This article deals with the duty of care that states hold in relation to their citizens abroad — more specifically, the double role of diplomatic personnel, as both providers and recipients of care. The focus of discussion is states’ duty of care for diplomatic personnel, raising questions of how this care can be balanced with the duty of care for citizens and how far this duty stretches. The article first emphasizes the threats, before focusing on the means of protection: evacuation; physical structures; and psychological care. A tension remains, for as states fulfil their duty of care towards personnel through increasing security, they might at the same time reduce their personnel’s capacity to provide care for citizens. One solution for this tension — outsourcing and local personnel — tests the limits of care.
The consular institution has regularly been viewed by academics and practitioners alike as the poor sibling of diplomacy: as a career sidetrack or tour of duty for aspiring ambassadors; and as an example devoid of all the intrigue and politics by historians and theoreticians of diplomacy. Through a detailed case study of the emergence and development of consular representation in Norway, this article demonstrates that any comprehensive history of diplomacy must include a history of the consular institution; that the history of the consular institution is nevertheless not reducible to a history of diplomacy; and that studying the consular institution offers up fresh perspectives on the social practices of representation and state formation.
In this article we seek to understand how succeeding generations of constructivists have invoked history to exact narratives of change within IR. We make the case that there is a move from a first generation where history served primarily to undermine generalised and ahistorical mainstream arguments through a second generation where history was providing data to undercut specific mainstream stories, replacing them with their own largely progressive stories, to a third generation where history is embraced for its own purpose, where history is seen as more open-ended and contingent. This has been a move from the general to the particular and from a meta-critique of the mainstream through accommodation with the mainstream, to a more localised opposition against the mainstream.
Even if beastly iconography has been pervasive in international politics, the study of diplomacy has traditionally focused solely on man as a political animal. Animals in diplomacy have been treated as a curiosity. This article stakes a claim for a more serious engagement with beastly diplomacy, arguing that animals matter through their ontic status; by representing states; as diplomatic subjects; and as objects of diplomacy. The article places particular emphasis on how animals are a special kind of diplomatic gift, with a variety of meanings and functions. Taking animals seriously implies a rethinking of both the process and the outcomes of diplomacy.
Diversity and its management have become an issue in all organisations. Ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) do not escape the issue. In the 2000s, states decided to consider more ethnic diversity in the recruitment of their diplomats. In some countries, this new goal requires affirmative action programs. This article is based on three case studies. The first case study analyses two Western countries — France and Norway — where MFAs have to reflect the diversity of immigration in their societies. The second case study analyses the case of Brazil, a country where the legacy of slavery still causes discrimination in the recruitment of diplomats. The third case study analyses ethnic diversity in the MFAs of India and Singapore, which recognise multiculturalism or multiracialism. The study draws five comparative conclusions to generalise on why MFAs in the world cannot escape the challenge of ethnic diversity in their recruitment policy.