Matt McGann
0210765
Class Topic: Instruments of International Organisation
Date: 4/3/02
In analysing international organisation through diplomacy, it is first important to establish what we mean by international organisation. Initially we may feel that international organisation is a tool of diplomacy, rather than diplomacy being an instrument of international organisation. This is symptomatic of thinking about international organisation in terms of its entities. Viewed in this regard, international organisations can be seen as means through which diplomacy is conducted and hence as tools of diplomacy. However, if we endeavour to consider international organisation as a process (which is our goal), then our conclusions may be different. Firstly, it is important to analyse diplomacy as a process itself.
Diplomacy arises out of the necessity of states’ interaction and hence their need to communicate. Even though a temporary diplomatic mission may have been dispatched with the purpose of resolving a specific issue, such as a border dispute, the ultimate goal is communication. The specific issue has just provided the need for the communication in this instance. Indeed, many diplomatic missions may have no further purpose other than to foster better relations through communication. Communication requiring the mobilisation of at least two parties necessarily requires organisation. So the inter-state communicative process is necessarily a form of international organisation. We can conclude that firstly, the basic purpose of diplomacy is communication, and the diplomatic process being communicative, for diplomacy, the purpose is the process. Secondly, diplomacy itself is necessarily a process of international organisation.
This being the case, as we now analyse the evolution of diplomacy, we are analysing the evolution of this particular process of international organisation. Although Edmund Walsh noted “the art of representation is as old as nations themselves,”[1] modern diplomacy has its origins amongst the Italian city-states of the fifteenth Century. It developed alongside the broadening of the scope of political interests that accompanied European expansion, industrial revolution and the rapid growth of world trade and hence commercial interests. During this evolution it is instructive to analyse the development of the diplomatic arena that necessarily determined the nature of the diplomacy exercised.
Murty describes the classical diplomatic arena’s function as to be used “by an elite simply to be in communication with other elites.”[2] The most common form is the bilateral arena, a fairly self-explanatory term, where two states interact. Although initially of an ad hoc nature, it is now facilitated by a wide network of permanent diplomatic missions. Less common is the trilateral arena, which may simply involve a three way meeting or utilise the impartiality of a third party to aid the settlement of a dispute. At the start of the nineteenth Century there evolved a system revolving around the conference arena, which essentially comprised “a pattern of interaction in which the representatives of more than two groups engage in direct interpersonal communication to reach an agreement or understanding on issues of common concern.”[3] The obvious advantages of catering for larger numbers were outweighed by commensurate difficulties in negotiating agreement.
The diplomatic process developed the conference system over the course of the nineteenth Century until it evolved into the parliamentary-diplomatic arena. This arena operates similarly to a national parliament with public access to its deliberations, procedural rules and resolutions which are voted upon. It provides a forum for open, public debate, alongside the opportunity to engage in classical, bilateral diplomacy. The parliamentary arena is distinct from the parliamentary diplomatic arena mainly by virtue of its permanence and more comprehensive remit.
The methods of diplomacy employed in
the different arenas can differ. Private diplomacy was practiced in the
classical arenas, a form of behind closed doors negotiation traditionally
employed by the European powers that became unfashionable after the First World
War. Public diplomacy as employed in the parliamentary-diplomatic arenas
utilised the power of oration and attempted to woo public opinion through use
of the media. Parliamentary diplomacy combined both of these styles with an attempt
to utilise the procedural rules of the arena to a participant’s advantage.
The process of diplomacy having
evolved to this state where it resembles a national parliament raises the
question of whether the future of the process lies in a move towards global
governance. This is anathema to realists who believe the international system
to be essentially anarchic and the state central to it, but could the gradual
integration, which diplomacy facilitates by providing the initial means of
interaction between states, be moving closer to the utopian notion of a global
society. It could be argued that diplomacy is inherently realist since it is
based upon the state system and that if it were to aid evolution past a
state-system it would eliminate the need for itself. This points to a crucial
and extremely problematic question regarding the nature of diplomacy; is it
necessarily state-centric? If interaction occurs on a transnational or even
regional basis is it to be called diplomacy? Is communication between NGO’s
across state boundaries to be labelled diplomacy? Indeed, what of individuals
communicating on an international level? These are all steps and processes that
constitute international organisation of a degree, but the line between what
constitutes diplomacy and what constitutes simple interaction is not clear. The
interaction between international organisations is labelled para diplomatic
relations, so is it necessary for participants to be representative of an
organisation for their relations to constitute diplomacy? What then of
one-person organisations? These are problematic issues in attempting to define
the process of international organisation that is conducted through diplomacy.
Finally, we must consider the often
circular relationship between diplomacy and international law, with
international law often representing the formalising of diplomatic negotiation
through the signing of a treaty. However, international law may be more results
driven, aspiring to a more formalised structure of international organisation
with a more dedicated remit. Diplomacy is also an instrument of international
organisation, in that it is a process of communication and thereby
international organisation, but the level that the process is taken to is not
as prescribed nor the process as defined and hence, perhaps, its usefulness is
more wide-ranging.
1.
do
Nascimento e Silva, G.E.. Diplomacy in International Law. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1972.
2.
Feld,
Werner J. And Robert S. Jordan. International Organizations: A Comparative
Approach. 3rd ed.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 1983.
3.
Hamilton,
Keith and Richard Langhorne. The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution,
Theory and Administration. London: Routledge, 1995.
4.
Kersetz,
Stephen D. and M.A. Fitzsimons. Eds. Diplomacy in a Changing World.
Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1959.
5.
Murty,
B.S.. The International Law of Diplomacy: The Diplomatic Instrument and
World Public Order. Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff,1989.
6.
Petrovski,
Vladimir. Diplomacy As An Instrument of Good Governance. <http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/mdiplomacy_book/petrovski/regular/default.html>
(28/2/03).
7.
Sen,
B.. A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice. 3rd ed. Dordrecht: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1988.
8.
Taylor,
Paul. International Co-operation Today: The European and the Universal
Pattern. London: Elek Books, 1971.
9.
Watson,
Adam. “Diplomacy.” In John Bayliss and Nicholas J. Rengger (eds.), Dilemmas
of World Politics: International Issues in a Changing World, 159 to 173.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.