Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World Politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Corneliu Bjola in
Current site
Google Scholar
Summary
This article invites diplomatic scholars to a debate about the identity of diplomacy as a field of study and the contributions that it can make to our understanding of world politics relative to international relations theory (IR) or foreign policy analysis (FPA). To this end, the article argues that the study of diplomacy as a method of building and managing relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics can most successfully firm up the identity of the discipline. More specifically, diplomacy offers a specialized form of knowledge for understanding how to draw distinctions between potential allies versus rivals, and how to make and unmake relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
2)
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994); and Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (New York: Basic Books, 2004).
-
7)
Cited in Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 6.
-
8)
Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1940).
-
10)
Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
-
12)
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 11-12.
-
13)
Morton A. Kaplan, System and Process in International Policies (New York: Wiley, 1957); and Richard N. Rosecrance, Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1963).
-
14)
Hedley Bull, ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, World Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 1966.
-
15)
Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1971); K.J. Holsti, ‘National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly. vol. 14, 1970; Irving L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (Boston, MA: Houghton, 1972); and James N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press, 1971).
-
18)
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, 1992.
-
19)
V.M. Hudson, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 1, no. 1, 2005; Donald A. Sylvan and James F. Voss, Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision-making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
-
20)
R.D. Putnam, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of 2-Level Games’, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, 1988; Rose McDermott, Political Psychology in International Relations (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004); and Richard Carlton Snyder et al., Foreign Policy Decision-Making Revisited (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
-
21)
David A. Welch, Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
-
22)
Walter Carlsnaes, ‘Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, 1992; and Steve Smith, ‘Theories of Foreign Policy: A Historical Overview’, Review of International Studies, vol. 12, 1986.
-
23)
Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Janice Bially Mattern, Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force (New York: Routledge, 2004); and David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).
-
24)
Jennifer Mitzen, ‘Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres’, American Political Science Review, vol. 99, no. 3, 2005; and Corneliu Bjola, Legitimizing the Use of Force in International Politics: Kosovo, Iraq and the Ethics Of Intervention, Contemporary Security Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2009).
-
25)
Nicole Deitelhoff, ‘The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case’, International Organization, vol. 63, no. 1, 2009; and J. Wilkenfeld et al., ‘Mediating International Crises: Cross-national and Experimental Perspectives’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 47, no. 3, 2003.
-
26)
G.F. Kennan, ‘Diplomacy Without Diplomats?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5, 1997.
-
27)
I.B. Neumann, ‘To Be a Diplomat’, International Studies Perspectives, vol. 6, 2005; and Geoff Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 4th edition 2010).
-
28)
Geoffrey Wiseman, ‘Bringing Diplomacy Back In: Time for Theory to Catch Up with Practice’, International Studies Review, vol. 13, no. 4, 2011, p. 711.
-
29)
Stuart Murray, ‘Diplomatic Theory and the Evolving Canon of Diplomatic Studies’, International Studies Review, vol. 13, no. 4, 2011, pp. 720-721.
-
30)
Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
-
31)
Andrew Hurrell, On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution Of International Society (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
-
34)
G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001).
-
35)
Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, p. 10; and James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987).
-
36)
Harold Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London: Cassell, 1988), p. 3.
-
38)
Iver B. Neumann, ‘Self and Other in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 2, no. 2, 1996; and William E. Connolly, Identity, Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, expanded edition 2002).
-
41)
Armand Jean du Plessis Richelieu, Political Testament: The Significant Chapters and Supporting Selections (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961), p. 95.
-
44)
William R. Thompson, Great Power Rivalries (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999).
-
47)
Charles Chatterjee, International Law and Diplomacy (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 250.
-
48)
Susan Strange, Casino Capitalism (Oxford and New York: Blackwell, 1986).
-
50)
Robert Gilpin and Jean M. Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); and Fabrice Lehmann and Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Peace and Prosperity through World Trade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
-
51)
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1977).
-
53)
C. Bjola and M. Kornprobst, ‘Security Communities and the Habitus of Restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq’, Review of International Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, 2007.
-
54)
Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, p. 139.
-
55)
Philip Nel, ‘Redistribution and Recognition: What Emerging Regional Powers Want’, Review of International Studies, vol. 36, 2010; Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); and Allen Buchanan, ‘Recognitional Legitimacy and the State System’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 28, no. 1, 1999.
-
56)
Thomas Lindemann, Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition (Colchester: ECPR Press, 2010); Reinhard Wolf, ‘Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition’, International Theory 3, no. 1, 2011; and Richard Ned Lebow, A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
-
57)
P.H. Gries, ‘Social Psychology and the Identity-Conflict Debate: Is a China “Threat” Inevitable?’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 11, no. 2, 2005, p. 248.
-
61)
Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 2, 1994.
-
62)
Aaron M. Hoffman, ‘A Conceptualization of Trust in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 8, no. 3, 2002.
-
63)
John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 23.
-
65)
Srdjan Vucetic, The Anglosphere: A Genealogy of a Racialized Identity in International Relations (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011).
-
69)
R.B. Mitchell, ‘Sources of Transparency: Information Systems in International Regimes’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 1, 1998.
-
71)
Martyn Housden, The League of Nations and the Organisation of Peace (New York: Pearson Longman, 2011).
-
74)
A.I. Johnston, ‘Is China a Status Quo Power?’, International Security, vol. 27, no. 4, 2003.
-
77)
Aparna Pande, Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: Escaping India (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).
-
81)
Jan Melissen, The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); and Joseph S. Nye, ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, no. 616, 2008.
-
84)
B.I. Spector, ‘Negotiating with Villains Revisited: Research Note’, International Negotiation, vol. 8, no. 1, 2003.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1049 | 279 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 421 | 38 | 4 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 284 | 65 | 9 |
Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World Politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Corneliu Bjola in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Summary
This article invites diplomatic scholars to a debate about the identity of diplomacy as a field of study and the contributions that it can make to our understanding of world politics relative to international relations theory (IR) or foreign policy analysis (FPA). To this end, the article argues that the study of diplomacy as a method of building and managing relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics can most successfully firm up the identity of the discipline. More specifically, diplomacy offers a specialized form of knowledge for understanding how to draw distinctions between potential allies versus rivals, and how to make and unmake relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1049 | 279 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 421 | 38 | 4 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 284 | 65 | 9 |