Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

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.

Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy

Sections

References

  • 1

    John Lewis GaddisThe Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (New York: Oxford University Press2002) pp. 27-34.

  • 3

    Iver B. NeumannDiplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry (New York: Columbia University Press2013) pp. 1-9.

  • 8

    Paul SharpDiplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2009) p. 10.

  • 12

    Terry L. DeibelForeign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2007) 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.

  • 19

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

  • 21

    J. Samuel BarkinRealist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2010) pp. 66-82.

  • 22

    Mark HarrisFive Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War (New York: The Penguin Press2014).

  • 27

    Jarol B. ManheimStrategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press1994); 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).

  • 30

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

  • 32

    PigmanContemporary 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.

  • 35

    BarkinRealist Constructivism p. 68.

  • 36

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

  • 38

    Robert O. KeohanePower and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (London: Routledge2002) 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.

  • 39

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

  • 46

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

  • 48

    KeohanePower 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 Journalvol. 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).

  • 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 Politicsvol. 12 no. 3 (2010) article 11.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 183 183 48
Full Text Views 230 230 46
PDF Downloads 20 20 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0