I.

Introduction

Diplomacy, practices and institutions by which nations conduct their relations with one another. Originally, the English term diplomatics referred to the care and evaluation of official papers or archives, many of which were treaties. In the 18th century diplomatic documents increasingly meant those pertaining to international relations, and the term diplomatic corps was used to signify the body of ambassadors, envoys, and officials attached to foreign missions. In 1796 the British philosopher Edmund Burke castigated the French for their “double diplomacy” during the Napoleonic Wars; since then the term diplomacy has been associated with international politics and foreign policy.

II.

History of Diplomacy

As soon as people organized themselves into separate social groups, the necessity of regularizing contacts with representatives of other groups became apparent. Even the earliest civilizations had rules for interaction.

A.

Early Development

The first civilization to develop an orderly system of diplomacy was ancient Greece. Ambassadors and special missions were sent from city to city to deliver messages and warnings, to transfer gifts, and to plead the cases of their own people before the rulers of other city-states. These diplomatic missions, however, were occasional and sporadic.

With the decline of Greece and the rise of the Roman Empire, the Greek system of diplomacy disappeared. As Rome expanded, its diplomacy served the purposes of conquest and annexation. The Romans were not inclined to coexist with other states on the basis of mutual interests. Rome issued commands; it did not negotiate.

For almost a thousand years after the fall of Rome, Europeans thought of themselves not as members of separate nations but rather as members of smaller groups vaguely bound to some feudal overlord. Although localities had relations from time to time, no record exists of any formal diplomatic practices during the Middle Ages.

B.

Renaissance Diplomacy

Modern diplomacy had its origins during the Italian Renaissance. Early in the 15th century, a group of city-states developed in Italy, but none could dominate the rest, and all feared conquest by the others. The rulers of most of the city-states gained their positions through force and cunning. Because they could not count on the loyalty of their subjects, these rulers hoped to maintain allegiance by seeking foreign conquest and treasure. They sought opportunities to increase their power and expand their domain and were always concerned about the balance of power on the Italian Peninsula.

Although Renaissance diplomacy was especially vicious and amoral, the Italian city-states developed a number of institutions and practices that still exist: (1) They introduced a system of permanent ambassadors who represented the interests of their states by observing, reporting, and negotiating. (2) Each state created a foreign office that evaluated the written reports of the ambassadors, sent instructions, helped to formulate policies, and kept vast records. (3) Together they developed an elaborate system of protocol, privileges, and immunities for diplomats. Ambassadors and their staffs were granted freedom of access, transit, and exit at all times. Local laws could not be used to impede an ambassador in carrying out duties, but ambassadors could be held accountable if they actually committed crimes, such as theft or murder. (4) The concept of extraterritoriality was established. Under this principle, an embassy in any state stood on the soil of its own homeland, and anyone or anything within the embassy compound was subject only to the laws of its own country.

C.

Diplomacy in the European State System

The rise of nation-states in 17th-century Europe led to the development of the concepts of national interest and the balance of power. The former concept meant that the diplomatic objectives of nations should be based on state interests and not on personal ambition, rivalries, sentiment, religious doctrine, or prejudice. For example, gaining access to raw materials was in the national interest. The balance of power theory was based on a general interest in maintaining the state system by seeking an equilibrium of power among the most powerful nations. That diplomacy could be used to pursue both sets of interests was soon apparent. Increasingly, the presence of the major powers became a staple in international politics. Although small countries might disappear, as Poland did when it was partitioned in the 18th century, the great powers sought to manage their relations without threatening one another's survival. At the same time, European diplomats were becoming increasingly professional and learned. The seamier side of diplomacy—the bribing, lying, and deceiving—was gradually replaced by a code of expected and acceptable conduct.

The European system of diplomacy suffered its first shock when Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe in the early 19th century. After Napoleon's defeat, the European system was “restored,” and no major wars occurred for the next hundred years.

D.

The New Diplomacy

In 1914 the countries of Europe were thrust into another violent confrontation. The carnage of World War I brought the European system of diplomacy into disrepute. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was the chief critic of the European diplomatic system and the proponent of a new type of open diplomacy and collective security. Wilson's primary targets were the theory and practice of the balance of power, the distinction between great and small powers, the pursuit of national interests, secret agreements and treaties, and professional diplomats.

In place of the old system Wilson offered a “new diplomacy” in his Fourteen Points. Open covenants would be drafted in international conferences with great and small countries participating on an equal basis. Peace would be maintained by making national boundaries coincide with ethnic boundaries. All members of the international community would pledge to fight for these boundaries against any nation that used force to change them. Countries would pursue community interests instead of national interests and submit their disputes with each other to international arbitration for peaceful resolution.

Many of Wilson's ideas were incorporated into the 1919 Treaty of Versailles (see Versailles, Treaty of) and the League of Nations. After the United States rejected the league and returned to a policy of isolationism, however, the European states reverted to the balance of power system and the pursuit of national interests through professional diplomats.

During World War II, the U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt again sought to establish a new type of diplomacy, but he and the British prime minister Winston Churchill built the postwar international order on the basis of agreements with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that conformed more to the old European system than to the new ideas embodied in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations. Although the United Nations remains a symbol of what a new diplomatic system might be, international politics since the end of World War II has adhered closely to the European model and has, in part, returned to some of the worst aspects of Renaissance diplomacy.

III.

Diplomatic Machinery

The conduct of relations with other countries has three requirements: (1) an establishment in the home country to formulate policy and instruct personnel sent (2) an establishment abroad from which contacts are made in the foreign country; and (3) personnel to make the system work. Over the centuries these three requisites for diplomacy became increasingly professional and bureaucratic. By the 17th and 18th centuries, domestic foreign affairs establishments were fairly well developed. In the 19th century corps of diplomats increasingly were chosen by competitive examinations. Although ambassadors were often selected on a political basis, they found highly professional staffs waiting for them at their embassies abroad, and they dealt with other skilled staffs when they reported to their home offices.

A.

Departments of Foreign Affairs

Government agencies that deal with foreign affairs are usually called the ministry or department of foreign or external affairs. In the U.S., foreign affairs is handled by the Department of State. Such a department is headed by the foreign secretary (or, in the U.S., by the secretary of state). In democracies, the foreign secretary is always a political appointee who is selected by the nation's leader. Drawing on the expertise within the department and its establishments abroad, the secretary advises the head of state on matters of foreign policy, helps formulate and coordinate policy, and administers the agency over which he or she presides. At times, the foreign secretary is also directly involved in negotiations with other nations. A small number of politically appointed undersecretaries and assistant secretaries aid in running the department.

Departments of foreign affairs usually are divided into geographic and functional divisions. The former consists of bureaus for major geographic areas that are then broken down into smaller divisions and, ultimately, into “country desks.” Desk officers are career diplomats who specialize in various aspects of the country to which they are assigned. Instructions to and reports from embassies abroad are handled first by the country desks. The functional division deals with problems or issues that do not appropriately fall under the domain of any one country: trade, international organization, human rights, intelligence, public information, international law, and passports and visas. Coordination of policy between geographic and functional divisions is a continually perplexing problem.

Departments of foreign affairs also have an administrative section that is in charge of running the agency. This section deals with internal matters such as budget allocations, personnel recruitment and management, training, and logistics.

In an age of interdependence and total diplomacy, foreign affairs departments must coordinate their activities with the foreign activities of other government agencies. Treasury departments, for example, are increasingly involved in negotiations over trade and money. Agricultural departments are concerned with foreign trade and world food problems. Defense establishments are involved in supporting foreign governments abroad and training their armed forces. Intelligence agencies provide heads of state with alternate sources of information about other countries. In some cases, a foreign minister has trouble merely keeping informed of all the activities the nation is engaged in abroad.

B.

Foreign Missions

The embassy abroad, or foreign mission, is headed by an ambassador assisted by a career diplomat who serves as deputy or first secretary. The deputy secretary oversees and coordinates the work of the staff and assumes the responsibilities of the mission as chargé d'affaires whenever the ambassador is away or incapacitated or is between ambassadorial assignments.

B.1.

Organization

A mission is organized into a series of functional sections that observe, report, and deal with issues in their respective areas. Most missions contain sections for political affairs, economic and commercial affairs, information and cultural affairs, consular affairs, and administrative matters. In addition, a mission usually includes a number of attachés from other government departments. Military, air, and naval attachés have traditionally been assigned to foreign missions, but agricultural, commercial, labor, and cultural attachés are becoming increasingly common.

Missions are staffed largely by foreign service officers, with the exception of the attachés who are drawn from their respective agencies back home. The secretaries and clerical staff come from a separate civil service corps. Citizens of the host country may be hired as translators or for nonsensitive jobs.

B.2.

Activities

The activities of a diplomatic mission are extremely varied. They range from such serious tasks as negotiating issues of great political significance and reporting and commenting on important events in the foreign country to meeting with foreign students, arranging itineraries of exhibits about life in the home country, and issuing visas.

In addition to their diplomatic and political chores, missions are also in charge of the consular work of the home government. Consular operations are concerned with the economic and commercial relations between nations. Originally, diplomatic and consular chores were kept strictly separate because early theorists felt that national interests should not be “tainted” by private commercial matters. Thus, two separate services—diplomatic and consular—usually existed. Today all major countries have combined these two services, and a single corps of professional civil servants serves in both areas.

Consular work involves a variety of activities. Consuls issue birth, death, and marriage certificates to citizens residing or traveling in the foreign country. Consular officers also regulate shipping, aid their country's citizens when they travel on business or as tourists, and report on economic and business conditions abroad. Activities are often carried out in consulates located in major trading and commercial cities as well as in the capital city.

C.

The Foreign Service

Today, most nations staff their foreign services with career civil servants who are selected on the basis of competitive examinations. Until recent times, however, foreign service personnel were political appointees, often from noble or wealthy families, who could afford the considerable expense that a life of diplomatic activity entailed.

In the 1850s Britain and France instituted competitive examinations for posts in the diplomatic corps, but low salaries restricted the number of persons who could afford to enter the service. In Britain all candidates had to guarantee a personal income of £400 for at least the first two years. The examinations employed by the European powers were extremely difficult, requiring fluency in at least two foreign languages. Since World War II, salaries and allowances have been increased so that persons of all means may enter the diplomatic service.

The spoils system dominated the U.S. Foreign Service until 1924, when the Rogers Act combined the consular and diplomatic services, established difficult competitive examinations for entry into the Foreign Service, and instituted a system of promotion on merit. Each year approximately 25,000 people take the Foreign Service examination; about 250, or 1 percent, pass it and are accepted in the service. About 10,000 persons are in the Foreign Service; some 2000 work in the U.S., and 8000 serve in foreign countries or international organizations.

Although career officers dominate the diplomatic corps, there is usually room for some noncareer personnel. In the United States, for example, highly skilled specialists may be recruited as Foreign Service Reserve officers, although their tenure may be limited to five or ten years.

Many nations appoint distinguished citizens who are not career officers to serve as ambassadors. American administrations have long used ambassadorships in leading countries as political rewards. Usually, however, ambassadors are distinguished men and women from business, law, politics, or academic life. Career officers predominate numerically; in the U.S. about two-thirds of all ambassadors are career diplomats.

IV.

Diplomatic Conventions

The modes and conventions of diplomacy are highly stylized and formal. Language always tends toward understatement, and emotion-charged words are taboo. The etiquette and manners of diplomatic meetings are carefully prescribed. The privileges and immunities of diplomats are found in conventions and treaties that have evolved over a long period. Whenever etiquette is breached, a diplomatic “rebuff” occurs. Although this formality and ceremony has an air of make-believe, it serves a practical purpose: It allows diplomats to deal with issues of war and peace in a calm and unemotional manner. In the tense hours of crisis, a cool head, tact, and good humor are necessary.

A.

Protocol

Detailed and universally accepted conventions exist concerning most of the formal ways in which countries interact. In the early days of the nation-state system, the departure of an ambassador was a ceremonial event, as was the ambassador's reception by a head of state.

Because ambassadors personally represent the heads of their governments, the relations among ambassadors within a country have always involved issues of prestige. Thus, such details as where an ambassador rode in a procession or which ambassador entered a room first assumed great significance.

Such issues plagued European courts until they were resolved at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 and, more recently, at the Vienna meetings to draft a Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961. As a result of these meetings, diplomats were divided into three classes: (1) ambassadors, legates, and papal nuncios who are always accredited to heads of state; (2) envoys, ministers, and other persons accredited to heads of state; and (3) chargés d'affaires who are accredited to ministers of foreign affairs. Only members of the first class represent their nation's leader. Precedence among representatives in a capital is now based on seniority within its diplomatic corps. The most senior member of that corps is designated the doyen, or dean. The doyen usually represents the entire diplomatic corps at ceremonial functions and in matters of diplomatic privileges and immunities. The most concise digest of the protocol of diplomacy is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, consisting of 53 short articles completed under UN auspices.

B.

Privileges and Immunities

From the earliest times, privileges, immunities, and courtesies were extended to visiting heralds and envoys. Currently the privileges and immunities of diplomats are highly developed and universally accepted.

For centuries, the territory on which a foreign mission stood was considered an “island of sovereignty” of the home state. Under the Vienna Convention of 1961 this is no longer the case. The premises of missions are inviolable, however, and host states must accord full facilities to enable diplomatic missions to perform their functions. Citizens of the host state may not enter a mission without the consent of its senior official. Missions are immune from search, requisition, and attachment, and nations have a special duty to protect any mission against intrusion or damage. This long-accepted principle was violated in Iran in November 1979, when a group of Iranians invaded the U.S. Embassy and held some 50 staff members hostage for 14 months.

Free communication between the mission and the host government must be permitted. Diplomatic couriers may not be detained, and diplomatic bags may not be opened or detained. Host governments must also secure these rights against their own citizens if necessary.

Diplomatic agents and their staffs are not liable to any form of arrest or detention; diplomats are immune from criminal laws and, in most cases, from civil and administrative jurisdiction as well. They are exempt from all direct taxes in the host state. Immunity from the laws of a host state does not exempt diplomats from the laws and jurisdiction of their home states, however. Those who commit crimes are almost always sent home as personae non gratae. Diplomats enjoying their privileges and immunities are duty bound to respect the laws and regulations of the host state and to refrain from interfering in its internal affairs.

In the event of war, the host state must grant facilities to enable diplomats from belligerent nations to leave the country. If diplomatic relations are broken off with another nation, the host state must still respect and protect the mission premises. When relations are broken off, the countries in question usually entrust the custody of their missions and interests to some third party acceptable to both.

C.

Language of Diplomacy

Until the 17th century, Latin was the language of diplomacy because it was the universal language of all educated Europeans. From the 17th century on, however, French increasingly became the language of diplomacy because of the preeminence of France in Europe, the precision of the language, and its use as the “court language” throughout Europe.

The U.S. entry into World War I marked the rise of English as a second language of diplomacy. During the interwar period, the records of the League of Nations were kept in English and French. After World War II, the framers of the UN sought to create a five-language system. Simultaneous translations of French, English, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese take place at all meetings. Most UN documents, however, are published only in French, English, and Spanish. When treaties or conventions are drafted, the parties designate one language—usually French or English—as the basis for any discussions about meanings or interpretations.

D.

Diplomatic Negotiations

Although negotiations have traditionally been left to professional diplomats, very important negotiations are increasingly being undertaken by specially selected envoys or foreign ministers and by heads of state. Recent examples of this trend were the “shuttle diplomacy” of the U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the Middle East and President Jimmy Carter's personal involvement in negotiating a peace treaty between the Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat and the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. Resident diplomats, however, still do almost all the day-to-day negotiating and interacting with leaders of other states.

The problem of deciding what practices and tactics are most effective in negotiating is difficult. The German American political scientist Hans J. Morgenthau in his book Politics Among Nations (1948) perhaps best summed up the ideal of modern diplomacy: (1) Diplomacy must be divested of its crusading spirit; (2) the objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest and must be supported with adequate power; (3) diplomacy must look at the situation from the point of view of other nations; (4) nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them; (5) the armed forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master; and (6) the government is the leader of public opinion, not its slave.

See also International Law.