Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension

In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
View More View Less
  • 1 Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, Washington, dc, United States

Login via Institution

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

Radical changes in diplomacy’s global environment challenge traditional categories in diplomacy’s study and practice. The “foreign” and “domestic” divide is blurred beyond easy recognition. Public diplomacy is no longer a separate instrument of diplomacy. The term marginalizes a public dimension that is now central in diplomatic practice. This article examines four boundaries that both separate and connect: (1) a distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy that benefits diplomacy studies and clarifies choices in practice; (2) a framework for diplomacy’s public dimension that connects types of diplomatic actors with process variables; (3) a separation between diplomacy and civil society that distinguishes diplomacy from other relationships between groups; and (4) characteristics of diplomacy and governance that explain how they differ from other political and social categories. Diplomatic and governance actors are categorized in trans-governmental and polylateral networks. Civil society and private sector actors are categorized in cosmopolitan and private governance networks.

  • 1

    John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 27-34.

  • 3

    Iver B. Neumann, Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), pp. 1-9.

  • 8

    Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 10.

  • 12

    Terry L. Deibel, Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 207-280; and Charles A. Stevenson, America’s Foreign Policy Toolkit: Key Institutions and Processes (Los Angeles, ca: cq Press, 2013), pp. 1-5 and 141-168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Cooper, Heine and Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, p. 10.

  • 21

    J. Samuel Barkin, Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 66-82.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Mark Harris, Five Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War (New York: The Penguin Press, 2014).

  • 27

    Jarol B. Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Todd C. Helmus, Christopher Paul and Russell W. Glenn, Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation (Santa Monica, ca: rand Corporation, 2007).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Cooper, Heine and Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, p. 11.

  • 32

    Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy, pp. 86 and 88. See also Geoffrey Allen Pigman, ‘The Diplomacy of Global and Transnational Firms’, in Cooper, Heine and Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, pp. 192-208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Barkin, Realist Constructivism, p. 68.

  • 36

    Thomas G. Weiss, ‘What Happened to the Idea of World Government?’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 53 (2009), pp. 256-257.

  • 38

    Robert O. Keohane, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 202. On distinctions between government and governance, see also James N. Rosenau, Along the DomesticForeign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 144-173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Weiss, ‘What Happened to the Idea of World Government?’ p. 257.

  • 46

    Geoffrey Wiseman, ‘“Polylateralism”: Diplomacy’s Third Dimension’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, vol. 4 (summer 2010), pp. 24-39.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Keohane, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, p. 74 (emphasis in the original).

  • 50

    Brian Hocking, ‘(Mis)Leading Propositions about 21st Century Diplomacy’, Crossroads: The Macedonian Foreign Policy Journal, vol. 3, no. 2 (April–October 2012), pp 80-81. See also Kanishka Jayasuriya, ‘Breaking the “Westphalian” Frame: Regulatory State, Fragmentation and Diplomacy’, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, no. 90 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, January 2004).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Hocking, ‘(Mis)Leading Propositions about 21st Century Diplomacy’, p. 82.

  • 58

    Frederick Mayer and Gary Gereffi, ‘Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance’, Business and Politics, vol. 12, no. 3 (2010), article 11.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 586 309 34
Full Text Views 283 32 2
PDF Downloads 66 31 0