Diplomacy in the Age of

Globalisation: Actors and

Issues
Module: Introduction to Diplomacy
11th October 2016
Dr Tatevik Mnatsakanyan
Email: T.Mnatsakanyan@lboro.ac.uk
 LECTURE AIMS and OUTLINE
1. What is Globalisation and how does it impact
diplomacy?

2. Re-calibration of Diplomacy: Multiplicity of

actors

3. Re-calibration of Diplomacy: Multiplicity of

issue areas
Part 1: What is Globalisation
and How Does it Affect
Diplomacy?
What is Globalisation?
 Share Your Experiences:

1. Reflect on your broader understanding of

Globalisation and how it affects you.
2. Reflect on globalisation and your own field
of study and practice

10 min in groups; 10 minutes to discuss and

share with class.
Defining Globalisation

Globalisation: compression of space and time flow of

goods, people, ideas, influences and values across and
beyond boundaries.

Globalism: ‘a state of the world involving networks of

interdependence at multicontinental distances’ (Keohane
& Nye 2000: 2).

• Globalism today is "faster, cheaper, and deeper"

• Qualitative change (Heine 2006: 3).

 New domestic and international actors: ‘ adding

layers of complexity to government decision making
and legislation’ (ibid.: 4).
Opportunities & Challenges
1. Information technologies (create challenges for the state, but also
opportunities, such as more real-time diplomacy, public
diplomacy [next lecture’s theme])
2. Increased interpenetration of societies: diffusion and
transformation of ideas, values, identities and cultures
3. Growing democratization and push for transparency

Domestic International

‘[C]onflation of domestic and international agendas and arenas…

diplomats are required to negotiate at two tables—one representing
domestic constituencies, the other international negotiating partners’
(Cooper & Hocking 2000: 375).
 Is it that neat?
The interface b/w Governance & Diplomacy?
 Diplomacy as representation? Now it is more about Governance (Mitzen in
Sending et al 2015: 111).
  Diplomacy beyond representation

 Governing: ‘changing other actors’ behaviour to achieve certain objectives’

while doing this ‘with and through other actors’ (Sending et al 2015: 17; 19).

‘[G]overnance is about governments seeking to “govern better rather than govern less”…
[T]he scope and scale of governance is actually expanding... States are attempting to
expand their governing capacities not only by strengthening central state institutions but
by forging new governance partnerships with a range of social actors’ (Bell & Hindmoore
2009: 1-2).

BUT… not only a globalised and more complex world, but also a world of norms: human
rights norms, environmental norms, etc.

Doing diplomacy in the age of norms and NGO advocacy

Multilateral governance  multi-stakeholder diplomacy

 Global governance is potentially transformative.

 “Club” vs. “Network” Diplomacy
 “Club” diplomacy: old style diplomacy
 “Network” diplomacy: less hierarchical; diplomats engage with a vast
number of players; build up extensive networks at home and abroad to
"deliver the goods”. ‘More and more, diplomacy is becoming "complexity
management”’ (Heine 2006: 5).

Table source: Heine 2006.

‘[T]here is a considerable "lag" between these changes and the adaptive behaviour
of many diplomats, missions, and foreign ministries’ (Heine 2006: 4-5).
“Network” Diplomacy
 ‘Diplomats today are essentially tasked with helping
their own countries navigate the perils of globalization’
(Heine 2006: 11).

Source: Ibid.
“Network” Diplomacy
Part 2: The Re-calibration of
Diplomacy: Multiple Actors
State and Non-State Actors
Non-state actors:
o NGOs and global advocacy groups (e.g. Red Cross; Amnesty International; Human
Rights Watch)
o Multinational businesses
o Think-tanks and other expert bodies, such as political consultancies
o Churches and other religions institutions
o Diaspora organisations
o Transnational trade unions

 National and global (transnational) civil society

 State and Non-State: Two separate worlds? ‘inhabiting different environments,

working to different rule-books and occupying very different positions on the
scale of importance in world politics’ (Cooper and Hocking 2000: 361)?

 Instead, a State-Society complex

 ‘[W]e have entered another phase in the evolution of state–society
relations… the emergence of a closer state/societal complex is reflected in
the ways that professional diplomats perceive and discharge their roles’
(Ibid.: 363)
State and Non-State Actors: The Case of
NGOs and Advocacy Groups
 What is the relationship?
Conflictual or cooperative/complimentary?

Take 5 min to talk in groups about specific examples of

state-NGO interactions around a particular issue you are
familiar with.
The Case of NGOs and Advocacy Groups

 NGO and gov’t stakes may overlap or may diverge.

It is a continuum (Cooper & Hocking 2000).

Conflictual Cooperative/complimentary

E.g. 1: The campaign to block the Multilateral

Agreement on Investment (MAI),1995-98.
E.g. 2: The campaign to ban landmines, 1991-1999.
 The Case of NGOs and Advocacy Groups
Landmark examples
 Cooperative [transformative]:
The campaign to ban landmines

International Campaign To Ban Landmines (ICBL):

• A global network of NGOs active in some 100 countries.
• From 1991, successfully set the agenda on

the international scene: 1996 Ottawa Process

o The Mine Ban Treaty signed by 122 gov’ts

in 1997; becomes binding international law.

 ICBL awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

 Landmines still in use; criticism remains.

 The Case of NGOs and Advocacy Groups
Landmark examples
Conflictual [constraining]: The campaign to block the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) in 1995-98: More than 600 NGOs were
mobilised against MAI and succeeded.

Current: TTIP and CETA, Case Study (2014-)

[Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership;
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ]
‘Our local businesses, environment and democracy
are under threat from a trade deals currently being
negotiated in secret’ (globaljustice.org)

NGOs form an alliance StopTTIP: over 500 org.s

Successes: Put TTIP on global public realm (agenda-
setting); Over 1500 local councils are against TTIP;
Negotiations postponed.
BREAK 15 Minutes
 Part 3: Recalibration of
Diplomacy: Multiple Issue Areas
Multiplication of Issue areas
Traditional Issue Areas Current Issue Areas
War and Peace (alliances; Security (broadly and
peace treaty negotiations) widely defined!)
Trade (mostly bilateral) Trade and Finance
(multilateral and global)
Environment (new norm)
Health (local and global)
Development
Transnational crime
Migration
Mode: Minimal, as Mode: Institutionalised;
necessary; state to state multi-stakeholder;
interwoven (issues
 Drivers of Multiplication
Production of NORMS
The “life cycle” of norms (Finnemore & Sikkink 1998):

“Norm emergence”: “norm entrepreneurs” use existing platforms to

proselytize not only about their favourite issue but also how this issue should be
understood (framing) and dealt with.

“Norm cascade”: When a good amount of important states adopt the new
norm, socialization puts others under pressure to adopt it. States tend to conform as
non-compliance will make life hard at the international level.

“Norm internalization”: Over time states internalize norms,. A body of professionals

is progressively being created, who codifies and monitor norm obedience.

E.g.: Women’s voting rights; humanitarian

intervention- R2P
Multiplication of Issue areas
New forms of interaction
 Back to networks of multiple actors
and the “management of complexity”
 In addition to state/non-state actor
interaction:

 Ministry to ministry direct diplomacy

 Para-diplomacy (city to city; region)
 Public Diplomacy [next lecture]
 Broker diplomacy, serving as bridge across issue areas, e.g. political
consultancy groups
 Global multi-stakeholder practices that criss-cross issue area, e.g.
humanitarian interventions
Broker Diplomacy: Bridging Actors & Issues
 Consultant organisations as focal points in network diplomacy:
For-profit or not-for-profit consultancy organisations working
with multiple state and non-state actors over interlocking issues:

‘[T]hese professionals matter because their claims to authority are

chiefly non-territorial and embedded in norms associated with
humanitarian values and/or professional services firms…They bring
together different kinds of professional knowledge to carve out their
own space in political networks’ (Seabrooke in Sending 2015:196; 203).
Broker Diplomacy: Bridging Actors & Issues
 Case Study: Independent Diplomat
 A humanitarian consultancy organisation that works to “address the democratic
deficit between nations” by brokering for weak and non-recognised entities

 Not-for-profit registered in New York,

self-promotes a “diplomatic advisory group”;
Fewer than 20 employees, mostly former diplomats
 Act as brokers in various political networks,

as ‘network enablers’
(London Director of ID, in Seabrooke 2015)

 Main work: assisting governments to declare independence, and gain international

recognition. E.g. Kosovo

 Currently, ‘works with the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition
Forces (Syrian Coalition)… to reach the goal of ending the violence in Syria and
achieving a political transition to democracy
http://independentdiplomat.org/about-us/
Broker Diplomacy: Bridging Actors & Issues
Case Study: Independent Diplomat
Conclusion: Probing the definition of diplomacy
‘Diplomacy is the institutionalised communication
among internationally recognised representatives of
internationally recognised entities through which these
representatives produce, manage and distribute public
goods’ (Bjola & Kornprobst 2013: 4)

 In light of recalibration of diplomacy across

actors and issue areas, as well as modes of
doing diplomacy, how would you probe and
revise this definition?
Conclusion: Probing the definition of diplomacy

 Representation?
‘NGOs are more representative than are national governments [and]
draw their legitimation from citizens who no longer refer to
national boundaries’ (Finger 1994: 34-35).

 Recognition and legitimacy?

The impact of globalisation on social forces: ‘“sovereignty free”
attributes of the transnational NGOs are viewed as… a legitimacy
unavailable to governments’ (Cooper & Hocking 2000: 369).
 Claims to authority

 Delivering public goods?

The public goods as well as the routes and mechanisms of
delivering them have changed.
References
[References that do not appear below may be found in the Reading List]
 Bell, S. & Hindmoor, A. (2009) Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of

the State in Modern Society, Cambridge University Press.

 Cooper, A. and Brian Hocking (2000) ‘Governments, Non-governmental

Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy’, Global Society,

14:3, 361-376.
 Finger, M. (1994) ‘NGOs and Transformation: Beyond Social Movement

Theory’, in Thomas Princen and Matthias Finger (eds.), Environmental

NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global, London:
Routledge.
 Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and

Political Change’ International Organization 52,4, pp. 887-917.

 Heine, Jorge (2006) ‘On the Manner of Practising the New Diplomacy’,

Working Paper No.11, The Centre for International Governance

Innovation.
 Keohane, R. & Nye, J. (2000) "Introduction," in Joseph S. Nye and John

D. Donahue (eds.) Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press.