model, notably the usage of arbitration in the resolution of conflicts. Yet the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire are rarely associated with diplomacy. Their military prowess attracts more attention. Thus, Harold Nicolson (1950, 14) claims that the Romans developed no notable diplomatic methods, due to their tendency to prefer military coercion to the detriment of negotiation on the basis of principles of reciprocity. However, such a position does not stand up to scrutiny. If Rome became an empire, it owed this to its diplomatic skill, as much as to its military genius. Brian Campbell (2001) effectively demonstrates that, in its conquest of Italy, Rome, which until that point had been merely one small city-state among others in Latium, sometimes employed war, sometimes negotiation, to expand its network of allies. And, he asks, how can one explain the unshakeable loyalty of numerous allies of Rome during Hannibal’s invasion (218–203 B.C.), if it was not due to the Roman Republic’s power of persuasion and seduction?
Diplomacy in the Republic or the Empire was, first and foremost, a matter of personal contacts. Its formalization remained fragile (Eilers 2009). Nevertheless, we can observe that the signing of treaties, such as the declaration of war, followed a rigorously defined ritual, overseen by the college of fetials (the college of priests of ancient Rome). This ritual served the purpose of ensuring that acts were accomplished in accordance with religious requirements. In this sense, diplomacy in ancient Rome fell under the authority and protection of the gods (Saulnier 1980). The envoys of the Roman state, responsible to the Senate, had a limited right of initiative in their transactions with foreign entities. The Senate could, in effect, unravel everything which had been discussed or even finalized with foreign states.
The principal functions of Roman diplomacy recorded in...