Coventary University

Name: Asma Syed

Course Title: Diplomacy and International system

To what extent do you agree with the argument that diplomacy has fundamentally changed
since the start of the 21st Century?

Introduction:
In today's world of academic research, diplomacy is often viewed as a secondary issue to related
foreign policy. Therefore, due to its limited presence in real life, or we can say in daily life, most
of the people who deal with this concept of diplomacy remain distant subjects. However, it is
important to know about diplomatic activities because they help us to understand the broader
issues related to the international system and what kind of roles the different actors play in it.
Furthermore, in this world of globalization where everything is connected or connected to others
and there is a high interdependence between national and international affairs, therefore in
modern contemporary business it is very important to understand diplomacy.

Since the early 1990s there has been a great deal of interest in the relevance of diplomacy from
both academics and practitioners. Various arguments are put forward showing that the traditional
role of diplomats that exists in the international system has now been taken over by other non-
diplomatic actors. When we talk about the diplomat profession, it refers to the words and
knowledge management in the traditional system. In this current post-WWII system, where
communication technology is very fast, news channels are available 24/7, air travel is very easy,
the global development of 5G, 4G the role of diplomats is very symbolic, and we can say, that
their role is redundant. According to this view, they act as gatekeepers (innkeepers), or they act
as travel agencies of different states to represent their delegations. Consequently, this situation
leads to a crisis that the current governments face as they spend a lot of resources, but their
citizens complain that there is no significant appreciation or any appreciation.

This essay expands the discussion on what has changed in diplomacy in the 21st century. This
essay focuses on two aspects. (1) In this contemporary era, what are factors of change in
diplomacy, (2) changes in the international environment and analysis of the determinants
affecting diplomacy, is diplomacy still relevant? We argue that if diplomacy is important and
changing, which factors are very important in today's context. Therefore, in this paper, we
consider diplomacy as an institution. Furthermore, this essay distinguishes diplomacy from
foreign policy and international relations. The definition of foreign policy is presented by Daryl
Copeland (Canadian international expert). According to him, foreign policy is the actions that
states take outside their borders to maintain a stable international system. Diplomacy is the part
of foreign policy (This refers to the stable international development used for the effective
implementation of foreign policy). There is no internationally accepted definition of diplomacy,
but this essay uses the definition of diplomacy as a non-violent approach to international
relations, and its further aim is to improve the country's political and economic image, protecting
its national culture and values, which are fundamental to every nation.

There are three types of functions that diplomats generally perform, including (1) representation
(acting as a bridge between countries and protecting their national interests) (2) communication
(collecting information from various sources and transmitting it to their countries) (3 )
Negotiation. Each country's diplomatic structure differs from others; In general, one can say that
there are differences depending on the country’s requirements and their diplomatic structures.
The diplomatic structures are almost the same in every country, there are very few differences.
For example, it's set up to include a centralized bureaucratic agency, or we can say it's called the
State Department and Foreign Service (that's the combination of multilateral and bilateral
missions). This paper also discusses the changes in the constitutional parts of diplomacy as these
are also interdependent. There are actors who can influence diplomacy that go well beyond the
classical notion of diplomacy, but this paper focuses very well on the traditional actors
accredited in sovereign states. In addition, we discuss resident diplomats and bilateral diplomacy,
the scope of this essay does not cover the multilateral and other organizations (national vs.
international) as this would be an entirely new study.

Main Body

Diplomacy change context

This section does not provide the review about the factors that influence the diplomatic
practices however, it provides introduction of those factors or elements which authors considers
very important that can have an impact in the transformation of traditional diplomatic structures.
Before we start to discuss the 21st century change in diplomacy this section provides a short
description on the evolution of diplomatic practices.

Traditional to globalization

The term or concept of diplomacy is brought together from the 17th century and is
considered a complex tool used to regulate international systems and the roots of which are
classically intriguing. Its development runs parallel to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), in which
the sovereignty of the states is equally respected and this diplomacy the management of
international relations. With the independence of new states, territorial dominance was an issue
between states. A new international system was needed in which all states could live peacefully
based on protocols, procedures and laws. As a result, we can conclude that this is the reason or
facts by which diplomacy is created in the world, it is only designed by it.

When we speak of classic diplomacy, it is considered bilateral since it represents and

exchanges between state governments. The diplomats who belonged to the classical period were
drawn from those ranks that represented the professional elite, and they carried out state
communications that were duly sealed. Diplomacy enjoyed the exclusive privileges attached to it
as a product and was far from the public eye, and these diplomats maintained direct relationships
with various heads of state. These diplomats deal with the grave issues of politics, war, crime,
sovereignty, and territory.

However, as human civilizations developed more sophisticated systems of government

and dealt with proportionately more complicated concerns, diplomatic processes and practices
progressively changed and became increasingly complex throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
During the first half of the 20th century, the expansion of multilateral diplomacy within
international institutions such as the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, led
to a profound change in the nature of diplomacy.

After the end of World War II, the decolonization period saw significant advances in
diplomatic practice, significantly increasing the number of nominally recognized sovereign
countries in the international system. Adopting the conventional diplomatic paradigm, or setting
up diplomatic missions abroad and receiving foreign envoys at home, was a priority for the
emerging nation-states as a sign of their international personality. As a result, the newly formed
governments accepted the existing diplomatic culture of Western nations, and diplomatic
practices did not change significantly during this period. In fact, they were first established in
1961 in a comprehensive agreement known as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
which helped the new nations understand the mostly de facto norms by which older governments
had previously operated. The emergence of new actors with their own goals, as well as the sharp
contrast that immediately emerged between them in terms of talents and characteristics,
simultaneously diversified and complicated the core of diplomatic relations.

The end of the Cold War signaled the beginning of a new era of diplomatic growth.
According to scholar Daryl Copeland, the balance of fear between the Western and Soviet blocs
set specific parameters for diplomatic behavior. Individual states remained the key players in
international relations, formal alliances were formed, and governments abided by the rules of
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, at
least in relation to the two great powers. Copeland believes that intergovernmental diplomacy
was, above all, sparse and predictable, and that the international system had a sense of stability
and familiarity that he describes as a Cold War consolation. Admittedly, the Cold War era
produced a relatively stable system of international relations that served as the basis for most
states' foreign policy and diplomacy, with the default ties of bloc dynamics. The rigidity imposed
by the bipolar system hampered the development of diplomatic approaches. However, nothing
was completely predetermined or fixed. Indeed, the newly formed nations of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) of the South challenged Western cultural, social and economic standards, as
well as Western diplomatic conventions and practices. New developments such as technological
improvements, limited globalization, and the rise of new non-state actors also took place, but it is
debatable whether they began before or after the Cold War.

These new developments were noticeably accelerated in the two decades following the end of the
Cold War, in particular the explosive rise of globalization, which remains the central historical
development of the present. The initial phase of economic integration began in the early
twentieth century, so of course the trend towards globalization is not entirely new. However, the
current phase of globalization is leading to growing interdependence between countries, not only
in the economic sphere, but also in a wide range of human activities. This interdependence is
mainly driven by economic forces and new communication technologies. Globalization is the
breaking down of national barriers to the spread of business, investment, travel and information
around the world, says Professor Raymond Cohen.

Technology revolution
According to well-known scholar in the field of diplomacy namely Pigman, with the
revolution of technology the concept of diplomacy is changed at structural level that before this
revolution the communication between two states or two capitals could be possible at the speed
of Horse and camel travel, but in this modern contemporary world of internet the communication
between two countries is done in an instant moment. Else, we can say a nano second is required
to transmit a message. As we already discussed in the introduction part that the main or
important pillar of diplomacy is communication. In current history the task of diplomacy is so
crucial that any advancement in the information technology changes the practices of the
diplomats, for example with the invention of telegraph in the 19 th century there was a reduction
in the distances and more efficiency in the international relation. A famous quotation is said by
the Palmerston Lord Ex-British foreign minister when he received the cable as 1 st dispatch in
1840, he exclaimed and said now this is the end of the diplomacy.

Similarly, the modern means of information and technology revolution predict the
information in more efficient way and the role of diplomats looks redundant or we can say its
irrelevant. Now, these technologies enable direct communication between politicians and
government leaders around the world, furthermore distance has been removed through these
emerging technologies. These technologies are also playing a very good role in the implantation
of individual participation in the ongoing worldwide communications. These individuals can
participate instantly. So, it is true that the predictions were made about the end of diplomacy
comes true. Contemporary technologies, which includes for example, heavy speed internet,
satellite phones, internet connectivity, evolution in technology, provides foundation for the
structural change in which diplomats do their diplomacy in the modern world. There are three
different repercussions that we should keep in mind when we are discussing diplomacy in the
21st century.

Political and social change

According to the former British diplomat’s name Riordan notes it is found that new
technologies impact is compounded and is reinforced in the transformation of the social and
political framework in which diplomacy operates or work. There are two evolutions which are
very popular in the domain of social and political in the emerging diplomacy of 21 st century (1)
foreign policy is run through new actor who is domestic based (2) other factor is the involvement
of non-state actors. In today’s environment we witness the power over foreign affairs, as today
diplomacy is flowing in such a way that the role of foreign ministry and foreign services is
limited, or non-state actors are actively involved in this procedure.

Domestic new actors.

The most interesting and significant process of the 21st century is that as mentioned in the
section of the introduction that it breaks down the economic, political, and social boundaries into
international and domestic, or we can say that this 21st century internationalize the domestic
policies. The earlier discussion on globalization highlights the interdependence between
international agenda and the domestic agenda. It can be interpreted as those issues which we
thought were the domestic issue at once a time, now have become an international issue such as
the rate of vaccination in a country, energy consumption, renewable energy sources, emission of
carbon dioxide, all these are international issues and require targeted action. Therefore, it is very
difficult in the current time to explain any area of domestic diplomacy alone in which there is no
touch of international affairs. According to the American scholar’s name Strobe Talbot
explanation the concept of foreign policy in current world is obsolete in a sense that whatever
happens at somewhere matters for all other people and vice versa. Its influence on diplomacy is
very large ultimately. Most importantly, we can explain this that domestic diplomatic system has
been less delineated and the traditional concept in which there was separation of domestic
diplomacy from the international diplomacy is also obsolete.

According to the classical school of thought, foreign ministry is the solo institution which is
responsible for the nation’s diplomacy. All the diplomatic practices which are adopted by the
diplomats are written in the document of diplomatic relation certified during the Vienna
convention in 1961. According to this convention report all the communication between two
states, suppose one is receiving state and the other one is sending state, shall be conducted
through the receiving state through the foreign ministry. There is still debate on this topic that
both foreign ministry and their ministers no longer enjoy the solo power as representative in the
conduct of international relation. During the 2nd world war, diplomatic missions abroad were
represented by different agencies and missions. In today contemporary times this phenomenon is
accelerated and has taken the larger portion. However, today’s situation is totally different from
the previous situation as in today’s world almost all ministries and their representatives take an
active part in the preparation of the foreign policy. As a result, mostly western countries have a
division of international relations in their domestic division in which they deal with the agents
and their representatives which are working for them abroad. Moreover, this concept is little bit
different when the authority is federal government and it is governed through different structure
of the federal governments, in this case all the units of deferral governments take part in the
preparation of foreign affairs. As a result, it breaks down the domestic from the international
division but it also ensures that there is the need of support from highly trained specialist and
technical people who have the required knowledge, skills and qualification to understand those
issues and providing solution to them. The working environment of the diplomats is highly
crowded, which is the ultimate result of this whole practice. This can be explained through the
help of example of Canada in 2005 they hosted the mission abroad in which 6 agencies and 16
departments participated in this whole procedure out of which we can say 24% of the 1650
personals were the Canadian government personals working abroad in foreign ministry.

New non-governmental actors

Moreover, it is true domestic actors are actively involved in diplomacy, however, there
are other non-state and non-governmental actors are there that diplomats must take care of.
According to the Hamilton and Langhorne finding indicates that non-state actor is just new term
in context of name otherwise this phenomenon is already existing in the structure of international
politics. The role of private actors rose in diplomacy at the end of 19 th century, but during the last
four decades this trend is much higher in context of these actors. This essay considers the review
of two types of actors that played a role in the international system (1) this includes the civil
society organization (2) multinational organization. However, there is a need to evaluate or
analyze the terrorist organization, a separate study is required to explore this topic. The term
NGO (non-governmental organization) comes from the term CSO (civil society organization) in
general and in specific it includes all those organizations that are outside the governmental,
judicial, and military bodies. Amnesty international and Greenpeace are examples of the CSO
which indicates that CSO vary in terms of size and significance and in context from localized to
international. Another difference exists between them based on their funding and relationship
with their domestic government. There are more than 20000 transnational organizations of non-
government which are actively working on the in this world, a rise in this trend is witnessed after
the second world war and its growth is significantly increased. The impact of these transnational
organizations has changed significantly in terms of influence and their conduct in international
affairs significantly in recent years. The technology revolution is the biggest one, this has
enabled the civil society organizations to have a greater public profile and act as global actor.
Now a days CSOs are more effective in establishing a smoother coordination system with larger
organizations and states based on new technologies which is part of the technological revolution.
Furthermore, these CSOs also gather new information, which is then used to challenge the
government’s confidence, which was not the case before the technology revolution. Moreover,
there is an increased pressure of interests group and public opinion on the government policies,
this is only possible after the substantial influence of CSOs. These CSOs also play a key role in
the internationalization of domestic affairs, they are also active in losing the grip of the central
government on international affairs. As a result, civil society is active due to these forces in
communication and representation with other actors such as foreign actors without any aid in
developed countries. They are independent from the interests of the diplomats or national
governments due to their direct relations with the foreign actors.

National state, diplomacy, and globalization

The existing debate about diplomatic change in times of globalization is closely linked to the
globalized world, in which the repercussions of technology linked to national fates are discussed.
The development of modern diplomacy runs parallel to the nation state and state sovereignty.
Diplomacy emerged with the new independent state in the 17th century when it communicated
itself. If we skip the political units, the role of diplomacy would be impossible to consider. This
shows that we cannot decouple states, their institutions, their social and political identity from
diplomacy.

Conclusion
This essay summarizes the changes in diplomacy in the 21st century. This also determines the
factors that have transformed diplomacy in the 21st century in this contemporary era. The first
element underlying this change in diplomacy is globalization, not only in economic terms but
also encompassing social, political and technological elements. Globalization has had a
significant impact on changing the diplomacy of the international system. The driving force
behind this globalization is the information and technology that has revolutionized the system.
The traditional functions of diplomacy, in which its main task was to gather information, have
changed, now they are under immense pressure from the media. In addition, these technologies
lead to a democratization of information, where public opinion about foreign policy behavior
matters. All other factors discussed in this essay are the main factors that have revolutionized
traditional diplomacy.

References:

Barston, R. P. (2019). Modern diplomacy. Routledge.

Black, J. (2010). A history of diplomacy. Reaktion Books.
Davenport, D. (2002). The new diplomacy. Policy Review, (116), 17.
Fazal, T. M. (2020). Health diplomacy in pandemical times. International Organization, 74(S1),
E78-E97.
Jönsson, C., & Hall, M. (2005). Essence of diplomacy. Springer.
Kickbusch, I., & Liu, A. (2022). Global health diplomacy—reconstructing power and
governance. The Lancet.
Kissinger, H. (2014). Diplomacy. In Geopolitics (pp. 114-115). Routledge.
Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. New York: Springer International
Publishing.
Mattingly, G. (1988). Renaissance diplomacy. Courier Corporation.
Ruffini, P. B. (2020). Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: a
critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1-9.