1.5 Comparison between traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy Leaving aside the non-technical description of diplomacy as the exercise of tact and courtesy15, most conventional de÷nitions conceive of diplomacy as a mechanism for managing relations between states. In 1939, in his classic work Diplomacy, Sir Harold Nicolson selectively adopted the following section of the de÷nition then in use by the Oxford English Dictionary:
Ú...the management of international relations by negotiation, the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist.Û 16 A more recent de÷nition by exclusion is offered by G. R. Berridge:
Ú>DiplomacyØs@ chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of foreign policy without resort to force, propaganda or law.Û 17 Both these de÷nitions are clearly rooted in the nation state system of todayØs world. In an attempt to construct a general theory of diplomacy that might apply in all places and at all times, C. Jönsson and M. Hall have argued that diplomacy is an institution that structures relations between polities (i.e., not necessarily between nation states as currently understood). Its practitioners have a shared language and conventions; and they have mutual expectations and rules (reciprocity, precedence and diplomatic immunity). DiplomacyØs three fundamental functions are communication, representation and reproduction of international society.18 Others go further, arguing that, already in todayØs world, states no longer have a monopoly on diplomacy. Melissen, for example, describes diplomacy as:
Ú...the mechanism of representation, communication and negotiation through which states and other international actors conduct their business.Û 19 Raymond Saner, of Diplomacy Dialogue, believes that multinational corporations (MNCs) and civil societies are practising diplomacy alongside traditional diplomats:
ÚDiplomacy has ... broadened to include states and non-state actors.....diplomacy has become the continuation of politics, economics and business by other means.Û 20 A professional diplomat, basing his position on the traditional conception of diplomacy, might object to this latter claim, arguing that non-state actors cannot, by de÷nition, be practising diplomacy: however similar their activities may be to diplomacy, they are in fact engaged in negotiation more broadly de÷ned, or in lobbying or public relations. Those arguing for a less restrictive de÷nition of diplomacy would respond that this traditionalist position simply ignores the radical changes taking place in international society. 15 See, for example: ÚDiplomacy is to do and say The nastiest things in the nicest way.Û, Isaac Goldberg, The Reøex, October 1927. 16 Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy, originally published 1939, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 1970. 17 G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy Õ Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 18 C. Jönsson and M. Hall, Essence of Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 19 Jan Melissen (ed), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. 20 Raymond Saner, Diplomacy Dialogue, in his presentation Postmodern Economic Diplomacy, during a symposium entitled ÚChallenges Facing the 21st Century Diplomat: Representation, Communication, Negotiation and TrainingÛ organised by the College of Europe in Bruges, 25-26 October 2011. 22
Public Diplomacy: What it is - and how to do it