Formal Institutions of Diplomacy

Rediscovering the Traditional Institutions of Diplomacy

When talking of old diplomacy we often refer to bilateral negotiation, secrecy, exclusiveness of the actors and “high politics”. Practiced from the beginning of the Modern Time during the Italian era in the middle of the 15^th century (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 38) , it is marked by the development of resident embassies and its ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) which will be further developed in France by the Cardinal Richelieu in the 17^th century. In contrast, in contemporary society diplomacy includes new forms of negotiation and representation which started after the First World War when doubts emerged over the efficacy of traditional diplomacy and its incapacity to prevent the devastating war that occurred in 1914. In this context needs for better world cooperation were demanded and the League of Nations saw itself as the beginning of a new system of diplomacy, a system including openness, public channels and summits. This form will be further expanded after the Second World War with the creation of the United Nations but also later on by the spread of new communication systems, the development of internet and the involvement of non-state actors.

                                       The British Embassy, Paris (circa 1830)

Nowadays, some argue that embassies and MFAs are becoming institutions that need to be reassessed as their role in contemporary society have been diminished due to new actors such as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Multinational and Transnational Corporations (MNCs & TNCs); technology revolution; and finally the changing security agenda (global warming, environment issues, terrorism, disease …) (Riordan, 2007: 163). This is mainly what Copeland and Riordan tend to discuss. To quote Brzezinski, “if foreign ministries and embassies did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented (1970). However it seems that the old institutions of diplomacy still have a role to play. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that it is not about whether embassies and MFAs are relevant in contemporary society or not but instead whether traditional institutions are capable to show flexibility and adaptability in a world in constant evolution.

In fact regarding MFAs and embassies we could actually demonstrate that they still have relevance today. As Berridge demonstrated in his book “The counter revolution in diplomacy and other essays” and in “Diplomacy Theory and Practice”, MFAs and embassies still have an important role to play. For instance in response to the pluralism of actors these institutions have developed a department which aims at managing and coordinating this multiple channels (Berridge, 2010: 16); regarding openness, they have also started to open their door to public scrutiny by allowing academics, students or civil societies to get in contact with them for any information sought (Berridge, 2010: 18-19). Rather than staying away from technology they have embraced it by developing their website enabling them to share information with the public andthe media. For instance the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office owns 255 websites in multiple languages as well as a “youtube”, “flick” and “twitter” channel (Hocking 2013: 133). They have also been useful in other role such as mediation, simply by offering an opportunity for conflicting parties to find a common ground as it was the case between the USA and the People’Republic of China during the Cold War in cities such as Geneva, Warsaw or Paris (Berridge, 2010: 122).

In fact, as the world is moving forward (or sometimes arguably backward), it seems that the old institutions of diplomacy which used to be described as secret and exclusive have slowly started to show openness. It is hardly conceivable that the old institutions of diplomacy disappear. As our structures tend to be more and more complex as well as the issues emerging through globalisation such as terrorism, drug or disease, MFAs and embassies will still have a role to play but as mentioned previously this will depend on the capacity for these institutions to adapt to the evolution of the world.

Reference:
~ Berridge G.R (2010) Diplomacy Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA.
~Leguey-Feilleux J.R (2009) The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Colorado, USA.
~Riordan Shaun (September 2007) Reforming the Foreign Service for the Twenty-First Century, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 161-173, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.