www.madariaga.org On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy Madariaga Paper – Vol. 4, No. 7 (Apr., 2011) This paper examines the role of parliamentary diplomacy as part of and sometimes distinct from traditional forms of diplomacy. Beyond providing some much needed clarity to the notion of parliamentary diplomacy, this paper asks some specific questions: including, what are the added benefits or weaknesses of parliamentary diplomacy in a world marked by powerful states and increasingly influential non-state actors, and under what circumstances may parliamentary diplomacy complement the external activities of the European Union? Daniel Fiott Research Fellow, Madariaga – College of Europe Foundation 14, Avenue de la Joyeuse Entrée Tel: +32 2 209 62 10 B-1040, Brussels, Belgium E-mail: [email protected]The views contained in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Madariaga College of Europe Foundation
27
Embed
On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy - Koç Hastanesimedia.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/resfall15_16/Hist311_DBarlas/Week... · Philip V of Macedon after the failure of the Treaty
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.madariaga.org
On the Value of
Parliamentary
Diplomacy
Madariaga Paper – Vol. 4, No. 7 (Apr., 2011)
This paper examines the role of parliamentary diplomacy as part of
and sometimes distinct from traditional forms of diplomacy. Beyond
providing some much needed clarity to the notion of parliamentary
diplomacy, this paper asks some specific questions: including, what are
the added benefits or weaknesses of parliamentary diplomacy in a
world marked by powerful states and increasingly influential non-state
actors, and under what circumstances may parliamentary diplomacy
complement the external activities of the European Union?
Daniel Fiott Research Fellow, Madariaga – College of Europe Foundation
14, Avenue de la Joyeuse Entrée Tel: +32 2 209 62 10
The views contained in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Madariaga
College of Europe Foundation
| Madariaga Paper – On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy (Apr., 2011)
Introduction
The aftermath of the Portuguese Carnation Revolution (1974 to 1975) brought about a worrisome admixture
of domestic political repression and the excesses of colonial rule in certain African countries, and there was
much debate on the whole of the Portuguese Left as to the future political direction of the country. Having
filled the political vacuum brought about by the Revolution, it was unclear as to whether Portugal would fall
under the Left’s more radical Communist Party or the more moderate Socialist Party (PSP). Given the eager
eye cast by both Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford on the situation, the decision could have had important
ramifications for the Cold War. Eventually, however, Portugal chose social democracy, but what swayed the
decision away from a turn to communism? There were of course many reasons including the need for
economic growth through a market economy, but more interesting was the role played by other political
parties across Europe in supporting the nascent PSP.
Indeed, in the 1970s many social democratic parties in Europe including the German SPD, the Swedish SAP
and British Labour grouped together to assist the PSP with the transition from dictatorship. This aid came in
the form of financial and human resources so that, should Portugal elect the PSP, there would be rapid
democratisation, de-colonisation of Portugal’s territories in Africa and EEC accession.1 This was a substantial
carrot and stick initiative led by political parties. What is interesting about this indirect form of intervention is
its sophistication, fostering inter-party dialogue instead of employing force and offering substantial gains in
the form of EU membership and swift political recognition by neighbouring countries. The German SPD also
managed to fend-off American and Soviet interests in the Iberian state by highlighting the geopolitical
overstretch this would cause, especially for the Soviets.
This introductory example highlights the potential strengths of the role to be played by political parties, and
“parliamentary diplomacy” more generally, but it is unfortunate that this form of diplomacy is often
overlooked. International politics is traditionally presumed to be the domain of diplomats and ministers, but
one should bear in the mind the significance not only of individual politicians and political parties but also of
whole parliamentary bodies in engaging in diplomacy. Accordingly, this paper examines the role of
parliamentary diplomacy as part of and sometimes distinct from traditional forms of diplomacy. Beyond
providing some much needed clarity to the notion of parliamentary diplomacy, this paper analyses the added
benefits and weaknesses of parliamentary diplomacy in a world marked by powerful states and increasingly
influential non-state actors, and under what circumstances parliamentary diplomacy may complement the
external activities of the European Union?
What is Parliamentary Diplomacy?
The idea of parliamentary diplomacy (“parlomacy”) is not new. The Roman Senate, for example, had played
both a role – albeit at the behest of Roman Generals - in first suing for peace and then sanctioning war with
Philip V of Macedon after the failure of the Treaty of Phoenice (205 BC). More recently it has been pointed
out that the United Nations General Assembly is, in essence, parliamentary diplomacy writ large. But
parlomacy is not simply about international congresses.2 Given the diverse array of forms of parlomacy, one
has to be cautious about who or what is said to conduct this form of diplomacy: here one must differentiate
between practice and actors.3 There are a number of parliamentary actors that do parlomacy starting from
individual parliamentarians, to political parties, to local parliaments or assemblies, to national parliaments, to
1 G. Devin, Internationale Socialiste: Histoire et Sociologie du Socialisme Internationale, 1945-1990, (Paris: Presses de la Fondation
Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1993), p. 118. 2 K.W. Thompson, “The New Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace”, International Organization, Vol. 19, No.3 (Summer, 1965), pp. 394-409. 3 For the differences between parliamentary diplomacy as a form of negotiation and as implying a diplomatic agent, see: N. Götz, “On the
Origins of ‘Parliamentary Diplomacy’: Scandinavian ‘Bloc Politics’ and Delegation Policy in the League of Nations”, Cooperation and
Conflict, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 263-279.
1
| Madariaga Paper – On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy (Apr., 2011)
Country A
Political Parties
Government
Parliamentarians
Country A
Parliament
Delegations
Political Parties
Parliamentarians
Country B
Parliament
Delegations
Political Parties
Parliamentarians
regional parliaments and ending with international parliaments. In general there are three major parlomacy
categories: i) parliamentarians; ii) political parties; and, iii) parliaments (be they local, regional or
international). Of course, the type of parliament selected will depend on the country and parliamentary system
one talks about: it is equally possible to speak of les députés or Mitglied des Bundestages.
All of the aforementioned different types of parlomatic actors can act in several formal and informal ways at
the intra-state, inter-state and intra- and inter-regional levels.4 There are, as Figure 1 below shows, different
forms of doing parlomacy. At the intra-state level parliamentarians and political parties are formally and
principally involved in scrutinising the foreign policy of their national government, and in this way can have a
direct bearing on the shape and extent of these policies (e.g. the British House of Commons). These same
actors may also lend their voice of support for policies, which adds legitimacy and more political weight to
them. At the inter-state level parliamentary delegations or multilateral parliamentary friendship groups can
interact to improve the legitimacy of a government in a third-country, and they may also play a role in
developing the representation of people also (e.g. the NATO Parliamentary Assembly). The intra-regional
level is also important, with the European Parliament promoting cultural exchange, dialogue and
understanding between the EU member states and between the EU and the rest of the world. The inter-regional
level sees all different regional parliaments meet for dialogue (e.g. Inter-Parliamentary Union).
As one can see from Figure 2 below there are a host of different activities for which parlomacy can be
involved in. It is noticeable that the activities of parliamentarians, political parties and parliaments tend to be
able to complete more of the formal and informal tasks listed (not an exhaustive list by any means). As one
moves from intra-state parlomacy to the inter-state level certain formal means of action become unavailable,
with less fora for the parliaments of two or more countries to vote or to participate in the cabinet meetings of
governments. Where intra-regional parlomacy is concerned - and here one thinks specifically of the European
Parliament - there are opportunities for parliamentarians to partake in committee hearings (e.g. the EP’s
Foreign Affairs Committee), political party interaction and to scrutinise the European Commission (i.e. a form
of executive scrutiny). Finally, inter-regional parlomacy can partake in far fewer of the activities open to other
levels. The diagram also suggests that the closer the level of parlomacy to power-holding institutions (i.e.
government or international organisations) the more formal activities they are able to participate in.
Figure 1 – Ways of Doing Parlomacy
4 One should distinguish between inter-state parlomacy, which can be undertaken by two or more parliamentary entities in an informal and
sporadic manner, and intra-state parlomacy, which concerns regular contact formally through an established structure (e.g. European
Parliament).
Intra-State Parlomacy
Inter-State Parlomacy
2
| Madariaga Paper – On the Value of Parliamentary Diplomacy (Apr., 2011)
Never Talk to Strangers? On Historians,Political Scientists and the Study of Diplomacyin the European Community/European Union
KAREN GRAM-SKJOLDAGER
Diplomacy is an institution that has undergone tremendouschange over the last century—not least in relation to the new,supranational institutions of the European Community/EuropeanUnion. Nonetheless, it is only very recently that political scientistsand historians have taken an interest in the changes brought aboutby European integration processes for diplomatic norms, roles, andpractices. This article investigates the background for this late andlimited interest. It does so by comparing and contrasting dominanttheoretical trends that have shaped research on European diplo-macy in the two disciplines since the Second World War. Againstthis background it briefly evaluates the recent surge in researchon diplomacy and the European Union within political science,and it points to possible avenues for further, joint, research com-bining the transnational and sociological approaches adopted bypolitical scientists with the attention to temporality and nationalspecificities characteristic of historians’ dealings with Europeandiplomacy.
Diplomacy is one of the oldest instruments of statecraft and one of thelongest standing institutions of the international system. It is also an insti-tution that has undergone tremendous change during the past century.Traditionally associated with the Peace of Westphalia and the emergenceof the modern state system, it has been transformed by the spread of mul-tilateral international co-operation and the increasingly dense networks ofeconomic, political, and cultural relations cutting across national boundaries.Arguably, these changes are particularly pronounced amongst the statesthat have joined the supranational European Communities (EC), later theEuropean Union (EU).
It is therefore hardly surprising that political scientists in recent yearshave taken a growing interest in how the EC/EU has changed diplomacy.
696
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 697
What is perhaps striking, however, is the fact that it is only within the lastdecade that such an interest is detectable—and that it has no parallel inhistory—even if exploring the impact of the EC/EU on diplomacy is fun-damentally a question of exploring historical change. Addressing this lateand uneven interest in diplomacy in the EC/EU, this analysis is based in theassumption that this state of affairs reflects important traits and differencesin the understandings of diplomacy in the two disciplines. In this sense, onecan identify and distinguish analytically amongst three theoretical perspec-tives that have been central to the belated and limited interest in the impactof the EC/EU on diplomacy within the two disciplines: a national perspec-tive borne out of realist and liberal approaches, which views diplomacy firstand foremost as a tool of national interest; an international perspective thathas focused mainly on the general, international aspects of diplomacy as aninstitution of international society on a global scale; and the transnationalor global governance research perspective, which in its earliest manifesta-tions took a key interest in non-state relations and actors and juxtaposedthese with nation state representatives such as the diplomat.
In studying the EC/EU and diplomacy, political scientists have devel-oped approaches that include international and transnational perspectivesand shift the theoretical ground towards sociological perspectives and modesof analysis. Historians, by contrast, have maintained their political-functionalunderstanding and their interest in the national variation in diplomacy. Butit is possible by comparing and contrasting dominant theoretical trends thathave shaped research on European diplomacy in the two disciplines sincethe Second World War to lay out a first, tentative roadmap for further, andjoint, research on diplomacy in the EU; and, on this basis, to argue for thepotentials of merging the theoretical insights from political science with thetemporal dimension and perceptiveness to the national variation character-istic of history. In this way, it is possible to “Europeanise” historiography ondiplomacy and de-centre political science research on diplomacy in the EU,making it aware of the deeper historical processes and broader internationaland national contexts within which diplomacy in the EC/EU developed.
In dealing with diplomacy, there exists a principled distinction betweendiplomacy and foreign policy. Often, and particularly in American scholar-ship, the two terms are used interchangeably.1 This is not the case here,where a distinction is made between foreign policy—understood as thecontent and objectives of a state’s international relations—and the institu-tion of diplomacy through which inter-state relations are conducted.2 Thus,diplomacy is in its most narrow sense the institution that developed withinthe Westphalian state system and which found formal expression in theorganisations of foreign ministries—it is, to quote Jozef Bátora, perceived as“the organizational field” made up of foreign services.3 “Diplomat,” likewise,refers to bureaucrats who work in national foreign services.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
698 K. Gram-Skjoldager
Whilst there is a certain chronological pattern to the different concep-tions of diplomacy that developed during the time when the EC/EU hasbeen an institutional reality, it is important to note that in teleological terms,they are not separate states of mutually exclusive understandings of diplo-macy that have replaced each other. Rather, they are perspectives that havesupplemented and enriched each other and expanded our understanding ofdiplomacy.
The basic precondition for grappling with the question of how diplo-macy has been affected and transformed by the European integrationprocesses is that it is defined as an independent object of academic enquiry;it should not only be perceived as a tool of national interest but also beviewed as an institution that connects national polities and is shaped bychanging international preconditions. During the Cold War, this was the caseonly to a very limited degree. In this period, international relations (IR) andhistory were equally disinterested in diplomacy. It was a subject that had, inthe words of James Der Derian, been “left as a foundling by historians at thedoorstep of diplomatic theorists, who only investigated when mature noiseslike [Hugo Grotius’] de jure belli ac pacis were to be heard.”4 The scant inter-est in diplomacy was closely related to the realist and liberal theories thatstructured most IR debates and much international historical research duringthe Cold War—and which basically viewed diplomacy as a minor tool ofnational policy. In the national interest-driven international world associatedwith realism, states are the only relevant actors and national interests aredefined in terms of power. This situation means that diplomacy has beenperceived basically in instrumental terms as a tool in the national toolbox ofpower and influence5—and, given the relative importance that realists attachto force, “one of the lesser tools of foreign policy.”6 Neo-realism, despite itsfocus on systemic-level theorising, has not changed this view. Whilst assum-ing that state units interpret the environment in which they find themselvesbefore choosing appropriate behaviour, the socialising forces acknowledgedby Kenneth Waltz are seen as lying within the state units themselves and notin any processual relation or institution between states such as diplomacy.7
As a consequence, realism has rarely theorised or explored diplomacy in thecontext of the EC/EU or otherwise.
The same holds true for liberal approaches. Despite their focus onco-operation and peaceful relations, liberal scholars did not develop anytheories of diplomacy either. Focusing primarily on how state behaviour isshaped by state-society relations and viewing international politics in termsof preferences of various groups, liberal theorists have not given diplomacypriority as an independent object of theoretical development.8 In the con-text of EC/EU research, a prominent example of this is Andrew Moravcsik’sinterpretation of key collective political decisions in the European integrationprocess. In the context of inter-state bargaining processes, states are seen as
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 699
separate entities that act and have national interests separate from those ofother states, and diplomacy figures as a constituent part of the states.9
A similar lack of interest in diplomacy may be discerned in his-tory. Though far less explicit about—and often also less conscious of—thetheoretical assumptions underpinning their analyses, the work of most inter-national historians has been based in what may be termed a “soft” variantof realism. Generally speaking international historians of the post-war yearshave been inclined to accept “the self-evident virtue of realpolitik, the cen-trality of the state and the fact of international anarchy,”10 even if theseassumptions have rarely been explicated. The bulk of international his-tory therefore aims to understand and explain national and internationaldecision-making processes and policy outcomes from a nation state per-spective. As a consequence, generous interest has been paid to diplomatsand statesmen operating at the inter-governmental level and forming part offormal international and European decision-making processes.11 However, itis their role in devising policy that has been researched. Attention has rarelybeen paid to how the gradually changing nature of the international andEuropean political processes has produced changes in the social structures,role orientations, and patterns of actions amongst actors such as politiciansand diplomats.
This lack of interest in diplomacy as an independent object of studyin mainstream international history is reflected in the fact that research ondiplomacy in this period almost exclusively took on the form of organi-sational histories. During these years, almost all European states had theinstitutional histories of their national foreign services written;12 and thesehistories in general were nationally compartmentalised and self-containedorganisational outlines that were largely unrelated to broader internationaland European political developments—in the shape of European integra-tion or otherwise. The only large-scale comparative study conducted beforethe end of the Cold War was the 1982 Times Survey of Foreign Ministriesof the World. Edited by the British historian, Zara Steiner, this book was acollection of a broad selection of essays on the history and organisation ofa range of different, though predominantly European, foreign ministries.13
It did not, however, address in any systematic way the changing precondi-tions for these bureaucratic units brought about by a growing number—andincreasingly invasive forms—of international and European organisations.
Only in France did historians to any noticeable extent push past thisorganisational mode of analysis when dealing with European diplomacyafter 1945. Here historians placed the subject of diplomacy on the histori-cal agenda and developed a fairly sophisticated understanding of it alreadyin the 1950s. In 1954, Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle pub-lished their Introduction à l’histoire des relations internationale, which wasinspired by l’École des Annales and propagated a broader and more com-plex form of international history than the classical recounting of inter-state
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
700 K. Gram-Skjoldager
high politics.14 On one hand, they wished to include the “forces profondes”that shaped international relations such as demographic and economic con-ditions and collective mentalities such as national and pacifist sentiments.On the other, they insisted on the importance of events, on placing theindividual at the centre of the historical process and on the importanceof political history. It was Duroselle in particular who developed this sec-ond part of their new international research agenda. In the latter half ofIntroduction à l’histoire des Relations internationals, “L’homme d’état,” hedealt with the decision-making individuals, their social background, theirideas and resources; with how they were influenced by structural forces andhow they were in turn capable of modifying and bending these forces.15
Since then, in the words of Robert Frank, a “durosellienne” tendency hasdeveloped in French international history, which has explored the foreignpolicy decision-making process, the administrative organisation of foreignpolicy making, and the individuals involved in this process.16 This litera-ture also has strong realist traits, claiming the primacy of national interestand taking a basically conflictual view of international politics as a zero-sum game;17 and it does not address in any direct way the changes broughtabout by the quiet transformation of the European political landscape. But itdoes consider diplomacy and its changing norms and practices to be issuesworthy of independent academic interest and, in this way, points forward tomore recent studies of diplomacy.
Whilst soft realist and nation state centred perspectives have dominatedIR and formed the basis of the modestly sized historical scholarship on diplo-macy since the Second World War, a minor theoretical strand has insisted onviewing diplomacy as an institution of international politics worthy of a con-siderable academic interest. Most IR research on diplomacy is rooted in the“English School” and is focused on the common, international characteris-tics of and developments in diplomacy. Emerging in the 1960s and basedjust as much in history as in IR, English School researchers were the firstto formulate general reflections on the nature and development of diplo-macy. Founded by British historians Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield,the School held—and still holds—strong, and positive, normative assump-tions about the political and moral quality of diplomacy; and it was withinthis context that the notion of diplomacy as an institution of internationalsociety was introduced.18
In his 2002 overview of English School studies of diplomacy, theNorwegian political scientist and anthropologist, Iver B. Neumann, has iden-tified three generations of English School scholarship.19 The main achieve-ment of the first generation, represented by Butterfield and Wight, was toplace diplomacy at the centre of international politics—with Wight claim-ing that diplomacy was the “master institution” of international relations.20
The second generation of English School writers—Hedley Bull and AdamWatson—shifted the view of diplomacy slightly as Bull introduced the notion
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 701
of a “diplomatic culture” and claimed that diplomacy symbolised the exis-tence of an “international society.”21 The third generation of the EnglishSchool, writing from the 1980s, took the interpretation of diplomacy onestep further. Developing a finely meshed typology of the various historicalforms of diplomacy, scholars like James Der Derian and Christian Reus-Smitargued that diplomacy was a constituent rather than reflexive practice ofinternational society, and a practice that was embedded in broader moraland social systems.22
Following the breakdown of the rigid bipolar Cold War structure, theEnglish School and its notion of an international society of states has expe-rienced a renaissance. This revival also goes for its dealings with diplomacy,making it the mainstay of a large and diverse literature on this subject.23
At the theoretical level, this literature has gathered the threads of previousEnglish School writings on diplomacy, viewing diplomacy as an institutionconstituted by “a relatively stable collection of social practices consisting ofeasily recognised roles coupled with underlying norms and a set of rulesor conventions defining appropriate behaviour for, and governing relationsamongst, occupants of these roles.”24
However, in relation to understanding the effects of the European inte-gration processes on diplomacy, this literature has fairly little to offer. Thissituation is partially due to its general international—or global—outlook.Partially it is based in the fact that the English School literature is pred-icated on assumptions about a state-based international system that isfundamentally inter-governmental in nature and grounded on a dichotomi-sation between international and national politics. Thus it has continued tofocus on diplomats’ double mandate as representatives of both nation statesand international society; and it also sees diplomacy as a “third culture”in which diplomats, on one hand, function as boundary-maintainers thatuphold the discourse dividing politics into domestic and foreign spheresand, on the other, constitute “a locus for mediation between political enti-ties with diverse cultures.”25 Therefore, the empirical studies emerging fromthese perspectives have also been concerned primarily with diplomatic staterecognition practices and the role of the corps diplomatique in manag-ing mutually beneficial relations and reproducing the basic principles thatunderpin inter-state relations.26
The new English School research on diplomacy is in some respectsbackward looking. Thus, in pointing to the co-operative, mediating aspectsof diplomacy, the English School has to some extent brought the classi-cal diplomatic self-understanding back onto the research agenda. Twentiethcentury classics of diplomats’ writings such as Ernest Satow’s A Guide toDiplomatic Practice and Sir Harold Nicolson’s Diplomacy as well as manydiplomats’ memoirs, are generally characterised by what Paul Sharp hasnamed a practical, or unreflective, cosmopolitanism.27 Whilst firmly believ-ing in the sovereign state system and in diplomats as representatives of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
702 K. Gram-Skjoldager
sovereign states and their interests, diplomats have often simultaneouslyargued—or implicitly assumed—that they function as a steadying, positiveinfluence in international politics, curbing the impulses of politicians andpublic opinions attempting to push national self-interest too far. With thesetting up of “diplomatic studies” programmes at universities and otherresearch institutions across Europe and the United States since the endof the Cold War, a new research field also has been created in whichboth academics and diplomats engage based on these shared assumptionsabout the positive role of diplomacy.28 In this context, a new academicallyoriented type of diplomats’ writings on diplomacy has also emerged thattends to emphasise the positive moral assumptions about diplomacy. Oneexample is the German former ambassador and professor of law and diplo-macy, Wilfried Bolewski, whose book Diplomacy and International Law inGlobalised Relations (2007) includes bold statements such as: “Through itsflexibility and adaptability diplomacy will emerge as an instrument for thisuniversal good in the 21st century.”29
Whilst scholars relating to the English School have highlighted the inter-national dimensions of diplomacy that have previously escaped scholarly—and particularly historical—scrutiny, it is therefore also apparent thatthis scholarship stands the risk of idealising the diplomatic profession,over-emphasising its exclusive and distinct character, and overvaluing therelationships amongst diplomats at the expense of their interactions withthe growing number of state and non-state actors. These new actors havecome to inhabit the diplomatic realm in the twentieth century—and not leastbecause of the new changes brought about by the increasingly invasiveforms of international cooperation, particularly the EC/EU. In one regard,however, the empirical studies generated through the theoretical interestsof the English School do point forward. They mark the culmination of adevelopment amongst English School writers away from abstract theoris-ing towards viewing and analysing diplomacy as a practice and as part ofsocial life. Thus, whilst Butterfield and Wight had as their primary aim todevelop a philosophy of history and adopted a rather speculative approachto their subject based mainly in textual analyses,30 Watson, much more thanhis predecessors, focused on diplomacy as a practice, viewing internationalnegotiation, information gathering, and communication as core practicesof the diplomatic trade. In focusing on the actual activities in diplomacy,Watson historicised and sociologised the institution of diplomacy that IR hadpreviously treated as a given.31 Both the understanding of diplomacy as aninternational institution and as a concrete political and social practice arefeatures that are echoed in recent political science research on diplomacyin the EU.
Before looking at this research, however, it may be helpful first toconsider another recent theoretical development that has, at least initially,inhibited the academic interest in diplomacy, but which has recently come
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 703
to enrich it. This is the transnational research perspective. As pointed outabove, an important reason for the fairly limited and secluded scholarshipon diplomacy within IR and international history is the predominance ofintergovernmental, nation-centred approaches in both disciplines. However,part of the reason also lies in the fact that over the last two decades, develop-ments in the research agendas in the two disciplines have been moving pastthe international and national approaches and towards the transnational—or global governance—perspective. And from the outset this perspectivewas based in an—implicit or explicit—juxtaposition of transnationalism andthe study of intergovernmental institutions and actors such as diplomacyand diplomats.
In IR, global governance approaches have argued that diplomacy isnot only to be conceived an increasingly unimportant but also as a neg-ative force in international politics. Acknowledging that diplomacy wasonce an important institution in international relations, scholars subscrib-ing to this view have argued that technological developments and thecomplex interdependence that characterises the globalised world haveblurred the national-international divide and made diplomacy increasinglyirrelevant.32 Alongside this temporal argument, global governance literaturehas mounted a normative argument against diplomacy as a barrier to interna-tional co-operation. Diplomacy, so the proponents of this view argue, is aninstrument of control used by governments to limit international interactions.In its essential structure, diplomacy remains state-centric, and the diplomaticpreference for order and stability following from this mandate is at oddswith attempts to promote equity and justice and extend the ambit of rulesand regulations across states. From this perspective an academic interestin diplomacy is uninteresting because it assumes that diplomats as nationalrepresentatives defend particular national interests and that states’ diplomaticpractices remain fundamentally unchanged.33 Adding to this view, studyingdiplomacy is also problematic because it re-enforces the notion that govern-ments are the main actors in international affairs. Consequently, to the extentthat the global governance literature has been concerned with diplomacy, ithas focused on the development of an alternative diplomacy amongst NGOsand other transnational actors considered to increase the prospect of aninternational order transcending the state system.34 In Europe, this approachhas taken on a distinct and influential form with the Europeanisation liter-ature. In the face of the accelerating integration dynamics brought aboutby the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht, public policyresearchers have explored the growing transnationalisation and regionali-sation of decision-making in Europe—and in doing so have tended to lookpast the foreign services.35
International history, too, has had its “transnational turn” and here asimilar marginalisation of the classical state representatives has taken place.Focusing on the flow of people, ideas, and goods across national borders,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
704 K. Gram-Skjoldager
it has defined itself in contradiction to traditional inter-state history andtended to write the statesmen and diplomats out of the international his-torical narrative.36 In the context of European integration history, thesetrends have found a poignant expression in the German historian’s, WolframKaiser’s, re-conceptualisation of the EC/EU as a transnational political societyand supranational political system, highlighting the importance of informaltransnational networks in the EC/EU political system and the emergence ofa European public sphere.37
It is evident that the identification of emerging transnational politicalopportunity structures in the transnational and global governance literatureforms an important, historically founded challenge to the dominant under-standings of diplomacy—not least in the highly integrated European region.Recently, too, political scientists have come to renew the study of diplomacyas they have combined insights from the English School with the insightsgenerated by transnational research perspectives and taken an interest inthe changing forms and functions of diplomatic practices in the increasinglyintegrated bureaucratic and political environment in the EC/EU.
The theoretical essays and empirical studies that have emerged ondiplomacy in the EU over the last decade may be sub-divided into twocategories: one taking a largely political-functional view on the changingpatterns of diplomacy and another, and more recent, adopting a sociologicalperspective on this issue.
At a general level, Anne-Marie Slaughter in A New World Order pin-points the views of the first body of research.38 She points to how “theexecutive” in foreign affairs has become increasingly complex and differen-tiated and draws attention to the development of executive transnationalnetworks that exchange information, co-ordinate policy, collect and dis-tribute best practices, and so on. Stressing the pioneering nature of EU in thisregard, Slaughter has argued that these executive networks are themselvesan organisational form of global governance. Her points have been substan-tiated and developed by a number of scholars headed by the British politicalscientist, Brian Hocking, placing their analytical focus on the interactionsbetween the traditional diplomatic actors and other actors operating in thediplomatic environment. Arguing that foreign ministries have lost their tradi-tional gate-keeping role as primary points of interface between the domesticand the international environment, this literature contends that diplomatshave gained an alternative and equally important role: they have become“boundary spanners” mediating and managing relations between the grow-ing number of bureaucratic and non-governmental actors that have becomeinvolved in the production and administration of international policy.39 Thisprocess, so it is argued, is particularly prominent in the European diplo-matic arena due not only to the density of intra-European relations ingeneral, but also to two specific responsibilities of foreign ministries in rela-tion to the EC/EU: the co-ordination of sectorial ministries’ affairs with the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 705
EC/EU and member state participation in the common European foreign andsecurity policy.40
The question of how the EU has changed diplomacy in the mem-ber states has been elaborated by Jozef Bátora who, in doing so, picksup on a key aspect of the English School conception of diplomacy asboth a national and an international institution, understanding diplomacyas an institution of “a Janus-faced character with a national side anchoredin particular sovereign states and a transnational side anchored in the setof interstate diplomatic principles and rules.”41 Bátora considers how theprocess of European integration has changed this institution. In particularhe has reflected on the new co-operative bilateral diplomacy in the EC/EUarea and on how the new institutionalised interactions between diplomaticrepresentatives in the Brussels-based body of diplomats, the Comité desreprésentants permanents (COREPER),42 and supranational actors such asthe Commission and the European Parliament has changed diplomacy inEurope and created a particular intra-European mode of diplomacy. In thesame vein, a study by Mai’a K. Davis Cross has explored the Europeandiplomatic corps as a transnational epistemic community. Using as one ofher examples the role of the COREPER in the brokering of the Treaty ofMaastricht, she has demonstrated how they have often exercised their own,collective, agency—separate from member state preferences.43
Whilst this literature has identified and characterised important newaspects in contemporary diplomatic practice in the EU, it does not to anyconsiderable extent consider the motives and perceptions underlying thesenew patterns of diplomatic action; neither does it address the question ofhow this change was brought about. These are questions that have beentouched upon by Rebecca Adler-Nissen. Her empirical focus, too, is theCOREPER diplomats. Conducting interviews with diplomats working here,she has explored how the traditional mainstay of diplomats’ work—the pro-motion of national interests—has been subject to new forms of socialisationin what has otherwise been considered an EU institutional setting operat-ing along classical intergovernmental lines. Like Davis Cross, Adler-Nissensees diplomats as representing both European and national interests. Butshe claims that the clear distinction between what is national and what isEuropean—underpinning the analysis of Davis Cross—fails fully to graspthe character of the “late sovereign diplomacy” of post-1945 Europe. In thisarena, political and legal authorities are overlapping and the very construc-tion of national positions takes place “as part of a struggle for distinctionand dominance in a field where the stakes have already been defined.”44
Diplomats in the EU, she argues, operate on the basis of a—more orless conscious—shared understanding of working in a particular direction,towards fulfilling the aims of the treaties of “an ever closer union.” It means,she argues, that the politico-administrative elites in the EU member stateshave been undergoing a “Europeanization of national identity.”45 Whilst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
706 K. Gram-Skjoldager
assuming that legitimate authority stems from non-elected supranationalbodies such as the Commission, as well as state-based elected and non-elected representatives, they do not view European and national loyaltiesas a zero-sum game; they develop “a more pragmatic and experienced ideathat one is influential if one can come up with common solutions.”46
The points made by Adler-Nissen are significant not only because theyare based on some of the first in-depth empirical research of EU diplo-macy, but also because her attention to the quiet transformations and shiftsin diplomats’ identities and loyalties47 accords with a broader socio-culturalturn in the study of diplomacy. Thus Neumann has argued in favour of—and conducted—anthropological explorations into professional norms andvalues of diplomacy, using the Norwegian Foreign Service as his analyti-cal entry point. Picking up on developments in the English School towards“sociologising” the study of diplomacy, he argues that diplomacy should beexplored as a social practice alongside other social practices of the every-day life of its bearers. Neumann is, in his own words, interested in “thepeople internal to it [diplomacy], that is, the people embodying the prac-tices involved.”48 Similar trends are discernable in French social scienceresearch, where sociological group portraits of different diplomatic groupshave appeared.49
Besides these broader mappings of the social structures of diplomaticprofession, these trends have also taken the form of investigations intoissues such as how technological developments have changed the work-ing of diplomacy and the working life of diplomats and added a genderperspective to the research on diplomacy.50 Whilst in history, there is noparallel to the strong, new interest taken in diplomacy in the EU, the turnto sociological perspectives on diplomacy is discernible in the form of stud-ies of gender and technology.51 And whilst there is still a clear, nationalfocus in these studies, they have become increasingly more contextualised,breaking the mould of the classical organisational history, and relating tobroader political developments in Europe—including in a few instances theEuropean integration process.
Over the last two decades a diverse historical scholarship has appearedexploring how different national experiences of twentieth century interna-tional politics have reflected on the various European diplomatic services.For instance, German historical research from the 1990s onwards has centredon exploring the role of German diplomats and the German Foreign Ministryin the Third Reich and in the transformation from the Third Reich to theFederal Republic.52 Similar attempts to come to terms with the role playedby diplomats in the fascist era and their subsequent diplomatic careers havebeen made in Austria and Italy.53
In Great Britain historical research has taken an altogether differentturn. Here, national narrations of the history of the Foreign Office andDiplomatic Service have been blossoming since the Cold War, and Britain
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 707
is home to the most extensive scholarship on one single European ForeignService.54 In general this scholarship has been interested in understandinghow diplomacy has been applied and developed under changing inter-national conditions with a main focus on Great Britain’s decline from aworld Power to a European middle Power. Whilst sometimes including anAmerican or Commonwealth perspective, the EC/EU plays a minor role inthese narrations.55
French historiography, by contrast, reflects France’s key role in the cre-ation of the EC/EU with studies on how European co-operation has affectedthe Quai d’Orsay.56 Thus, recently, an edited volume has appeared thattakes a comparative historical view on how European co-operation hasaffected European national administrations.57 Though not focusing exclu-sively on the Foreign Services, this is the first publication since Zara Steiner’s1982 book on foreign ministries attempting to study national diplomaticservices from a wider, comparative historical perspective. The volume alsocontains one contribution by British historian, N. Piers Ludlow, which tran-scends the comparative setup of the volume; he studies the creation androle of the COREPER that has also been explored in recent political sci-ence research on EU diplomacy. Ludlow’s argument is quite similar to theones developed by the political scientists. The COREPER, so he argues, didnot only serve to counter-balance and increase member state control overthe European Commission. Pre-empting—and mediating—the arguments ofDavis Cross and Adler-Nissen, he shows how the permanent representativesserved as vital communication channels, mediators, and “trouble shooters”with a shared esprit de corps that mediated between the Commission andmember states as well as amongst member states.58
Picking up on the themes raised by this edited volume and tuning in toHocking and Bátora’s more functionally oriented explorations of diplomacy,Ann-Christina L. Knudsen and Morten Rasmussen have recently explored theemergence of the EC committee structure in the 1960s and its implication ofclassical state representatives such as diplomats.59 Investigating the commit-tee structure in the field of agricultural policy-making during this period,they demonstrate how the emerging political system of the EC/EU created anew and very broad interface between the EC and national administrations.
This interest in the new patterns of diplomacy within the EC/EU isframed by a broader historical interest in the changes in intergovernmentaldiplomatic interactions with the emergence of summitry—both in the formof bilateral summits amongst heads of government60 and institutionalisedmultilateral summits of the European Council and the G7.61 However, theseexplorations are still largely nationally structured, focusing on the motivesand gains of the various governments involved in the summit diplomacy.
Thus there are some indications that historians are approaching theissue of how the EC/EU has transformed diplomacy in Europe and, con-trary to much previous historical research on diplomacy, these studies are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
708 K. Gram-Skjoldager
not carried out by specialised historians of diplomacy but by historiansworking with European and international history more generally. This ishardly a coincidence, considering that there has been a more general ten-dency amongst these historians to consider more seriously the particularsupranational character of the EC/EU polity and bring the new transnationalperspectives together with the study of classical nation state representatives.As Ludlow pointed out in a 2005 article: “political historians [. . .] need tomove beyond the national political framework which has long been theirpreferred stamping ground, and adapt their techniques to the rather differentchallenges posed by supranational decision making”62
Seen together with the broader interest in exploring diplomacy from asociological perspective amongst historians, it is evident that even if thereis no coherent or explicit elaboration of themes about how the EC/EU hasaffected the history of diplomacy in terms of approaches, political scienceand history are currently synchronous. Assuming that these perspectivesare of critical importance for picking up and understanding the changesthat diplomacy in Europe has been undergoing, there are some concludingreflections to be made on what may be potential avenues for further, joint,research.
There is a fundamental incongruence between the far reaching changesthat the EC/EU has brought to inter-state relations in Europe and the lateand scant academic attention that has been paid to the effects of thesechanges for diplomatic norms, roles, and practices. Since the Second WorldWar, research on diplomacy in the two fields has been shaped by three dom-inant theoretical perspectives that for a long time have placed the question ofhow the supranational EC/EU construction transformed diplomacy at a blindangle: a national perspective based in realist and liberal approaches that hasconsidered diplomacy primarily as a tool for promoting national interests inintergovernmental bargaining processes; an international perspective rootedin the English School focused mainly on diplomacy as an institution of inter-national society more generally; and a transnational perspective concernedprimarily with non-state actors, networks and processes.
The idea of diplomacy as an international institution has bound togetherstates, and the awareness of the transnationalisation of twentieth centuryinternational and European politics have recently served to inform andenrich political science research on diplomacy in the EU. For long dominantin historical research on diplomacy, the national perspective has recentlyformed the basis of a historical scholarship that is increasingly adopting abroad political and cultural approach when looking at diplomacy in Europeand, gradually, taking an interest in the changes to the diplomatic tradebrought about by the EC/EU. In sum, the most recent research on diplomacyin the EC/EU area reflects a broader inclination within both political scienceand history to confront and disaggregate diplomacy as an analytical categoryand to challenge, or at least problematise, what Robert D. Schulzinger hastermed “the professional mystique” of diplomacy.63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 709
However, it still seems that further insights may be gained if historiansengaged more actively with the political science research on the transfor-mative effects of the EC/EU on diplomacy. Considering that the explicitambition of this political science research is to understand the historicaltransformations of diplomacy in relation to the changing forms of politicaland legal authority in the EU, there is a striking absence of historical depthto analysis in these studies. Whilst referring to the macro-historical shifts thathave taken place from the Westphalian state system, the investigations thatare carried out are almost exclusively contemporary in character. Or put dif-ferently: whilst this literature has a lot to say about the ultimate effect of theEuropean integration processes on diplomacy, it has less to offer when itcomes to understanding how this result came about.
Therefore it seems evident that history has something to offer interms of meso- and micro-level diachronic studies of the developments indiplomacy—both in relation to the scholarship that has concerned itself pri-marily with changes in the functional and formal relationships betweendiplomats and other national bureaucratic units and non-governmentalactors and the sociologically-inspired research on the emerging diplomaticfield around the Council and the COREPER. In relation to the first body ofresearch, historical studies would have a lot to offer in terms of exploring,through single national or comparative studies, when and how these newrelationships developed, if and how they developed differently amongstdifferent member states, and who or what were the drivers of change inthese processes.
Likewise, adding a historical perspective to the sociological analysis ofthe diplomatic field around the Council and the COREPER seems relevant.Whilst existing studies have convincingly identified key features of this field,questions such as when and how this particular pattern of social and politicalinteractions developed, how diplomats from new member states have beensocialised into it, and whether it has changed over time have not beenaddressed. Neither has the question of whether and to which degree thediplomatic practices of the EC/EU deviate from diplomatic practices in othermultilateral settings been the object of empirical research. As several studieshave demonstrated, increasingly complex international environments havein general changed diplomatic roles and patterns of actions.64 Even if itseems reasonable to assume that diplomacy in the supranational EU settingcarries certain distinctive features, it is not clear when EU diplomacy startedsetting itself apart from diplomacy in other multilateral settings and what isthe nature and extent of these differences.
In engaging with issues of this kind historians also may have some-thing to offer in terms of methodology. Most political science researchhas been based either in open sources or diplomats’ self-interpretationsas obtained through interviews. Consulting the archives of the variousdiplomatic services or the EC/EU might offer valuable insights into the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
710 K. Gram-Skjoldager
perceptions, motives, and conflicts of interest underlying these processesof change. Also, it seems relevant to include in the research on the Counciland the COREPER, in a more systematic manner, the national dimensionthat has so far been at the centre of historians’ attention. In keeping withBátora’s view of diplomacy as a two-faced organisational field—a transna-tional side anchored in interstate diplomatic principles and rules; and anational side anchored in particular sovereign states—it would seem rele-vant to explore in more depth the relationship and exchanges between theinterlinked fields of EU diplomacy and national foreign services with theirdivergent institutional cultures, norms, and rules. For instance, it could beinteresting to explore in more detail how diplomats coming from differentnational milieus have responded and adapted to the Brussels-based diplo-matic environment, whether the political capital they have built up in theirnational home institutions and in alternative international diplomatic settingsare equally transferable to the EU diplomatic field, and how their differentstarting points and self-perceptions have shaped their interactions with thisenvironment.
Finally it seems relevant to look at the mirror image of these processes:investigating how, in the context of the national foreign services, EU assign-ments were perceived and integrated into and affected diplomatic careerpatterns; exploring how the building up and maintenance of EU exper-tise was secured in these various institutional contexts through recruitment,training practices, and diplomatic postings; and looking into the informalEuropeanisation processes that must have developed as circulation andintegration between these different diplomatic fields increased. If histori-ans would engage actively with the theoretical developments in politicalscience relating to the EU and diplomacy, this would not only serve torenew diplomatic history by opening up a field of study that so far hasnot been cultivated. It would also bring it in synch with broader researchtrends in international and European political history and enrich political sci-ence research by adding temporal and contextual perspectives so far largelyoverlooked.
NOTES
I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments on aprevious version of this article. The article has been written as part of a postdoctoral research projectfunded by the Danish Research Council for Culture and Communication.
1. One prominent example is Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York, 1994). Cf. Alan James,“Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies, 19(1993), p. 92.
2. For similar distinctions, see: Adam Watson, Diplomacy. The Dialogue between States (London,1982); Sasson Sofer, “Old and New Diplomacy: a Debate Revisited,” Review of International Studies,Volume 14, Number 3(1988), p. 196; Jan Melissen, “Introduction,” in Jan Melissen, ed., Innovation inDiplomatic Practice (Houndsmill, Basingstoke, 1999), p. xvii.
3. Jozef Bátora. “Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?,” CliengendalDiscussion Papers in Diplomacy, 87(2003), p. 20.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 711
4. James Der Derian, On Diplomacy. A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford, 1987), 16.Also see Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall, Essence of Diplomacy (New York, 2005), p. 12–3; Sofer,“Old and New,” p. 196; Barry H. Steiner, “Diplomacy and International Theory,” Review of InternationalStudies, Volume 30, Number 4(2004), pp. 493–94.
5. Paul Sharp, “Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem of Diplomatic Representation,” InternationalJournal, 52(1997), p. 615.
6. James, “Diplomacy,” p. 95.7. Barry Buzan, C. Jones, and R. Little. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism
(New York, 1993), p. 40. Cf. Jönsson and Hall, Essence, p. 17.8. Jönsson and Hall, Essence, p. 17–8.9. Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to
Maastricht (London, 1998). Cf. Rebecca Adler-Nissen, “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” Hague Journal ofDiplomacy, Volume 4, Number 2(2009), p. 123–24.
10. Patrick Finney, “Introduction: What is International History?” in idem., ed., Palgrave Advancesin International History (New York 2004), p. 15.
11. For some excellent examples of this approach, see Sally Marks, The Illusion of Peace.International Relations in Europe, 1918–1933 (London, 1976); Alan S. Milward, The Reconstructionof Western Europe 1945–1951 (London, 1984). Cf. Paul Kennedy, The Realities Behind Diplomacy:Background Influences on British External Policy, 1865–1980 (London, 1981).
12. L.V. Ferraris, L’amministrazione centrale del Ministereo degli Esteri italiano nel suo sviluppostorico (Florence, 1955); Klaus Kjølsen et al., Den danske udenrigstjeneste 1770–1970, Volumes 1–2,(Copenhagen, 1970); H.G. Sasse, Hundert Jahre Auswärtiges Amt 1870–1970 (Bonn, 1970); JeanBaillou, ed., Les affaires étrangères et le corps diplomatique français, Volume 2: 1870–1980 (Paris,1984); Roger Bullen, ed., The Foreign Office, 1782–1982 (Frederick, MD, 1984); Vincenzo Pellegrini,L’amministrazione centrale dall’Unitá alla Republica. La strutture e i dirigenti, Volume 1: Il Ministerodegli Affari Esteri (Bologna, 1992); Bert van der Zwan, Bob de Graaff and Duco Hellema, eds., DeNederlandse ministers van buitenlandse zaken in de twintigste eeuw (Den Haag, 1999). In the caseof Germany, there are also studies attending to the re-establishment of the German Foreign Ministryafter the Second World War: M. Overesch, Gesamtdeutsche Illusion und westdeutsche Realität. Vonden Vorbereitungen für einen deutschen Friedensvertrag zur Gründung des Auswärtigen Amts derBundesrepublik Deutschland 1946–1949/51 (Düsseldorf, 1978); H. Piontkowitz, Das deutsche Bürofür Friedensfragen 1947–49. Ein Vorläufer des Auswärtigen Amts im Widerspiel der Kräfte (Göttingen,1978); S. Tunberg, C.-F. Palmstierna et al., Histoire de l’administration des affaires étrangères de la Suede(Uppsala, 1940). This is a genre that has effectively disappeared in the last two decades; however, see:Iver B. Neumann and Halvard Leira, Aktiv og avventende. Utenrikstjenestens liv 1905–2005 (Oslo, 2005).
13. Zara Steiner, ed., The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries of the World (London, 1982). Cf. ZaraSteiner, “Foreign Services and Modern Diplomacy: Suggestions for a Comparative Approach,” CambridgeReview of International Affairs, 3(1989), p. 3–13.
14. Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, Introduction à l’histoire des relations interna-tionales (Paris, 1954).
15. For introductions to the French history of international relations, see Georges-Henri Soutou,“Die französische Schule der Geschichte internationaler Beziehungen,” in Wilfried Loth and JürgenOsterhammel, eds., Internationale Geschichte. Themen—Ergebnisse—Aussichten (München, 2000),31–44, here in particular 39; Robert Frank, “Penser historiquement les relations international,” Annuairefrançais de relations internationales, 4(2003), pp. 42–9.
16. For examples of this approach, see: Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, Histoire diplomatique de 1919 anos jours (Paris, 1953) (published in eleven editions from 1953 to 1993); Jean Doise and Maurice Vaïsse,Politique étrangère de la France: diplomatic et outil militaire, 1871–1991 (Paris, 1987); Rainer Hudemannand Georges-Henri Soutou, eds., Eliten in Deutschland und Frankreich im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert:Strukturen und Beziehungen/Élites en France et en Allemagne aux XIXème et XXème siècles: structureset relations, Volume 1 (München, 1994); Laurence Badel and Stanislas Jeannesson, eds., Diplomaties enrenouvellement. Actes de la journée d’études du 3 octobre 2008 à l’Université Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne(Paris, 2009). Currently, the young French historian, Matthieu Osmont, is working on a PhD thesis on Lesdiplomates français et l’Allemagne (1955–1990): (http://centre-histoire.sciences-po.fr/fichiers_pdf/fiches_doctorants/ OSMONTMATTHIEU.pdf.
17. Soutou, “französische Schule,” pp. 31–32.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
712 K. Gram-Skjoldager
18. For instance, Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays inthe Theory of International Politics (London, 1966)
19. Iver B. Neumann, “The English School on Diplomacy,” Clingendael Discussion Papers inDiplomacy, 79(2002) on which the following is based. The working paper has later been publishedas: Iver B. Neumann: “The English School on Diplomacy,” in Christer Jönsson and Robert Langhorne,eds., Diplomacy, Volume 1 (London, 2004), pp. 92–116.
20. See in particular Herbert Butterfield, “The New Diplomacy and Historical Diplomacy” andMartin Wight, “Why is there no International Theory?,” both in Wight and Butterfield, DiplomaticInvestigations; Martin Wight (Hedley Bull, ed.), Systems of States (Leicester, 1977).
21. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics (London, 1977).22. Derian, On Diplomacy; Christian Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State. Culture, Social
Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton, NJ, 1999).23. A testament to the revitalisation of research on diplomacy is the three-volume collection of
writings in the field: Jönsson and Langhorne, Diplomacy.24. Jönsson and Hall, Essence, p. 25.25. Iver B. Neumann, Diplomats and Diplomacy: An Anthropological View (PhD Dissertation,
University of Oslo, 2008), p. 130.26. Neumann, Diplomats and Diplomacy; Costas Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy
(Minneapolis, 1996); Jönsson and Hall, Essence; Sharp, “Diplomats”; idem., “For Diplomacy:Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, 1(1999),pp. 33–57; idem., Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (New York, 2009), Paul Sharp andGeoffrey Wisemann, eds., The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society (Basingstoke,2007).
27. Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy (New York, 1939); Ernest Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice(London, New York, 1917). Cf. Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” pp. 624–29.
28. For a prominent example of one such programme, see Clingendael Diplomatic StudiesProgramme: http://www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/); Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” pp. 44–45. For a criticalreflection on this development, see James, “Diplomacy.”
29. Wilfried Bolewski, Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations (Berlin,Heidelberg, 2007), p. 26. For a similar example, see Charles Chatterjee: International Law and Diplomacy(London, 2007).
30. See in particular Butterfield, “New Diplomacy”; Wight, “International Theory”; idem., Systems.31. Watson, Diplomacy.32. Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” pp. 43–44; Brian Hocking, “Foreign Ministries: Redefining
the Gatekeeper Role,” in Brian Hocking, ed., Foreign Ministries. Change and Adaptation(Basingstoke/New York, 1999) 4–5; Andrew F. Cooper, Brian Hocking, and William Maley, “Diplomacyand Global Governance: Locating Patterns of (Dis)Connection,” in Andrew F. Cooper, Brian Hocking,and William Maley, eds., Global Governance and Diplomacy. Worlds Apart? (Basingstoke, New York,2008), pp. 2–3.
33. Adler-Nissen, “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” pp. 125–26.34. Cooper, Hocking, and Maley, “Diplomacy,” pp. 1–3.35. For an overview of this literature, see Simon Hix and Claus Goetz, “Introduction: European
Integration and National Political Systems,” in Klaus Goetz and Simon Hix, eds., Europeanised Politics?European Integration and National Political Systems (London, 2001), pp. 1–26.
36. Wolfram Kaiser, Brigitte Leucht and Morten Rasmussen, eds., The History of the European Union.Origins of a Trans- and Supranational Polity 1950–72 (Oxford, New York, 2009), pp. 189–205; KiranK. Patel: “Überlegungen zu einer transnationalen Geschichte,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 52(2004), pp. 626–45.
37. For instance, Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union(Cambridge, New York, 2007).
38. Anne-Marie Slaughter, New World Order (Princeton, NJ, 2004).39. Brian Hocking, Localizing Foreign Policy: Non Central Governments and Multilayered
Diplomacy (London, 1993); idem., “Foreign Ministries.”40. Brian Hocking and David Spence, Foreign Ministries in the European Union. Integrating
Diplomats (New York, 2002), in particular Brian Hocking, “Introduction: Gatekeepers and Boundary-Spanners—Thinking about Foreign Ministries in the European Union,” p. 2; Brian Hocking and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of Diplomacy in the EU/EC 713
David Spence: “Towards a European Diplomatic System?,” Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy,98(2005); Jozef Bátora and Brian Hocking, “Bilateral Diplomacy in the European Union,” Towards ‘post-modern’ Patterns?,” Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, 111(2008); Bátora, “European Union.”In 2009, a special issue of the Hague Journal of Diplomacy was devoted to exploring the changes thatthe EC/EU has brought about for the institution of diplomacy. See Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Volume4, Number 2(2009).
41. Bátora, “European Union,” p. 1.42. COREPER is made up by the head of mission from the EU member states in Brussels. Its role
is to prepare the meetings of the ministerial Council of the European Union.43. Mai´a K. Davis Cross, The European Diplomatic Community. Diplomats and International
Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Basingstoke, New York, 2007), pp. 139–78 Cf. Jönsson andHall, Essence, pp. 160–61.
44. Adler-Nissen, “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” pp. 132.45. Ibid., p. 130.46. Ibid., p. 131.47. See also: Rebecca Adler-Nissen,”The Diplomacy of Opting Out: A Bourdieudian Approach to
National Integration Strategies,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2008), pp. 663–84.48. Neumann, “English School,” quote: 20; idem., “To be a Diplomat,” International Studies
Perspectives, 6(2005), pp. 72–93; idem., “Sublime diplomacy,” Millennium, 34(2006), pp. 865–88; idem.,“‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand for‘, or: Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New,”International Political Sociology, Volume 1, Number 2(2007), pp. 183–200; idem., “The Body of theDiplomat,” European Journal of International Relations, 14(2008), pp. 671–95. See also Costas M.Constantinou, “On Homo-Diplomacy,” Space and Culture, 9(2006), pp. 351–64; Sasson Sofer, “Beinga Pathetic Hero in International Politics: The Diplomat as a Historical Actor,” Diplomacy and Statecraft,12(2001), pp. 107–112.
49. Meredith Kingston de Leusse, Diplomatie. Une sociologie des ambassadeurs, (Paris, 1998);Marie-Christine Kessler, “Les ambassadeurs: une élite contestée?,” in Vida Azimi, ed., Les élitesadministratives en France et en Italie (Paris, 2006), pp. 171–85.
50. See Jozef Bátora, Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution: Going Virtual? (Leiden,Boston, 2008); Richard Grant. “The Democratization of Diplomacy: Negotiating with the Internet,”Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, 100(2005). Then Yves Denechere, “La place et le rôle desfemmes dans la politique étrangère de la France contemporaine,” Vingtième Siècle, Volume78, Number2(2003), pp. 89–98; Neumann, “Body.”
51. Sir Alan Campbell: “From Carbon Paper to E-mail: Changes in Methods in the Foreign Office,1950–2000,” Contemporary British History, Volume 18, Number 3(2004), pp. 168–76; S. Eldon, From QuillPen to Satellite: Foreign Ministries in the Information Age (London, 1994); David Paul Nickels, Underthe Wire: How the Telegraph Changed Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA, 2003); Helen McCarthy, “PetticoatDiplomacy: The Admission of Women to the British Foreign Service c.1919–1946,” Twentieth CenturyBritish History, Volume 20, Number 3(2009), pp. 285–321; Philip Nash, “America’s First Female Chiefof Mission: Ruth Bryan Owen, Minister to Denmark, 1933–36,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 16(2005),pp. 57–72.
52. Hans Jürgen Döscher, Verschworene Gesellschaft: das Auswärtiges Amt unter Adenauer zwis-chen Neubeginn und Kontinuität (Berlin, 1995); Claus M. Müller: Relaunching German Diplomacy. TheAuswärtiges Amt in the 1950s (Münster, 1997); Eckart Conze, Norbert Frei, Peter Hayes, and MosheZimmermann, Das Amt und die Vergangenheit. Deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich und in derBundesrepublik (München, 2010).
53. Rudolf Agstner, Gertrude Enderle-Burcel, and Michaela Follner, Österreichs Spitzendiplomatenzwischen Kaiser und Kreisky. Biografisches Handbuch der Diplomaten des Höheren Auswärtigen Dienstes1918–1959 (Wien, 2009); Bruna Bagnato, “Le cas du ministère des Affaires étrangères italien aprèsla Deuxième Guerre mondiale,” in Élizabeth du Réau, ed., Europe des elites? Europe des peuples? Laconstruction de l’espace européen, 1945–1960 (Paris, 1998), pp. 77–92.
54. Anthony Adamthwaite, “Overstretched and Overstrung: Eden, the Foreign Office and theMaking of Policy,” in Ennio di Nolfo, eds., Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Germany andItaly and the Origins of the EEC 1952–57, Volume 2(Berlin, 1992), pp. 19–42; Gaynor Johnson, ed.,The Foreign Office and British Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, New York, 2005); MichaelDockrill and Brian McKercher, eds., Diplomacy and World Power: Studies in British Foreign Policy,1890–1951[a festschrift for Zara Steiner on her retirement] (Cambridge, 1996); Lorna Lloyd, Diplomacy
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Koc
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
4:43
23
Sept
embe
r 20
13
714 K. Gram-Skjoldager
with a Difference: The Commonwealth Office of High Commissioner, 1880–2006 (Leiden, 2007); JohnZametica, ed., British Officials and British Foreign Policy, 1945–50 (Leicester, New York, 1990). Alongsidethis scholarship, more popular accounts have also appeared. See for instance: Edward R. Dudley: TrueBrits: Inside the Foreign Office (London, 1994); John Dickie: The New Mandarins: How British ForeignPolicy Works (London, 2004).
55. For the most recent and academically stimulating example of this genre, see: John W. Young,Twentieth Century Diplomacy: A Case Study of British Practice 1963–76, (Cambridge, 2008). For twoexceptions, see Helen Parr: “Gone Native: the Foreign Office and Harold Wilson’s Policy towards theEEC, 1964–1967,” in Oliver Daddow, ed., Harold Wilson and European Integration: Britain’s SecondApplication to Join the EEC (London, 2002), 75–94; Elisabeth Kane, “Europe or Atlantic Community?The Foreign Office and ‘Europe’: 1955–57,” Journal of European Integration History, Volume 3, Number2(1997), pp. 83–98.
56. Jean Claude Allain and Marc Auffret, “Le ministère français des Affaires étrangères. Créditset effectifs pendant la IIIe République,” Relations internationals, 32(1982), pp. 405–46; GhislainSayer, “Le Quai d’Orsay et la construction de la Petite Europe: l’avènement de la Communautééconomique européenne, 1955–1957,” Relations internationals, 101(2000), pp. 89–105; Raphaële Ulrich-Pier, “Antiféderalistes et féderaliste: le Quai d’Orsay face à la construction européenne,” in Michel Catala,ed., Cinquante ans aprés la declaration Schuman. Histoire de la construction européenne (Nantes, 2001),pp. 103–18.
57. Laurence Badel, Stanislas Jeannesson, and N. Piers Ludlow, Les administrations nationales etla construction européenne. Une approche historique (1919–1975) (Bruxelles, 2005).
58. N. Piers Ludlow: “Mieux que six ambassadeurs. L’emergence du COREPER durant les premièresannées de la CEE,” in Badel, Jeannesson and Ludlow), Les administrations nationals; A revised versionof the article has been published as “The European Commission and the Rise of Coreper: A ControlledExperiment” in Kaiser, Leucht, and Rasmussen, History, pp. 189–205.
59. Ann-Christina L. Knudsen and Morten Rasmussen: “A European Political System in the Making1958–1970. The Relevance of Emerging Committee Structures,” Journal of European Integration History,14(2008), pp. 51–68.
60. David Reynolds, Summits. Six Meetings that Shaped the Twentieth Century (New York, 2007).61. Harold James, Rambouillet, 15. November 1975. Die Globalisierung der Wirtschaft (Munich,
1997); Johannes von Karcewski, “Weltwirtschaft ist unser Schicksal” Helmut Schmidt und die Schaffungder Weltwirtschaftsgipfel (Bonn, 2008); John W. Young, “‘The Summit is Dead. Long Live the EuropeanCouncil’: Britain and the Question of Regular Leaders’ Meetings in the European Community, 1973–1975,”Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4(2009) pp. 319–38; Reynolds, Summits, pp. 401–35. Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol however links the new summit diplomacy to the changing EC and international policy environmentin the 1970s more broadly; see Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, “Filling the EEC Leadership Vacuum? TheCreation of the European Council in 1974,” Cold War History 10(2010), pp. 315–39 and idem., “TheVictory of the Intergovernmental Method? The Emergence of the European Council in the Community’sInstitutional Set-Up (1974–1977),” in Daniela Preda and Daniele Pasquinucci, eds., The Road EuropeTravelled Along. The Evolution of EEC/EU’s institutions and policies (Bruxelles, 2010).
62. N. Piers Ludlow, “The Making of the CAP: Towards a Historical Analysis of the EU’s First MajorPolicy,” Contemporary European History, 14(2005), p. 371. Cf. Kiran K. Patel, Europäisierung widerWillen: die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der Agrarintegration der EWG, 1955–1973 (Munich 2009).
63. Robert D. Schulzinger, The Making of the Diplomatic Mind (Middletown, CT, 1975), inparticular: pp. 101–23.
64. Bertrand Badie, Guillaume Devin, eds., Le multilatéralisme: nouvelles formes de l’actioninternationale (Paris, 2007); Samy Cohen, Les diplomates: négocier dans un monde chaotique (Paris,2002).