A Natural History of Diplomacy

Chapter 3 of the book manuscript in progress

When Diplomacy Works
Shuhei Kurizaki

Preliminary draft
Comments welcome
October 6, 2011

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University. E-mail:

kurizaki@polisci.tamu.edu.

Contents
1 Evolution of Diplomatic Institutions: A Historical Sketch

2 First Documented Diplomatic Practice: Amarna Diplomacy

in Ancient Near East
3
3 Beginning of Diplomacy: Ancient Greece

4 Stasis of Diplomacy: Ancient Rome

5 Byzantine Diplomacy: Middle Ages

11

6 The Italian System: Renaissance Diplomacy

15

7 The French System: 17th & 18th Centuries

20

8 Spread and Institutionalization: 19th Century

28

9 Decline of Diplomacy? 20th Century and Beyond

32

10 Back to the Future? The 21st Century & Beyond

37

11 Conclusion

38

A Natural History

Chapter 3

This chapter lays the groundwork by establishing facts about the origins
and characteristics of diplomatic practices and institutions, which allows us to
draw some descriptive inference about how diplomacy works in international
disputes. To do so, this chapter reconstructs a natural history of diplomacy
through the discussion of pivotal historical events and turning points in the
evolution of its institutions and practice.1
A brief narrative of the historical and strategic context of the development
of diplomacy serves a couple of purposes. First, it provides us common ground
and vocabulary to explore the phenomena in a simplified and scientific way.
In particular, it helps us establish the fact that the diplomatic institution has
been developed as a consequence of political leaders reaction to the strategic
and political environment. It also illustrates that norms and patterns are
self-enforcing as political leaders and rulers have maintained and reproduced
them for quite a long time. This will be especially helpful for those who are
not familiar with the variations of the institutions and functions of diplomacy
throughout history.
Second, the reconstruction of a natural history of diplomacy also provides a
set of stylized facts of diplomacy. Stylization helps us identify general ways in
which diplomacy is commonly pursued in most international disputes. While
natural history exhibits enormous complexity, stylization is the process of
transforming this complexity into simplicity. I call this exercise a natural history because this chapter attempts to (i) document some direct observations
of diplomatic activities and its institutions without any specific theoretical
conceptions and then (ii) searches for some structure in the stylized facts to
see how main diplomatic mechanisms can be summarized according to several
types of functional forms observed in the historical experience.2 Only through
this process, can we understand how to begin to ask empirical questions that
must be explained. As Sherlock Holmes advices a young inspector from Scotland Yard at the crime scene, It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance
of the facts.3 King, Keohane and Verba (1994, 43) elaborate on this point:
Where possible, analysts should simplify their descriptions only
after they attain an understanding of the richness of history and
1

The term natural history refers to the scientific study of things in the natural world,
which can encompass the broad range of natural-scientific disciplines depending on the
context and the historical period. Its methodology primarily involves direct observation and
collection as well as classification of species into the taxonomic schema. Its lesser emphasis
on theoretical foundations or analytical rigor is distinctive from natural philosophy which
corresponds to the modern-day mainstream natural sciences.
2
This latter task is taken up in the next chapter on Diplomacy Games.
3
A. Conan Doyle. 1904. The Adventure of the Second Stain. Strand Magazine 28
(December): 1-16.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

culture. . . . [R]ich, unstructured knowledge of the historical and

cultural context of the phenomena with which they want to deal
in a simplified and scientific way is usually a requisite for avoiding
simplifications that are simply wrong.
The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is not to provide a comprehensive review on the historical evolution of diplomatic institutions. There are
other excellent works with more comprehensive treatments of the history of
diplomacy.4 Rather, I draw heavily on the empirical literature on the history
of diplomacy as well as the English school and other related European IR
scholarship. My description of the natural history here omits many important
aspects of diplomacy that are not directly relevant to international disputes or
conflict resolution. In what follows in this chapter, I disaggregate the historical evolution of diplomatic institutions into several historical periods. Each
account of the historical period identifies some significant inherited institutional feature(s) of modern diplomacy. It also describes a strategic problem
international, domestic or bothbehind the emergence of each function.

Evolution of Diplomatic Institutions: A Historical Sketch

The style and functions of diplomacy have evolved over the course of history.
The changes in political order, economic environments, technological advancements have all had profound impacts on the way political leaders conducted
diplomacy. For example, modern telecommunication techniques and the improved jetliners have drastically improved the mobility and altered the way
actors behave in international politics. Reflecting on the experience of secret
alliances in the nineteenth century and their roles in the expansion of World
War I, the importance of transparency in diplomatic processes in the collective decision making among states has been recognized since the end of the
War. These two examples illustrate how political, economic, and technological changes may create the need for a particular institutional arrangement
or function of diplomacy, which in turn may constitute the strategic logic for
the creation of a given set of diplomatic institutions. Hence, it is important
to consider how and why the existing diplomatic intuition and practice came
forth in international relations.
4

For the excellent overview of historical evolution of diplomacy, see Anderson (1993),
Hamilton and Langhorne (1995), Nicolson (1954), and Nicolson (1963). For more detailed
account of a specific historical stage in history, see the works cited in the relevant subsections
below.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

While the history of diplomacy exhibits a great deal of variability, the basic functions of diplomacy and their machinery have not changed. Indeed, the
central features of diplomatic institutions have survived the fundamental shifts
in the order and structure of international politics such as the surge of nationalism and democracy and the incorporation of non-European countries in the
international system. They also survived catastrophic events such as the Great
Wars and the wane and wax of hegemons. Writings by diplomatic theorists
such as Richelieu, Calli`eres, Wicquefort, Nicolson, and others, reveal that virtually nothing has changed over the last several centuries with regard to the
basic functions of diplomacythe maintenance of communication channels,
the conduct of negotiation, the provision of political intelligence, and political
manipulations behind the scene. Two decades ago, Hedley Bull (1977, 171)
wrote: The remarkable willingness of states of all regions, cultures, . . . and
stages of development to embrace often strange and archaic diplomatic procedures that arose in Europe in another age is today one of the few visible
indications of the enduring relevance of diplomatic institutions. Because of
its remarkable stability, the diplomatic system is sometimes referred to as the
master-institution of international relations (Wight 1978, 113).

First Documented Diplomatic Practice: Amarna

Diplomacy in Ancient Near East

While the norms and practice of modern diplomacy have taken shape between
the period of Renaissance Italy (in the 15th century) and the creation of the
Westphalian system (in the 17th century), the rudimentary form of what we
know today as diplomacy existed ever since the first social communities and political collectives emerged and interacted with each other. As Nicolson (1963,
2) notes, The origins of diplomacy lie buried in the darkness preceding what
we call the dawn of history, the available evidence suggests that the earliest recorded diplomatic activity took place about 3400 years ago between the
Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (New Kingdom) and other great powers in the
ancient Near East.5
A series of cuneiform clay tables, collectively called Amarna Letters,
were first discovered and unearthed by a local farmer in 1887 (and successively by archaeologists) at Tell el-Amarna, the ruin of the palace of King
Amenhotep IV located in the dynastic capital of the Ancient Egyptian New
5
Great powers in the Late Bronze Age (the 16th to 12th centuries BC) include Mittani,
Babylonia, Hatti, Assyria, and Mittani.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Kingdom.6 The archive contains more than 350 letters. About 50 of the letters
are diplomatic correspondences between the Egyptian dynastic power and the
neighboring Great powers in the ancient Near East for the thirty-year period
beginning from final regnal years of Amenhotep III to the first regnal year of
Tutankhamun in the 14th century BC. The correspondences discussed a variety of issues such as inter-dynastic marriage, trade issues, alliance questions,
and legal problems, among other (Cohen and Westbrook 2000).7
These diplomatic documents on cuneiform tables indicate that diplomatic
negotiations were going on some 3400 years ago between the Egyptian kingdom and the Hittite kingdom where they had severe conflict of interests and
they were competing for the control in the Near East region. The nineteenth
dynasty of Egypt and the Hittite Kingdom of Anatolia engaged in intermittent
armed conflict for about fifty years. The military rivalry culminated in the the
direct clash of two rival kingdoms in 1274 BC in Kadesh (also Qadesh), a city
on the frontier between the two kingdoms. The Battle of Kadesh took place
when Pharaoh Ramesses II attempted to seize control of the colonial territory
of modern-day Syria in order to remove the military influence of Hittite. His
imperial army clashed with Hittite King Muwatallis. No decisive victory was
achieved by either side. This is one of the best documented battle in the Ancient Near East, although historical accounts vary on which side had the upper
hand in this battle. Ramesses II and Muwatallis concluded a peace treaty afterwards in which they agreed on the exchange of political refugees and asylum
seekers, mutual military assistant, the mutual territorial inviolability, and the
inter-dynastic marriage of a daughter of Muwatallis and Ramesses II.
This treaty is said to be the oldest recorded treaty in history. What the
Amarna letters signify is that what we today call diplomatic missions were
deployed by political leaders to conduct diplomatic negotiations from the
very beginning of the recorded history of international relations. Hence, as
Berridge, Keens-Soper and Otte (2001, 108) note, the practice of sending
agents abroad for specific purposes, sometimes for lengthy periods, is as old
as commerce, suspicion, rivalry and war, reaching back thousands of years to
ancient Mesopotamia.
Yet, the fact that this treaty was concluded about sixteen years after the
Battle indicates the difficulty in reaching an agreement. It may also suggest
Great powers in the ancient Near East also experienced the great difficulty
6

For the detailed discussion of the diplomatic activities between the great powers in the
ancient Near East (known as Amarna diplomacy), see Cohen and Westbrook (2000) and
essays therein as well as Cohen (2001), Lafont (2001), .
7
Other than diplomatic correspondence, the letters also included intelligence document
sent to the Egyptian dynasty from Egypts Canaanite empire.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

of communication that more recent diplomatic missions experienced in the

absence of jetliners or telecommunication. Not only does it take time for
diplomatic envoys to travel, but also exchanging missions would have involved
a great deal of uncertainty as to the safe reception of diplomatic messages. This
inherent difficulty and risk involved in diplomatic exchange many centuries
later leads to the institutionalization of diplomatic agents and embassies as
well as their special status such as diplomatic immunity. Sir. Harold Nicolson
(1963, 6) wrote From the very first, . . . , it must have become apparent that
such negotiations would be severely hampered if the emissary from one side
were killed and eaten by other side before he had had time to deliver his
message. The practice must therefore have become established even in the
remotest times that it would be better to grant to such negotiators certain
privileges and immunities which were denied to warriors.
The question still remains as to how rigorous the Amarna diplomatic system was. Some scholars argue that the Amarna letters indicate evidence of a
fully fledged diplomatic system (Cohen 1995, 264), particularly because the
laws of hospitality provided protection immunity for diplomatic envoys at
the time. Other scholars, however, are skeptical about this view, arguing that
the Amarna diplomacy was rudimentary and it did not carry a full-fledged system (e.g., Wight 1977). Berridge (2000), for example, argues that the Amarna
letters provides the evidence that the Amarna system lacked the adequate
immunity system. First, the laws of hospitality was an exclusive privilege
rather than diplomatic immunity. Second, the letters also indicate that the
attempt to grant immunity to envoys of hostile powers failed. The ruler of
Byblos complained to Pharaoh that when he sent a messenger to the mayor of
Beirut, who had seized his property, he bound him (EA 116) (Berridge 2000,
214). Third, although diplomatic envoys were allowed to return home without the permission of their hosts in the modern system, this was not the case
in Amarna diplomacy (Berridge 2000). In particular, the Egyptian dynasty
was notorious for the frequent denial of such permissions during the Amarna
period (Holmes 1975). A recent study corroborates the non-existence of legal
diplomatic immunity in the ancient Near East, although there existed some
degree of the inviolability of diplomatic envoys (Cohen 2001; Elgavish 2000).
Nevertheless, Amarna diplomacy had a system in its own right, and its system
was adequate to the strategic needs faced by political leaders of the times.

Beginning of Diplomacy: Ancient Greece

The origin of diplomacy: Another root of modern-day diplomacy can

be traced back to the ancient Greek city-states. In particular, the English word
5

A Natural History

Chapter 3

diplomacy is derived from the Greek verb diploun which means fold in
English and also from diplomas which means folded documents (Inoguchi
1989).8 This is because what we would now call diplomacy in the age of ancient Greece was the city-states practice of mutually recognizing the safety of
passage of their own citizens outside of the sphere of their influence. In the age
of ancient Greece, travel documents, passes, and carriage bills were sealed on a
metal plate, folded, and sewed up together in a peculiar way. Such a document
on a metal plate was called diplomas and this term over time has become
also to mean official documents. Nicolson notes that res diplomatica, which
initially meant the vocation that examines and interprets official documents,
came to indicate what we now know as diplomacy, the management of intergovernmental affairs.9 This indicates that one of the fundamental functions of
diplomacy at the time is the medium of communication between government
authorities via diplomas.
Diplomatic practice: Diplomatic practice in ancient Greece departed from
the norms and customs commonly observed in the history of diplomacy. The
first and foremost notable deviation is the system of public oratory. Greek city
states frequently exchanged oral messages rather than written documents like
the cuneiform clay tables utilized in Amarna diplomacy of the ancient Near
East. This practice is said to reflect their democratic norms and traditions.
The Greeks also emphasized the importance of publicity and transparency in
the conduct of diplomacy.
Therefore, the primary task of diplomatic envoys in the Greek city-states
was not just to convey the message but to make an oral argument on behalf of
their own city either in front of the walls of a foreign city-state or in a public
debate at a public assembly to justify the home citys position (Adcock and
Mosley 1975; Jonsson and Hall 2003; Nicolson 1963). Therefore, they were not
expected to get her information regarding the city-states which they visited or
to write any reports on their return; instead, all that was expected of them was
that they should make a magnificent speech (Nicolson 1963, 8). This practice
of public oratory in ancient Greece war rather as if the principal skill expected
of a British ambassador to the United States was to produce a fine forensic
performance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Hamilton
8

Other studies that discuss the origins and uses of the term diplomacy include Constantinou (1996), Sharp (1999). Adcock and Mosley (1975) provides a more detailed treatment
of practice, methods, institutions, and instruments of diplomacy in ancient Greece. See
also Cohen (2001), Hamilton and Langhorne (1995, Ch.1), Mosley (1971), Mosley (1973),
Nicolson (1963), and Wolpert (2001).
9
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term diplomacy was first used to
mean the management of international relations in 1796.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

and Langhorne 1995, 9-10). Therefore, the public assembly selected envoys
from those who had dignified attitude and appearance as well as loud voice,
in addition to the ability to engage in logical and inventive argumentation.
Most agreements reached by diplomatic envoys were signed only after consultation with, and ratification by, public assemblies on their return. Herodotus
describes the Persian king Cyrus the Great scoffing the Greek practice of public oratory (Cohen 2001, 31). Thucydides, too, implies the ineffectiveness of
public over private diplomacy (Thucydides IV, 22).
Perhaps the most famous episode of envoys in ancient Greece pleading the
cause of their city before the popular assemblies was Thucydides account of
The Melian Dialogue (Thucydides 1972). This is the story where the hegemonic city-state Athens demanded Melos (a colony of Sparta) to surrender.
The Athenian envoys argued that Melos should submit to the demand because
Melos is weaker not only than Athens who controls the sea but also weaker
than other islanders. In response to a Realpolitik argument, the Melian commissioners, appealing to the justice and moral that are embodied in the Laws of
Nations, argued that they should not be forced to surrender just because they
are weak.10 Thucydides documented many other episodes and provided crucial
information concerning the diplomatic practice in ancient Greece. Thucydides
story-telling indicates that diplomatic missions, such as the Athenian envoys
to Melos, were dispatched so frequently that their exchange of missions were
fairly institutionalized.
The second departure from the common historical pattern is the role played
by the proxenos. A proxenos is a local citizen who voluntarily functioned as
a consul of other city states, rather than a diplomatic mission sent by other
cities. If the need for consular business arose in a foreign city-state, then a
resident of that local city was given the title of proxenos by the city-state
which it represented. This system was developed because the Greeks did not
regard diplomacy as a distinct function of government and hence lacked formal institutions of diplomacy such as resident envoys or permanent embassies
(Mosley 1971, 320; Wolpert 2001, 74).
The third anomaly is a prohibition of the exchange of elaborate gifts by
diplomatic envoys to prevent bribery or the appearance of bribery. Adcock
and Mosley (1975, 164-5) report two instances involving Athenian diplomatic
envoys to Persia receiving gifts. In one instance, the matter was raised in the
public assembly on their return home. In another, the envoy was accused of
accepting imprudently lavish gifts and was condemned to death after his re10

Note that this dialogue actually took place at the closed-door meeting of the Council
of the Melians despite the fact that diplomatic negotiation among Greek city-states were
normally conducted publicly through the debate.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

turn home as diplomatic missions were expected to observe certain procedures

and etiquette at court.
Finally, diplomatic immunity or safe conduct was not guaranteed in ancient Greek diplomacy. While in the ancient Near East the inviolability, if not
legal immunity, was guaranteed to some extent, this was not the case with
ancient Greece. The safe conduct was not an automatic or general right of the
diplomatic envoys, despite the fact that heralds were regarded as agents of the
gods and were sacrosanct (Adcock and Mosley 1975, 229). Moreover, safe passage and physical security may not be guaranteed during wartime. Athenian
and Spartan diplomatic envoys were executed during the Peloponnesian War
(Adcock and Mosley 1975, 153-4). Both Athens and Sparta executed envoys
sent by Darius I of Persian (Cohen 2001, 32).
Although the Greek diplomatic practice witnessed anomalies in various
aspects and may not contribute to the liner progress of the institutional development of diplomacy, some of the Greek features are commonly observed
in diplomatic activities across time and space. For instance, while the public
conduct of diplomacy may constitute a deviation from the historical norm,
Nicolson (1963, 7) notes that the Athenian practice of choosing as their diplomatic envoys the finest orators, the most plausible forensic advocates seems
to still remain intact today. Moreover, the tradition of public oratory also indicates that diplomatic communication and negotiation were carried out with
the power of reason and language rather than naked force in the ancient Near
East and ancient Greek diplomacy. This creates a stark difference with what
we witness with the Roman empire.

Stasis of Diplomacy: Ancient Rome

The ancient Roman civilization stands out in many respects in the history of
international politics. The most notable is its extended sphere of influence and
its longevity in the hegemonic status. Ancient Rome also marks a turning point
in the history of diplomacy in that it contributed very little to the development
of diplomatic institutions and practice during its millenarian history (Hamilton
and Langhorne 1995, 12; Nicolson 1954). The lack of advancement made
by the Romans is remarkable given the fact that the Romans contributed
so much to the social and political systems. This includes Roman law, the
institutions of Christianity, standing professional military and each one of
them has profoundly affected European civilization.11
11

For a more comprehensive treatment of diplomacy in the Roman world, see Campbell
(2001), Hamilton and Langhorne (1995, 1), Nicolson (1954) and Nicolson (1963).

A Natural History

Chapter 3

This is not to say, however, that Rome did not use diplomacy at all. Rather,
the Romans did not regard diplomacy as an important instrument of statecraft and maintaining its supremacy; they used it as a means of transacting
daily business and this may be why it was the methods of managing legal or
commercial business primarily between its provinces. As for the management
of its international relations, however, the Romans barely relied on diplomacy.
In fact, ancient Rome is one of the few leading states with the hegemonic status which did not utilize diplomacy in the establishment or the maintenance
its supremacy. The most important leverage that the Romans used in foreign
policy was a strong military and their superiority in war. This was noted by
the ancient Greek historian Polybius, who said The Romans rely on force in
all their undertakings, and consider that having set themselves a task they
are bound to carry it through (Campbell 2001). Romes rise to primacy in
Italy was mainly due to its military strength and war-fighting ability, rather
than diplomacy (Campbell 2001, 4).12 Hence, it is natural that the Romans
recognized that overwhelming military strength could be an instrument in preserving peaceful conditions (Campbell 2001, 2). It is within this context that
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, a military scientist in ancient Roman, said in his
textbook on military science that, Those who seek peace must prepare for
war. During the autocratic rule of the Roman Empire, with the standing,
professional army stationed in various provinces, it was able to use the threat
of force for the purpose of coercive diplomacy (Campbell 6). Harold Nicolson
notes that owing to the fault of masterfulness . . . they [the Romans] sought to
impose their will, rather than to negotiate on a basis of reciprocity (Nicolson
1954, 14).
To be sure, the manner in which the Romans utilized diplomacy varied
depending on the system of government (Campbell 2001). During the Roman
Republic, the Senate was in charge of foreign affairs, and the power of the
Senate includes the power to conduct war as well as to send and receive diplomatic representatives.13 The Roman Republic adopted diplomatic procedures
and practices that resembled those developed in ancient Greece. Envoys, or
legatus, also reported to the Senate on their return, where the result of diplomatic agreements were either sanctioned or declined. This sort of ratification
procedure was necessary because the instruction given to envoys by the Senate was not detailed, and, consequently, some degree of latitude and discretion
12

However, Campbell (2001) claims that this does not mean that Rome ruled Italy only
through conquest and fear. Rather, instead of destruction and annexation, Rome often
induced communities to become allies
13
A diplomatic agent appointed and accredited to the Senate is called Legatus. The terms
used for the diplomatic missions of the Pope, Papal Legate, has its root in legatus.

A Natural History

Chapter 3

was granted to envoys themselves. Despite the latitude granted to envoys, unlike the Greek practice of selecting public oratory on the basis of its forensic
ability, the Senate did not consider the relevant experience or qualification of
envoys. This was partly because the Senate often chose its own members as
a diplomatic envoy. Diplomatic contact therefore remained a non-specialist,
part-time pursuit by men who had no training, no proven aptitude for diplomacy, and often perhaps little time to prepare (Campbell 2001, 8). In fact,
the Romans did little to create an expert body of trained diplomats. And there
is little evidence that the Romans improved on the Greek system (Nicolson
1954).
To add to the ad hoc nature of Roman diplomacy, most of diplomatic activities were in response to contingent situations which spontaneously arose
within or beyond the provinces. Hence, problems were dealt with, and everything was seemingly negotiated, on the spot often by provincial governors or
military commanders, even though their staff lacked no training in diplomacy.
Further, it was not unusual that the provincial governors staff was limited
mainly to his family and friends. This became more common during the Roman Empire when a crisis developed in the East as the Sassanid Empire of
Persia was expanding its influence (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 13).
The importance of diplomacy further declined after the Republic was overthrown and replaced by the Empire after the 50-year period of civil wars.
As the Roman Republic transformed into the Roman Empire, the Senate,
too, metamorphosed from the primary governing authority with the decisionmaking power to an advisory council. While the Senators continued enjoying
their privileged status, the Senate was deprived of its power in the dictatorial
decision making and marginalized to a mere symbolic role. Since the Roman
Empire did not establish the alternative procedures of diplomacy, the incapacity of the Senate meant that the Roman Empire was not equipped with
any central institutions to manage its foreign affairs other than the emperor
himself.
Nevertheless, the difference between two regimesthe Republic and the
Empireseems to be a matter of degree. There were no designated institutions
for the conduct of foreign policy either in the Roman Republic or the Roman
Empire. And yet, as Nicolson (1954, 19-22) writes, even during the Republican
regime, the Romans were too dictatorial to appreciate diplomatic niceties,
and diplomatic envoys from abroad were treated with varying degrees of
contumely reflecting the self-confidence and its military superiority. There
is no shortage of episodes corroborating these claims. For one, the Romans
often issued a peculiar form of ultimatumthey set a time limit to negotiations
with a threat. When Macedonian envoys arrived at Rome in 197 b.c., they
10

A Natural History

Chapter 3

were informed on arrival that, unless the negotiations resulted in agreement

within sixty days, they would be regarded as spies and deprived of diplomatic
status (Nicolson 1954, 21). For another, the Romans developed the practice of
including the hostage clause in treaties as a commitment device. The Romans
demanded that hostages be delivered from conquered tribes and nations at the
conclusion of surrender agreements. If the terms were violated, the hostages
were immediately arrested and treated as prisoners of war (Nicolson 1954,
21-2).
Besides the decline of the Senate, the fundamental factor that contributed
to the Romans overwhelming reliance on the military in the conduct of foreign
policy was its colonial approach. According to Nicolson, once ancient Rome
achieved its supremacy, its foreign relations with neighboring countries were
conducted from a colonial and administrative, rather than diplomatic, point
of view. As noted above, diplomatic transactions were dealt with by military
authorities. Hence, it is natural that the Romans approaches were those
of the legionary and the road-maker rather than those of the diplomatists
(Nicolson 1963, 9-10). These approaches reflected the Romanss belief that it
is their duty to impose the Pax Romana by crushing the opposition and by
sparing only those who surrendered to their dominance (Nicolson 1954, 17).
The second potential reason for the underdevelopment of diplomacy is the lack
of equal powers (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 13).
The immediate cause of the fall of the Roman Empire has been a great
source of scholarly interests, and the consensus on this issue is that the heavy
reliance on its military capability in managing its international relations had
left the Empire overstretched, undermining its governing effectiveness. It is
ironic that one of the main reasons for the inactiveness of diplomacy was also
the decisive driving force behind the decline of its supremacy and eventually
its fall.
Inheriting the successors declined military capability, the East Roman Empire could not afford to rely on its military and hence had to rely on diplomacy
in order to maintain its territorial integrity. Because of its constant effort to
supplement its weakened military with the engagement in diplomacy, the East
Roman Empire made a marked contribution to the development of diplomacy.
Its practice and institutional characteristics are known as Byzantine diplomacy.

Byzantine Diplomacy: Middle Ages

The next turning point in the development of diplomacy occurred with the fall
of the Roman Empire. While Byzantine diplomacy is known for its ceremonial
11

A Natural History

Chapter 3

and sublime aspect as well as its manipulative and cunning conduct of foreign
policy, these traits are products of Byzantiums rational response to its unfavorable strategic setting. Specifically, because the East Roman (or Byzantine)
Empire was not able to rely on the overwhelming military capabilities, the
Empire had to resort to diplomacy to achieve two goals. One is to maintain
its security by mitigating the risk of war with neighboring powers.14 Another
was to maintain its imperial status inherited from the Roman Empire. The
primary challenge to the Byzantine Empire was to maintain the status quo relations between itself and an array of surrounding countries that were posing
the threat of invasion from almost all quarters. However, the only resource
that the Byzantine empire possessed was the legitimacy inherited from the
late Roman Empire as the imperial status.15
Diplomatic Manipulation: In order to supplement the deficiency of the
strong military, Byzantium devised several strategies in the conduct of diplomacy. The key strategy behind such diplomatic efforts that the rulers of
Byzantium adopted involved (1) awe and sublime rather than terror or fear,
(2) flattery and bribery, and (3) intelligence. These strategies were generally
designed to manipulate the international security environment by adjusting
the incentive structures of the relevant players and by acquiring relevant information.
The most evident example of the first strategy of awe and sublime is the
conversion of the Empire to Christianity, which rendered the Roman Emperor
a conjugation of divine power (religious) and secular (political) power. With
this arrangement, the Byzantine Empire became not only the center of the
world (due to its inherited hegemonic status) but also the representative of
God. As a consequence, all other political leaders and rulers were forced to
be positioned inferior to the Empire, and those who attack the Empire must
expect the wrath of God because it was superior to every authority on earth,
the only one on earth which the Emperor of all has established (Hamilton
and Langhorne 1995, 15). This tactic can be thought of as a peculiar form of
deterrence. It utilized the hierarchical or authoritative structure embedded in
Christianity to disincentivize foreign countries from challenging Byzantium.
To enhance the effectiveness of this disincentive strategy, the Byzantine
rulers expanded their constituents by converting the pagans to the Christian
14
The neighboring rivals included the Slavs, the Turks, the Arabs, and the Germans
among others.
15
For a more comprehensive treatment of Byzantine diplomacy, see essays in Shepard and
Franklin (1992). See also Hamilton and Langhorne (1995), Neumann (2005), and Nicolson
(1963).

12

A Natural History

Chapter 3

faith (Nicolson 1963, 10).

While this concentricity tactic also had the side-effect of providing the religious basis to the diplomatic method, it was essentially part of the larger diplomatic strategynamely, to overwhelm visiting envoys with flashy displays.
Hence, the overarching theme of the procedure and practice of Byzantine diplomacy was to impress foreign visitors by displaying the physical appearance of
absolute superiority, luxury, and wealth. This included the Byzantine practice
of confining foreign envoys on their mission to Constantinople in fortresses
where they could not learn anything but to be impressed with displays of military might (Bull 1977, 164). Other aspects of the Byzantian rulers careful
attempt to maintain the physical signs of their unique superiority in evidence
include sumptuous imperial architecture, the luxurious feast, and acrobatic
entertainment (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 15).16
It is in this context that the luxurious ceremonial protocol arose as the standard of diplomatic practice and that Byzantine diplomacy became primarily
known for its sublime aspect. The Byzantine influence on ceremonial procedure of diplomacy was passed on to Venice and Genoa (who were Byzantiums
friendly allies due to their commercial connections), which in turn spread the
tradition as the Italian System of diplomacy to the rest of Europe beyond the
Alps (see the following section for these dissemination processes). A record of
diplomatic protocol, the Libro Ceremoniale, was kept by Renaissance Venice,
which detailed the exact ceremonies performed for each visiting dignity. This
served as a manual for the ritual treatment of future guests.
The second diplomatic tactics involved flattery and bribery. Bribery and
flattery played a crucial role in the Empires diplomatic efforts in alliance formation and power balancing, as they allowed the Byzantine empire to directly
influence the incentive structure of the frontier tribes and nations. In particular, this type of strategy involved the purchase of the support of neighboring
powers, and the provocation of rivalry among neighboring despots by playing
16

Another reason why sublime, pompous practices were largely shaped by the Byzantians
and Venetians is that diplomatic envoys at the time were self-funded. This left merchants as
being sole viable candidates for diplomatic envoys, because they were able to finance their
missions from trade (Nicolson 1954, 25) and because they had experience of foreign travels
from long-distance Mediterranean trade. However, there are several problems in employing
merchants as diplomatic representatives. First, because merchants generally traveled in
caravans, they were also too slow for the transmission of urgent messages. Second, no
merchants were willing to take a dangerous and lengthy mission; while they could conduct
trading business instead. Hence, making money was likely to be too much of a distraction
(Nicolson 1954; Wicquefort 1997). Third, the employment of merchants was likely to be
regarded as an insult by the prince to whom they were sent (Wicquefort 1997, 50). As a
solution to these problems, the Byzantine diplomacy associated honor and symbolic values
to diplomatic missions.

13

A Natural History

Chapter 3

them off each other in order to weaken them (Nicolson 1963, 10). A related
strategy involved hostage-taking. Members of the ruling families would routinely be requested to stay on in Constantinople. The Byzantians inherited this
practice from the Romans use of hostages as a treaty-enforcement device.17
The third diplomatic tactics was intelligence. The first two strategies of
adjusting rival powers incentive structure were possible only if the Byzantine
emperors were fully informed about the preferences, intention, and capabilities of the targeted neighboring countries. This elevated the collection and
organization of information to the utmost importance.
Importance of Intelligence: Considering the serious deficiency of military
capability, the diplomats were not expected to play the role of messengers
or orators; rather their primary task was to collect and report relevant information on the political situation of neighboring countries as well as the
strategic and power relations among them. That is, Byzantine diplomacy
primarily functioned as the acquisition and assessment of intelligence information. Recall that in the ancient Near East, the primary role of diplomats
was conveyance of messages between political leaders as they were conducting
diplomatic negotiation, and that diplomats of Greek city-states were primarily public debaters. Hence, it is worth emphasizing that diplomacy had not
fully developed its informational function until the Byzantine Empire systematically assigned intelligence activities to their diplomats. The informational
role of diplomats at this stage of the development of diplomacy was not completely separated from the role of espionage or spy. Because the primary task
expected of diplomats was to discover the secrets of the courts where he resides, a French diplomatic theorist Abraham de Wicquefort, who witnessed
the Congress of Westphalia (Keens-Soper 2001b, 88), once referred to an ambassador as an honorable spy (Wicquefort 1997).18 Until the Modern Age
an ambassador simultaneously played the roles of both a diplomat and a spy.
These aspects are reflected in the governmental agency for Byzantine diplomacy, Skrinion Barbaron (Bureau of Barbarians), which is a ministry in charge
of foreign affairs. While Skrinion Barbaron managed both diplomatic affairs
and intelligence activity, since its primary task effectively assimilated that of
intelligence agencies, it is considered as the first intelligence agency in history
17

The similar practice of taking family members of the nobles as hostages was instituted
by some of historys notable dictators including the Tokugawa shogunate, the feudal military
dictatorship of Japan during the Edo period (1603-1868), and King Louis XIV of France.
18
This phrase also appear in the work of another a French diplomatic theorist Francois
de Calli`eres, who served Louis VIX as his courtier (Calli`eres 1983, 80).

14

A Natural History

Chapter 3

(Antonucci 1993).19
The informational role of diplomacy is occasionally emphasized throughout history, as it helps political leaders avoid the expenses of unwarranted
wars. Intelligence gathering and assessment concerning the preferences, intentions, and military capabilities of potential enemies were the principle tools
of the Byzantine diplomacy, and it saved Byzantium from the cost of war.
The Byzantine Empire hardly won a military victory in the last 150 years
before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as it became increasingly deficient
in fighting capabilities. As theorists recently put it, diplomacy functioned
as a way to determine whether the issue at hand was critical enough to fight
for (Guisinger and Smith 2002, 176), and this characterization of the informational function of diplomacy was exactly the Byzantine Empires answer
to its strategic environment. After all, unlike its predecessors, diplomacy, not
military, was Byzantiums greatest strength.

The Italian System: Renaissance Diplomacy

Perhaps the most documented period in the development of diplomacy is Renaissance Italy, in which the rudiments of what we today know as diplomacy
first began to take shape. In particular, the most important innovation in
the development of diplomatic institution took place in the Italian city-states
during this period. That is, the practice of exchanging resident ambassadors
emerged and widely spread among northern Italian city-states in the first half
of the fifteenth century, and the practice was institutionalized and became
normal across the peninsula in the second half of the century. Harold Nicolson refers to this system of resident ambassadors as the Italian System, which
later diffused throughout the rest of Europe over the following centuries.20
Strategic Environment and the Treaty of Lodi: The Renaissance was
underway in Italy roughly from the 14th century. During about the same
period, Italy was constantly menaced by persistent military conflict, with Italian city-states engaging in power struggles for the hegemonic control of the
19

The modern-day equivalent of a ministry of foreign affairs was first established by Cardinal Richellieu in the eighteenth century.
20
The history of Renaissance diplomacy is still dominated by a single book published over a
half century agoGarrett Mattinglys (1955) Renaissance Diplomacy. Mattinglys accounts
of Renaissance diplomacy are taken to be standard, or even conventional wisdom. Yet,
essays in Frigo (2000) challenges many of Mattinglys theses. For example, the development
of resident permanent embassies did not emerge as an assertion of sovereignty as Mattingly
claims; rather, they emerged from concerns over sovereignty and legitimation (Fubini 2000).

15

A Natural History

Chapter 3

peninsula. After an extended period of antagonism and constant warfare in

a precarious society, the city-states were awakened by the fall of Byzantine
Empire in 1453 to the external threats.21
While the fall of the Byzantine Empire strongly signaled the imminent
risk of the expanding influence of the Ottoman Empire, the Italian city-states
were poorly equipped for war against the Turks. The size and capacity of
Italian city-states were nothing comparable to those of the Ottoman Empire.
In particular, because the source of power and prosperity of most of the city
states was derived from commercial activities rather than traditional political
authority, they typically lacked the standing army and had to turn to the
precarious support of mercenaries. The stark military deficiency facing the
Ottoman Empires standing army was exactly the same challenge that the
Byzantine Empire was confronted with. Hence, in addition to mercenaries,
they sought to supplement their weak military with diplomacy (Nicolson 1963,
31). The long years of incessant rivalry and power struggle among the northern
Italian city-states during the first half of the fifteenth century also contributed
to their vulnerability to external threats. Italy was also harassed by France,
as the House of Valois had developed its territorial ambitions towards Italy
after successfully unifying the territory of France.
Under the threats posed by the Turks and the French, it is natural that
Italian city-states then sought out for a system of mutual defense or collective
security as their strategy to fend off the external threats and thus turned to
diplomatic efforts to manage their alliances. A year after the collapse of the
Byzantine Empire, five great powers in Renaissance Italyincluding Venice,
Milan, Papacy, Naples, and Florencecame to peace and concluded the Treaty
of Lodi in 1454. This Italian League is a series of treaties effectively agreed
on non-aggression and mutual defense between them.22 With the initiatives of
Cosimo de Medici of Florence and Francesco Sforza of Milan, this treaty put an
end to the period of fluctuating realignments and warfare between city-states,
including the wars of Lombardy between Milan and Venice.23
21

For a more detailed description of the politics and international relations in the background of the emergence of Renaissance Diplomacy, see Hale (1957), Mallett (1994), and
Mattingly (1955). For a brief overview, see Anderson (1993, Ch.1) and Hamilton and
Langhorne (1995, Ch.2).
22
The Treaty of Lodi was primarily concluded between Venice and Milan to compromise
peace after the thirty-year period of wars of Lombardy started in 1425. The treaty allowed
other Italian states to join the Italian League of peace. Florence, a Milanese ally, was the
first to enter the league, followed by Aragonese Naples and the Papal states. By the end of
1455, all five Italian great powers, along with other smaller powers such as Lucca, Mantua,
Bolona, and Ferrara, formed the so-called Italian League. See Fubini (1995) and Ilardi
(1959) for the discussion of the Italian League.
23
Niccol`o Machiavelli, who was born in Florence soon after the the Lodi treaty was signed,

16

A Natural History

Chapter 3

This treaty ushered in forty years of peace on the Italian peninsula, forming a new but unstable equilibrium, without any major fighting among these
great powers, significant territorial changes, or large alternations in the relative
positions among them (Mattingly 1937, 432). This peace was built on the delicate balance of power maintained through constant adjustment of diplomacy.
The Renaissance blossomed under the peace and stability brought about by
the Treaty. It was under this peace equilibrium that Italian city-states established the system of resident ambassadors to maintain their non-aggression
principles.
Resident Ambassadors as a Stable Communication System: There
were two challenges faced by Italian city-states to establish this system of
balance of power.24 First, because the Italian city-states had been in the
prolonged warring period prior to the Peace of Lodi, they had to begin with
overcoming the mistrust and security dilemma that hindered any cooperation
and coordination among them. Some sort of assurance arrangements was
needed to accomplish this. Second, this unstable equilibrium of peace among
former enemies hinged on the delicate balance of power between them. The
city-states, consequently, put a great premium on accurate information, or
what Mattingly (1937, 432) refers to as diplomatic alertness on the changing
strategic outlook. The survival and prosperity of the Italian city-states hinged
on astute calculation of risks and strategic behavior, accurate intelligence on
the foreign political events was crucial. That is, they needed a fire-alarm that
would transmit the alarm when any power threatened to upset the balance
(Mattingly 1937, 432).
It is against this strategic background that city-states in Renaissance Italy
came to institute a stable and efficient network of communication and information transmission. The diplomatic machinery that they devised to do this
job was the system of resident ambassadors at permanent embassies in foreign
city-states. It is natural that a system of resident embassies were established
to meet the demand for stable and efficient communication because the practice of dispatching resident envoys had become very common during the first
half of the fifteenth century. Soon after the Treaty of Lodi was concluded,
Francesco Sforza dispatched his first resident ambassador in 1454, followed by
refers to Francesco Sforza, the duke of Milan, in his book, The Prince, as an example of
good governance and use of mercenary.
24
For more detailed discussions on the practice of diplomacy beyond the resident ambassadors during the Renaissance, see Bull (1977, Ch.7), Frigo (2000), Fubini (1995), Ilardi
(1959), Mallett (2001), Mattingly (1955), and Nicolson (1954, Ch.2).

17

A Natural History

Chapter 3

other Italian city-states one after another exchanging resident envoys.25 In a

nutshell, resident ambassadors were expected to be fire-alarms.
For the forty years following the Treaty of Lodi, the Italian League utilized
the communication system consisting of the network of resident ambassadors
and successfully maintain the balance of power among them. Therefore,
the role played by ambassadors residing in the capital of foreign countries
was as essential as the standing army in the management of the international
system of Northern Italy. And it was through this process that the resident
ambassador and permanent embassies were established as a key component of
diplomatic machinery. Because this type of diplomatic machinery was established by Italian city-states, Harold Nicolson calls it the Italian system of
diplomacy.
Resident ambassadors and permanent embassies were unprecedented in
character. Indeed, the system of diplomatic envoys in ancient Greece were on
an ad hoc basis and dispatched to carry out a particular mission with a specific issue. Similarly, the diplomatic messengers carrying the Amarna letters
in the ancient Near East were also selected on a temporary basis.26 Sporadic exchanges of diplomatic missions on the ad hoc basis were inadequate
among great powers in Renaissance Italy.27 As the frequency and duration
of ad hoc embassies intensified, it became clear that it is more practical and
more cost-efficient to appoint a resident ambassador to remain at a frequented
foreign court. As the external affairs of great powers became increasingly enmeshed in their alliance network with shifting preferences and changing military tensions among them (along with the changing security outlook), the
conduct of occasional diplomacy on the ad hoc basis became increasingly difficult (Berridge, Keens-Soper and Otte 2001, 108). As the duration of embassies
became longer, the opportunities for gathering valuable information became
much greater (Queller 1967, 88). Although information acquisition by resident ambassadors was a very imperfectly developed process, its importance
25

It is tempting to conclude that the unstable equilibrium of peace among the Italian
city-states after the Treaty of Lodi caused the first exchange of resident ambassadors. In
fact, there exist an alternative account of the first resident ambassador, which claims that
Francesco Sforza was the first to send a resident ambassador to Genova in 1455, following
the conclusion of the Treaty. Yet, according to Mattingly (1937), the available document
indicates that the first documented resident ambassador was actually dispatched in 1375 by
Mantua to Milan. By the time the Treaty of Lodi was concluded a half-century later, the
exchange of resident ambassadors was already considered as normal, or at least desirable,
between city-states with alliance ties (Mattingly 1937, 432).
26
However, there is evidence that a same person tended to be selected as a diplomatic
messenger in the ancient Near East because of the language necessity.
27
For the circumstance in which the resident embassy was invented and spread, see Queller
(1967, 82-83).

18

A Natural History

Chapter 3

was great in the absence of more technologically advanced means such as

jetliners, telecommunication, and news-networks (Queller 1967, 82-8).28 The
employment of occasional missions had given way to permanent missions.
The Italian system of diplomacy was gradually adopted in other parts of
Europe, and over time constituted a foundation for the modern diplomatic
system. The irony is that one of the documented catalyst in the spread of this
diplomatic machinery to the north of the Alps came when the peace of Lodi
collapsed as the Italian city-states were once again thrown into the menace of
warfare by the invasion of Charles VIII of France in 1494.29 When Charles
VIII invaded Italy, Pope Alexander VI opposed it by forming the Holy League
(or, the League of Venice) with the help of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, Ferdinand of Aragon (Spain), and his Italian allied states, Venice
and Milan, and subsequently repelled the French invasion. The formation of
the Holy League was successful partly due to the outstanding performance
of Spanish resident ambassadors representing Ferdinand at various European
courts (including Rome, Venice, London, Brussels, and Vienna). Impressed
with this success, European monarchs came to realize the utility of resident
ambassadors and permanent embassies, spreading the Italian system of diplomacy throughout the rest of Europe in the 16th century (Elliott 2002). By the
onset of the Thirty Years War in 1618, the spread and formation of resident
ambassadors and permanent diplomacy was largely complete, and nearly all
European powers maintained permanent diplomatic representatives with all
other powers in the sphere of their interests (Mattingly 1955; see also KeensSoper 1973).30
It was the Byzantines who taught the diplomatic practice to Venice, and
the Venetians in turn set the pattern for other city-states in Italy (Nicolson
1963, 24). Byzantians utilized intelligence in its diplomatic manipulation. Italians then perfected the system of the acquisition and transmission of political
information in coping with the changing security outlook. Over centuries,
the Italian system spread throughout Europe in the sixteenth century, and as
Wiseman (2005, 411) puts it, resident ambassadors and permanent embassies
gave the modern diplomacy its signature. The Thirty Years War had the
disastrous effect upon European diplomacy because ambassadors were prone
to forget that their function was to make peace, which was envisioned in the
28

For example, it took one French ambassador two and a half months to travel from Paris
to Stockholm in the early 18th century (Nicolson 1954, 59).
29
Charles VIIIs excuse of invasion was that he inherited Naples from the House of Anjou
(Angi`
o in Italian).
30
Note, however, that because the European courts during this age were not stationary
but mobile, resident ambassadors who were sent to a court did not reside at a permanent
embassy but they traveled along with the court to which that they was accredited.

19

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Italian System. Many of them instead ended up engaging in espionage and

subversion.

The French System: 17th & 18th Centuries

If Renaissance Italy gave birth to the modern diplomatic system, France in the
17th and 18th centuries perfected it. Absorbing the Italian system of resident
ambassadors, a distinctively French approach to diplomacy emerged around
the conclusion of the treaty of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War
in 1648 (Keens-Soper 1973, 490). While the Italian system is chiefly characterized as a mechanism for information acquisition and transmission, what
Harold Nicolson (1954) refers to as the French System puts emphasis on
the art of negotiation and the principles of raison detat. To be sure, French
diplomacy in these centuries differed little from its predecessors of Renaissance
Italy and Byzantine Empire in that the responsibility for political and military
information as well as diplomatic manipulation through bribery and ceremonial rituals still played a significant role (Roosen 1970, 316). Nevertheless,
the French system carried the evolution of diplomatic institution into a new
phase where the art of negotiation was established as one of the diplomatic
mechanisms (Keens-Soper 1973, 490; see also Keens-Soper 2001a, 109-113).
The French system of diplomacy was first formulated by Cardinal Richelieu,
who served Louis XIII during the Thirty Years War and wrote Testament
Politique (Nicolson 1954, 52).31 Richelieus influence on diplomatic thought
and practice was pivotal in the emergence of the French system, which was then
later analyzed and stylized by Francois de Calli`eres, who served as a diplomat
during the reign of Louis XIV and published The Art of Diplomacy in 1716
(Keens-Soper 2001a, 107; see also Keens-Soper 1973, 486-487).32 As French
power reached its culmination during the reign of Louis XIV in the secondhalf of the seventeenth century, its language and culture also had profound
influence on the European courts. With the help of French supremacy, its
31

Richelieus Testament Politique is based on notes and dictations, and considered to be

complied after his death (1642). The fist publication of the work was by a press in Amsterdam in 1688. The English translation along with the commentary is furnished by Hill
(1961), which I relied on for this study. Henry Bertram Hill. 1961. The Political Testament
of Cardinal Richelieu: the Significant Chapters and Supporting Selections. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. According to Keens-Soper (2001a, 106), Calli`eres The Art of
Diplomacy enjoyed a European reputation throughout the 18th century and was considered
essential reading in the training of diplomats for a substantial period of time until the 19th
century, along with Wicquefort (1997)s The Embassador and His Functions.
32
For a more complete treatment of diplomatic theory advanced by Calli`eres, see KeensSoper (2001a, 1973).

20

A Natural History

Chapter 3

influence on diplomatic practice and institution became so predominant that

it became the model for all European countries for three centuries until 1919
(Nicolson 1954, 53).
Strategic Environment: What did motivate Richelieu to devise distinctively unique approach to diplomacy? What did elevate the French system to
the model of modern diplomatic system? The 17th century was a period when
fully sovereign states were emerging in the midst of other types of political
capacities with substantial, albeit declining, influence; yet the authority of the
older universalist institutions and ideas, such as the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire, were called into question (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 67-8).
The Papacys influence had been declining ever since the end of the medieval period, and so had the medieval principles of the universalitythe principles for the world order, which was sustained by the authority that unified
the legitimacy of the Roman Empire (secular, political authority) and the authority of the Christian faith (Catholic, in particular as the divine authority).
The Holy Roman Empire never achieved this principle of universality, as it
had separated control of the church from control of the government (Kissinger
1994, 57). This imperial failure led to fragmentation of both the Empire and
Europe. On the one hand, this failure led to a fractionated Europe, where
France, Great Britain, and Spain did not accept the imperial authority. On
the other hand, the Empires inability to unify the secular and religious authority eventually led to the Protestant Reformation, which invokes a series of
religious conflicts and the initiation of the Counter-Reformation. Along with
the Counter-Reformation movement, the Holy Empire Emperor Ferdinand II
of Habsburg also initiated an oppression campaign against Protestants to revive Catholic universality. This was partly a religious act and partly a political
maneuver to establish the imperial dominance in Central Europe, which eventually triggered the Thirty Years War (Zeller 1961, 59).
The Habsburgs initiative in this religious campaign also posed a geographical threat to France.33 For Richelieu (in the first-half of the 17th century),
the preeminance of Habsburg Austria was a threat to Frances national security, since it was encircled by the Habsburg influence on all quarters (Kissinger
1994, 59-60). In the south, there is Habsburg Spain. In the north, the Netherlands was dominated by Spain. In the east, both Alsace and Lorraine were
under the influence of the Holy Roman Empire. Most of the city-states in
Northern Italy were also under the influence of Spain. For Louis XIV (in the
second-half of the 17th century), however, the emergence of the Holy Roman
33
For the details of French diplomacy and its relationship to religious warfare in the
sixteenth century, see Jensen (1974, 1985).

21

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Empire as the dominant power on the European Continent was a threat for
his aspiration for glories, since the fate of the Holy Roman Empire would
determine Frances capability of the eastward expansion (Kissinger 1994, 58;
Zeller 1961, 207). Richelieu therefore sought to prevent Habsburg domination
of Europe by exploiting the religious conflict generated by the Reformation in
order to weaken the influence of the Holy Roman Empire.
French System and the Art of Negotiation: What we know today as the
French system is a rational response to the strategic environment that French
rulers, Richelieu in particular, faced in the midst of the turbulence in the firsthalf of the seventeenth century. The first distinctive feature of the French
system is the art of negotiation. Richelieu was the first to establish that the
art of negotiation constitutes a permanent feature of diplomatic mechanisms.
He argues that diplomacy (based on the system of a broad and comprehensive
network of resident ambassadors) must do more than the collection and transmission of information, political manipulations, and the conduct of ceremonial
ritualsthese were standard diplomatic practices in Renaissance Italy and the
Byzantine Empire. In his Testament Politique, Richelieu opens the chapter on
the continuous negotiation in diplomacy by noting that States receive so
much benefit from uninterrupted foreign negotiations . . . it is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the state to negotiate ceaselessly, either openly or
secretly, and in all places, even in those from which no present fruits seem
likely (Hill 1961, 94).
Richelieus emphasis on the use of diplomacy in the management of international relations seems to stem from his beliefs in reason. He writes that
reason ought to be the torch which lights the conduct of both princes and
their states (Hill 1961, 72). His adherence to reason also echoes his preference
for diplomacy over the use of force or coercion, and in Testament Politique he
argues that It is much more expedient to lead men by means by which imperceptibly win their wills than, as is more the practice, by those which coerce
him (Hill 1961, 72). Although his explanation of the utility of negotiations is
extensive, its essence can be stated in a quite simple way: through negotiations
one can obtain a better outcome (Hill 1961, 99-101). That is, the rationality
of negotiation is such that states are more likely to secure an agreement that
all the parties to an issue are better off than unilaterally imposed settlements
through military coercion. In the language of bargaining theory, negotiation
outcomes are Pareto-superior to any imposed settlement through coercion or
warfare. Hence, the rationality is derived not from the mere desirability of negotiated settlements or their normative value, but from the inefficiency of military instruments as reliance on force is a costly and risky business. Calli`eres
22

A Natural History

Chapter 3

is more blunt on this point, as he considers war as an expensive and wasteful

instrument, or a deesse bien hideuse [hideous goddess] (Keens-Soper 1973,
497). He claims that a small number of [diplomats] with a small expense do
frequently as much service as standing armies would be able to do (Calli`eres
1983, 73), while force begets more conflict rather than appeases (Keens-Soper
1973, 503).34 Although the origin of Richelieus preference is beyond the scope
of this chapter, his adherence to reason and prudence developed in the crucible of the tragic consequence of the Thirty Years War. The series of religious
wars expanded to Continent-wide power struggles, entangling European major
powers. In its aftermath, the War devastated Central Europe and Germany
lost almost one third of its population (Kissinger 1994, 59).35
There are two machineries of diplomatic negotiation that Richelieu spelled
out in his argument for its utility. First, the most obvious fact about a negotiation is that it is about the art of concession and counter-concession, or
trading of concessions (Kissinger 1994, 744). Calli`eres chapter on negotiation,
therefore, reflects this view of Richelieu: if diplomacy is to work, compromise is
essential, and hence it is a political necessity that states must act by persuasion
and by appeal to other states true value of moderation (Keens-Soper 1973,
503). This principle implies that if a concession offer is divulged to the public,
the negotiation may have to be abandoned to avoid a domestic repercussion
(Nicolson 1954, 76). Furthermore, if negotiations remain private, negotiators
could remain both rational and courteous and, thus, it is much easier to make
concessions in private than in the presence of watchful eyes. This gives a rise
to the rationale for secrecy in diplomatic negotiation, and it seems that this
rationale was well recognized by Louis XIV whose abiding principle was that
negotiation must remain as confidential as possible (Nicolson 1954, 61). Nicolson (1954, 76) also notes that M. Jules Cambon, perhaps the best professional
diplomatist of this century, wrote, The day secrecy is abolished, negotiation
of any kind will become impossible.
Second, observe that what is distinct about Richelieus calls for diplomatic
negotiation is its emphasis on the continuation of conducting negotiations with
foreign countries. He notes that diplomacy should be ceaselessly pursuing
achievement of agreement on all outstanding questions (Berridge 2001, 74).
34

Richelieu also writes that The payoffs from continuous diplomacy are very uncertain,
but they must not be ignored (Hill 1961, 100). As I shall demonstrate in Chapter 5,
diplomatic negotiation does not carry much information compared to military coercion. Yet,
as Richelieu claims, uncertainty surrounding diplomatic negotiation should not encourage
bargainers to forego the agreement that diplomacy can produce, which often is Pareto
improvement of imposed settlement through coercion.
35
Bueno de Mesquita (2006, 31) notes that the War killed about half of the German
population.

23

A Natural History

Chapter 3

That is, at the most fundamental level, the art of negotiation also involves fine
adjustment of conflicting interests and frictions. An important implication
of Richelieus call for continuous negotiations is that it marks the advent of
peacetime diplomacy. Diplomacy of predecessors by its nature was the ex post
management of problems in foreign relations. On the other hand, Richelieus
diplomatic strategy behind continuous negotiations is the ex ante measures
for the prevention of those problems from emerging. Hence, success of such
continuous negotiations in peacetime diplomacy may not be readily visible.36
Yet, Richelieu once again resorts to the inefficiency of coercion in justifying
his emphasis on continuous negotiations: Even if [negotiation] does no other
good on some occasions that gain time, which often is the sole outcome, its
employment would be commendable and useful to states, since it frequently
takes only an instant to divert a storm (Hill 1961, 99). For this reason, he
continues, it is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the state to negotiate
ceaselessly, either openly or secretly, and in all places, even in those from which
no present fruits seem likely (Hill 1961, 94). Hence, state leaders sometimes
buy time and continue negotiation at the expense of costly delay in order to
divert a dramatic confrontation. Such a maneuver was evident in Henry
Kissinger and Richard Nixons handling of a crisis that could have been a
second Cuban crisis (Kissinger 1979, 651).

Rationalism and Raison dEtat:

The second distinctive feature of the
French system is raison detat, or the national interest, which replaced the
medieval tradition of universal moral values as a guiding principle of foreign
policy. After the collapse of the medieval doctrine for governance, the emerging
sovereign states needed an alternative justification or legitimacy in European
politics. Against this historical background, Richelieu promulgated that raison
detat, or national interest, would take precedence over any other ideologies or
prejudices (Nicolson 1954, 51). Hence, he notes, If national interest demanded
an alliance with an obnoxious, even with a heretic, State, then no feelings of
what one liked or what one disliked, should be permitted to blur that necessity
. . . . In moments of danger one should choose ones allies, not for their integrity
or charm, but for their physical or even geographical value (Nicolson 1954,
51). In fact, in the menace of religious conflict, Richelieu allied with the
36

This also implies that continuous negotiations and peacetime diplomacy, therefore, contains the elements of patience. In his words, Different nations have different characters,
some quickly carry out what they have in mind, while others walk with fee of lead. . . . it
is necessary to be content with little in the hope of getting more later. For this reason it
is wise to negotiate painstakingly with them in order to give them time, and to press them
only when they are ready for it (Hill 1961, 97).

24

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Ottoman Empire.
The policy of balance of power is a natural choice of a grand strategy for
Richelieu, given the principles of raison detat along with his desire of maintaining an equilibrium within Christendom (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995).
This explains why France did not intervene in the Thirty Years War until the
last decade of the War when Spain invaded French provinces of Champagne
and Burgundy and threatened Paris in 1636. Instead, Richelieu resorted to
diplomacy to manage the crisis situation after the War erupted in order to seek
a balance of power within Christendom. Richelieus emphasis on prudence
given the raison deetat was most evident in forming an alliance not only with
Catholic states but also Protestant states in order to counter-balance against
the Habsburgs of Spain and Austria. In particular, he was actively involved
in the diplomacy behind the Danish and Swedish intervention into the War
against the Habsburgs. (see also Berridge 2001, 72).37 Richelieus pursuit
of the balance of power is a natural corollary of his emphasis on continuous
negotiations rather than hasty sanctions. In this regard, he writes that It
is prudent to hold down the external threat and opponents force with your
allies, by putting your hand in your pocket and not on your sword (quoted
by Kissinger 1994, 62-3). The balance of power first was a fact of political
practice; later it became a principle or system of Europe for three centuries
with several interruptions by warfare.38
The primary machinery of raison detat and the balance of power was
rationalism or his belief in the power of reason. The success of the balance of
power requires the ability to calculate power relationships with mathematical
precision and constant adjustment to the changing circumstances (Kissinger
1994, 63). While theoretically possible, these theoretical requirements for
successful balance of power is difficult to attain realistically. Moreover, a more
challenging requirement for the secrets of successful balance of power strategy
is the requirement of common knowledge among powers, where ones strategic
assessment of the nature of the equilibrium must harmonize with that of other
powers. Without common knowledge, the equilibrium may not be achieved.
Yet, Richelieu regarded it possible to construct a logic that requires that
the things that is to be supported and the force that is to support it should
stand in geometrical proposition to each other (quoted by Kissinger 1994, 63).
37
I should add that some argue that the poor economic condition and his problematic
relationship with its own military were also responsible for Richelieus reliance on diplomacy,
as he could not rely on French military strength alone to attain the raison deetat that he
perceived. See for example, Berridge (2001, 72).
38
Major warfare in Europe in this time period include the War of the Grand Alliance
in the late 17th century, the French Revolutionary Wars in the late 18th century and the
Napoleonic Wars in the early 18th century.

25

A Natural History

Chapter 3

This conviction is based on his firm beliefs in the power of reason. Richelieu
begins the chapter on the importance of reason by the declaration that human
behavior is a rational process:
Common sense leads each one of us to understand that man, having
been endowed with reason, should do nothing except that which
is reasonable, since otherwise he would be acting contrary to his
nature, [. . . ] It further teaches us that the more a man is great and
conspicuous, [. . . ] the less he ought to abuse the rational process
which constitutes his being. (Hill 1961, 71)
Richelieu was acutely sensitive to the posssibilities of language as an instrument of power (Elliott 1991, 30). His belief in the power of reason led
him to establish the Academie Francaise, which was an explicit recognition of
the power of language, of the superiority of eloquence and reason over naked
force (Elliott 1991, 134). Calli`eres also notes that the pursuit of state interests habitually came to rely on force in the absence of intelligence or prudence
(Keens-Soper 1973, 499; Keens-Soper 2001a, 113). Kissinger (1994, 63) notes
that Richelieus conviction in reason puts him in the intellectual company of
rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza, who thought that human action could
be scientifically charted.
Professionalism and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The third distinctive feature of the Fench system of diplomacy was professionalization. By
the time the Westphalia Treaty was concluded in 1648, court diplomacy declined and professional diplomats gradually took over the business of diplomacy, which led to the emergence of an autonomous profession of diplomacy,
or diplomatic corps. By the 18th century, the extraterritoriality of diplomats
had been legally recognized. Like the military and judiciary, diplomats gradually acquired their own distinct characteristics and methods of work (KeensSoper 2001a, 109). With the emergence of professional diplomats, by the time
Calli`eres published The Art of Diplomacy in 1716, roughly between the end
of the Thirty Years War and the French Revolution, diplomacy emerged as a
principle and institution of order, something comparable to a national standing
army (Keens-Soper 2001a, 122). As Calli`eres insisted, diplomacy is a necessary, unavoidable, activity essential to the well-being of a state and deserving
of recognition as a separate profession (Keens-Soper 1973, 499; Keens-Soper
2001a, 113).
The professionalization of diplomatic services was facilitated by the establishment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) by Richelieu in 1626.
Although the first minister of foreign affairs was appointed in 1589 when Henry
26

A Natural History

Chapter 3

III of France assigned Louis de Revol, one of his four cabinet members, the responsibility of managing his relationships with foreign countries, foreign-policy
decision-making and the management of diplomatic services were disoriented
as the task of diplomacy had been allocated between different bureaucratic organizations (Nicolson 1954, 52).39 The establishment of MOFA concentrated
the responsibility of diplomacy such as formulation of policy and the control of
diplomatic agents. This was also Richelieus rational response to the problem
of moral-hazard arising from the latitude and discretionary power granted to
diplomatic missions. Since in the absence of the electric telegraphy diplomatic
correspondence traveled no faster than a good rider and a fleet of horse, it
was not practical to deliver and receive diplomatic messages back and forth
between two capitals every time an offer and a counter-offer was made in a
negotiation.40 Before the communication revolution with the construction of
railways, steamships, and telegraphy in the mid 19th century, therefore, diplomatic missions typically were given a large, if not full, degree of discretionary
power representing its government, which is reflected in the title of extraordinary or plenipotentiary (Anderson 1993, 118; Hamilton and Langhorne
1995, 132).41
The greater the latitude and discretion granted to diplomatic missions, the
grater was likely to be discrepancies between their sanction in foreign negotiation and their home governments will and instructions. Richelieu insisted
that diplomatic missions should never exceed their instructions, since doing so
would give a rise to uncertainty about whether an agreement signed would be
ratified and implemented. To enhance the effectiveness of diplomacy, Richelieu
concentrated diplomacy to a single ministry, so that each party to a diplomatic
negotiation would know if the other party really presented sovereign authority
of the sending country (Nicolson 1954, 52).
39

The post (i.e., the secretary of state for foreign affairs) was succeeded later by Richelieu
and Colbert (under Louis XIV) among others.
40
According to Hamilton and Langhorne (1995, 131-2), in the nineteenth century, the
average travel time between the United States to Paris was two months; a month between
London and St. Petersburg; at least three weeks between London and Constantinople;
the best record of travel time from Vienna to London was one week. Furthermore, on its
inaugural run in 1883 the Orient Express traveled between Paris and Constantinople in 81
hours (3.5 days). The improvement of the network of railroad improved its travel time to
67 12 hours in 1889.
41
Hamilton and Langhorne (1995, 131) provide the following historical anecdote to illustrate the discretion granted to envoys in that age. An American mission dispatched to
Paris to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans and the adjacent territory was authorized to
spend 10 million dollars. When France offered the whole Louisiana territory for 15 million
dollars, the American mission did not feel it necessary to request a further instruction from
Washington.

27

A Natural History

Chapter 3

The past glories of Louis XIVs reign and the successes of French diplomacy during the 18th century gave the French foreign ministry great prestige
(Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 74). By the beginning of the 18th century, the
major powers all had such officials, who came to be known as foreign ministers
or secretaries of state for foreign affairs. As part of his Westernization of the
Russian government, Peter the Great also established a MOFA on the French
model(Craig and George 1995, 11).
Towards the end of the 17th century, as Louis XIV of France replaced the
Habsburg of Spain as the leading power, French power reached its culmination along with its diplomatic system. The impact of the French system on the
method and practice of European diplomacy was so profound that French gradually replaced Latin as the language of diplomacy during these two centuries
(Roosen 1970, 206). While French diplomats used French on their treaties
in the 17th century, it was at the negotiations at Utrecht in 1714 following
the War of the Spanish Succession that the Imperial diplomats first employed
French in the agreements which they concluded with France. Thereafter, the
French language, along with the French system, was adopted by European
powers as the standard diplomatic procedure (Zeller 1961, 206).

Spread and Institutionalization: 19th Century

If the modern diplomatic institution was molded by Renaissance Italy and

completed in the 17th and 18th centuries as the France system, it was consolidated by the 19th century diplomacy. On the European continent, the
Concert of Europe was the manifestation of the French system of peacetime
diplomacy. Beyond Europe, the spread of the system of sovereign-state (established by the Westphalia Treaty) was the catalyst of the promulgation of the
European diplomatic system in non-European states. The diplomatic system
was recognized to be the foundational mechanism for international relations by
the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Congress of Vienna was a turning point
not only because the diplomatic system was formalized, but also it also set
out the Concert of Europe which induced a long peace of the 19th century.
Consolidation and The Concert of Europe. Towards the end of the
Napoleonic Wars in the early nineteenth century, European powers in the allied coalition against Napoleon were seeking a new system for international
order. The coalition began to extend their collective effort beyond the victory
of the Napoleonic wars and design the balance of power system because, in
28

A Natural History

Chapter 3

the aftermath of devastation of the wars in the 18th and 19th centuries, they
believed that the collision in the war would not produce the peace that would
last (Kissinger 1994, 74-9). Consequently, European powers used a series of
great power congresses at Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), Troppau (1820), Laiback
(1821) and Verona (1822) following the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to achieve
(1) the containment of revolution, (2) the maintenance of stability of the European equilibrium of power, and (3) re-establishment of the ancient regime
(Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 90-2). The resulting system of the balance of
power lasted until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 with several
interruptions with warfare such as the Crimean War (185-1856). Hence, the
Concert of Europe emerged as the wartime allied coalition against Napoleon
and it was extended to the peacetime diplomatic system.
Above all, the Concert of Europe was a clear manifestation of what Richelieu envisioned as continuous negotiations in the pursuit of stability of an
equilibrium between the Europe powers (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 71;
Berridge, Keens-Soper and Otte 2001, 72) As one of the earliest successful
examples, the Concert of Europe helped to consolidate the French system of
diplomacy. Under this equilibrium, the nineteenth century witnessed the continuation of the trend in the evolution of diplomatic institutiona consolidation of the network of diplomatic representation between European countries
(Anderson 1993, 103).
Spread and New Challenges. The nineteenth century also witnessed the
expansion of the geographical scope of European diplomacy not only within
but also beyond the European continent. The growth of European colonial influence in Africa and Asia as well as the grow of international trade began to
bring non-European countries into the European diplomatic system (Anderson
1993, 106). Since the commercial origin of the expansion of European system,
European relationship to the rest of the world (including the United States)
was still largely an economic one based on the increasing volume of international trade. Consequently, the diplomatic representation in non-European
countries was born out of the demand for promotion and protection of trade.
As a result, the establishment of diplomatic relations did not necessarily lead
to an exchange of governmental representatives, as political relations were very
much subordinate to commercial one Anderson (1993, 107-9). For example,
France tried to save money by accrediting the consul-general in Japan also as
charges affaires in the mid nineteenth century, and Great Britain also hesitant to establish full diplomatic representation for the trading purpose and so
the British consuls in Greece, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria also functioned
as diplomatic representation (Anderson 1993, 107-9; Hamilton and Langhorne
29

A Natural History

Chapter 3

1995, 110). This practice was quite common at that time, and there was a
sharp growth of European consular representation in non-European, especially
Asian, countries.
The expansion of the European colonial influence and commercial trade
also led to the expansion of the European system of territory-based sovereignty.
This movement from a (semi-)feudal society to a sovereign state was typically
accompanied by the accreditation and recognition of the diplomatic representatives of European countries. This was because the creation of diplomatic
relations was a conventional procedure to commence the formal recognition
and integration in the international society (Strang 1991, 152). 42 The most
striking aspect of the expansion of the European diploamtic system is that in
the process of transition, no countries formally repudiated the system; they
all accepted its rules and practice, although the process may not have been
smooth with some tensions in some instances.43
However, some difficulty arose in the establishment of diplomatic relations
with non-European countries. One of such difficulties faced by political leaders
is that those newly incorporated countries often did not share the customs or
culture of European countries.44 Since European countries generally enjoyed
the homogeneity of their historical and cultural background, the European
diplomatic system functioned well with the implicit reliance on such unwritten shared norms. Yet, newly integrated non-European countries do not share
aristocratic ethos and culture, on which European diplomatic system, the ceremonial procedures and precedence protocols in particular, was based. Rules
of games are generally implicit but common knowledge in a society with
homogenous cultural, historical, and political background; in a heterogenous
society, however, rules are not common knowledge unless they are explicitly
codified.
42
For a more detailed analysis of the spread of diplomacy to the non-Western world, see
Bull and Watson (1984, esp. 1-9), Nicolson (1954, Ch.4), Sofer (1988), Strang (1991), and
Watson (1982, Ch.11).
43
The noticeable exceptions to this rule was the rejection of the European system of
diplomacy by the two superpowers in the post-WWII era: the United States and the Soviet
Union. Their animosity towards diplomacy eventually led to the equilibrium of fear as
the new world order induced by overwhelming military capabilities and to the decline of
diplomacy in the twentieth century.
44
Other difficulties concerned the legitimacy of the local governments and the political
instability of the region. In Asia, for example, the local political powers were reluctant to
open their countries to foreign influences. Moreover, political structures and social values
in China was not easily be reconciled with the sovereignty principle which emphasizes the
concept of the equality of sovereign powers along with clearly defined territorial boundaries
(Hamilton and Langhorne 1995, 110).

30

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Institutionalization and standardization. To cope with the problem of

non-European countries not being accustomed to the implicit rules and norms,
diplomatic leaders moved on to formally codifying the practices and procedures
of diplomacy. These gave rise to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and, over
a century later, Vienna Conventions in 1961 and 1963 that codified the rules
of the diplomatic game in the face of a massive entry of new states into the
diplomatic system. These treaties formalized the rule of the diplomatic game
that we can observe today (Stearns 1996, 12).
First, the European countries at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 agreed
on r`eglements of Vienna (1815), which determined the regulations specific
diplomatic rules and practices, such as diplomatic privileges and immunities
and the seating order and arrangements for diplomatic representatives (Batora
2003; Stearns 1996).45 Along with supplementary agreement Aix-la-Chapelle
in 1818, it also determined the rules regarding precedence among diplomatic
envoys in accordance with the doctrine of the equality of sovereign powers,
which regulates the ranks and title of diplomatic representatives. Formally
recognized diplomatic ranks are (1) Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, (2) envoys and minister (both with the title of extraordinary or plenipotentiary) or other agents accredited to a sovereign, and (3) Charge dAffaires or
other agents accredited to ministers of foreign affairs. Consular officials (such
as consuls-general and consuls-resident) are not political representation.
Second, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961 and the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1963 both codified the modern
(European) bilateral diplomatic practices for the whole international society
including new states that recently gained independence from European colonial
controls. These treaties were signed by countries from all political blocs,
which helped to clear any doubts and uncertainty about the acceptances of
the traditional rules of the diplomatic game in the age of the Cold War.
45

The rules regarding the seating arrangements were actually formalized in the supplemented agreement three years later. Although this issue might seem trivial and inconsequential, it actually has had an impact on the success and failure of diplomatic negotiations.
A notable example is the Potsdam Conference in 1945. They were not able to begin diplomatic negotiation because they failed to agree on who should enter the conference room first
among Stalin, Churchill and Truman. This dispute was settled with the agreement that
these three figures enter simultaneously from three different doors (Morgenthau 1973, 82).

31

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Decline of Diplomacy? 20th Century and

Beyond

Both critics and practitioners note that the role of diplomacy in international
politics has declined in the twenties century (e.g., Bull 1977; Hook 2003; Morgenthau 1973; Nicolson 1954; Nicolson 1963; Watson 1982; Wiseman 2005). In
the years following the Second World War, Morgenthau (1973, 525) observed
that diplomacy no longer performs the role, often spectacular and brilliant
and always important, that it performed from the end of the Thirty Years
War to the beginning of the First Word War. There are two momentums in
the decline of modern diplomatic system: (1) the ideological turn in the international order after the First World War; and (2) the superpower rivalry and
their distrust and militarization of diplomacy after the Second World War.46
Ideological Turn and New Diplomacy after WWI: Towards the end
of World War I, two rising powers has emerged into the center stage of international politics as new great powers. While these two new great powersthe
United States and the Soviet Unionwill influence the course of world politics
in the second-half of the twentieth century in a significant way, their emergence
also profoundly influenced the system of diplomatic institutions in the wake
of World War I. In particular, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union simultaneously promulgated the principles for New Diplomacy, which denied the old
European diplomatic practice and institution, while introducing ideology as
one of the primary guiding principles of statecraft.
After the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917, the new Soviet government (the Council of Peoples Commissars, or Sovnarkom) issued a decree
on peace, which proclaimed a new diplomacy even before Wilsons fourteen
points. The decree demanded, among others, a just and democratic peace,
the end of secret diplomacy, transparency in the conduct of all future negotiations, and publication of the secret treaties in the Russian archives. This in
fact was the Soviets vision for the post-WWI world order, addressed firstly
to all belligerent peoples and only secondly totheir governments (Hamilton
and Langhorne 1995, 150). In particular, it was meant to serve to reinforce
Bolshevism in Russia and to ignite revolution in other countries.
46

Morgenthau (1973, 525-540) lists five factors responsible for the decline of diplomacy:
(1) the advancement of communication technology; (2) depreciation of diplomacythe belief
that the diplomatic services not only contribute nothing to the cause of peace, but actually
endanger it; (3) conference diplomacy; (4) the nature of the power relations between the
superpowersthe United States and the Soviet Unionduring the Cold War; and (5) the
publicity of diplomacy.

32

A Natural History

Chapter 3

About a few months after Bolsheviks decree on peace, another emerging great power, the United States, also advanced its vision for the postWWI world order. President Woodrow Wilson delivered a speech before the
Congress, in which he listed the fourteen points of his vision for how the First
World War is to be ended and how the post-war world order will be designed.
The significance of the fourteen points in terms of the evolution of diplomatic
institution is that this calls for democratization of diplomacy. In particular,
there were two aspects to it: Open diplomacy and conference diplomacy.
Among the fourteen points, the first proclaimed Open covenants of peace,
openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the
public view. Along with Bolshviks call for transparent diplomacy, this point
demands the end of secrecy in the conduct of diplomacy. Wilson saw secret
alliances as being a primary cause of the catastrophe of WWI. In fact, secret offensive alliance networks on the eve of World War I and some secret
clauses in alliance treaties more or less functioned as paths of the expansion
of a regional tension (between Austria-Hungary and Serbia) into a world war.
Another relevant point was the last point which demanded the creation of
a general association of nations among great and small states alike. This
of course would soon be materialized as the League of Nations, it also meant
the conduct of diplomacy by parliamentary procedures, or conference diplomacy.47 Also reflecting his another principle on self-determination of nations,
the call for conference diplomacy implies every powersmall or great
has an equal power and right in the decision-making in the new world order,
putting an end to the monopoly of world politics by bilateral diplomacy among
great powers.
The Paris Peace Conference of 1919-1920 gave New Diplomacy an instant recognition and applaud around the world. Coupled with strong reaction
against the aristocratic culture of pre-war European diplomacy and the advent of the mass democracy after the war, the principles for New Diplomacy,
in particular Wilsons fourteen points, have gained the popularity especially
among the world public opinion. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919-1920
was the first international conference adopted New Diplomacy as the organizational principle. The emergence of new diplomacy also marked the shift
of the diplomatic language from French to English (Hamilton and Langhorne
1995, 157).
Although New diplomacy was envisioned to replace old diplomacy, its fail47

Gilbert (1951) claims that a call for open and democratic diplomacy did not first emerge
after the First World war, but the so-called New Diplomacy can be traced back to the
18th century.

33

A Natural History

Chapter 3

ure became immediately obvious at the Conference, and there were substantial
skepticism about the effectiveness of its mechanisms among delegates and critics alike. Even Woodrow Wilson was not an exception to this rule. While Wilsons first point called for open covenants, openly arrived at, the reality of
the Conference was such that Open covenants, secretly arrived atnamely,
the bulk of the negotiations at the Conference was conducted among the great
powers behind the closed door; it was open only in terms of the result. So,
the process of diplomatic negotiations remained private, although the outcome
of the negotiations were open to the public and subject to political accountability.
Not only the diplomatic procedures and mechanisms advocated by New
Diplomacy proved ineffective at the Paris Peace Conference, but also the new
world order and peace envisioned by New Diplomacy failed as the security
regime arranged by the League of Nations proved to be dysfunctional and
collapsed in 1930s.
The irony is that because even though New Diplomacy, which was born out
of the criticism and denial of Old Diplomacy, collapsed without establishing
an alternative diplomatic system, diplomatic system itself was undermined.
Hence, the decline of diplomacy in the first-half of the twentieth century is
primarily associated not so much with the decline of Old Diplomacy as with
the failure of New Diplomacy. This led any authors to blame the decline of
diplomacy on the criticism against old diplomatic system (Morgenthau 1973;
Nicolson 1963; Watson 1982). Yet, even though the practice of modern diplomacy was heavily damaged, its central institutions survived the first momentum of the decline of diplomacy in the twentieth century. In fact, while the
post-WWI international system witnessed the dramatic increase of the number of states partially due to Wilsons 5th point on the right of every nations
(including colonies) to self-determination, none has formally repudiated the
system (Bull 1977, 171). Hedley Bull notes that The remarkable willingness
of states of all regions, cultures, persuasions and stages of development to
embrace often strange and archaic diplomatic procedures that arose in Europe in another age is today one of the few visible indications of relevance of
diplomatic institutions (1995, 171).
Superpowers Distrust in Diplomacy: The role of diplomacy in statecraft has been seriously marginalized in the second-half of the 20th century
primarily because two superpowers, who has provided the framework for the
world order in the post-WWII era, distrusts the diplomatic mechanisms. Hans
Morgenthau (1973, 525-31) points out the eclipse of diplomacy during the
Soviet-American Cold War.
34

A Natural History

Chapter 3

After the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Leon Trotsky was named the first
Peoples Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and Soviet diplomacy began with Trotsky; and Trotsky began by abolishing diplomacy since for him diplomacy was
part of the capitalist superstructure, like the national state (von Laue 1994,
235). While the Russian diplomatic service has a long tradition and numerous brilliant achievements, the Bolsheviks destroyed the traditional Russian
diplomatic service during the 1917 Revolution Morgenthau (1973, 529). In
particular, because of the manner in which Bolshevik seized power and its revolutionary nature, the Soviet Union find it difficult to maintain the adequate
instruments for diplomatic services. Moreover, the staff of the former Russian
ministry of foreign affairs resisted the Bolshevik takeover and its first Commissar Trotsky, who denied their expertise and experience, and did not stay
with Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. As Hamilton and Langhorne (1995,
149) observe, only ten of the former Russian diplomatic representatives were
prepared to take instructions from Trotsky and several of them worked actively
against the Bolshevik regime. The hostility with other countries and its own
isolationism prevented the Soviet Union from maintaining normal diplomatic
relations Morgenthau (1973, 529).
The other superpower during the Cold War, the United States, also witnessed its leaders fundamental distrust of diplomacy. Historically, American
disregard for diplomacy appears to have deep roots in its political culture, for
early leaders dismissed the practice of diplomacy as a collusive game played by
monarchs, priests, and feudal despots (Hook 2003). George Washington, for
example, at his farewell speech as the president, criticized the European style
of diplomacy. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson, the first secretary of state, also dismissed eighteenth-century diplomacy as the pest of the peace of the world,
as the workshop in which nearly all the wars of Europe are manufactured
(Rubin 1985, 3). Hamilton and Langhorne (1995, 114) note that despite the
considerable achievements made by the American diplomatic representatives,
including successful negotiations of trade treaties and alliances as well as the
purchase of Lousiana, diplomacy was widely perceived by Americans as being of little relevance because of its distance from European politics. This
skepticism among Americans is rooted in the historical American principle
of isolationism and concern about diplomacys aristocratic European connotations (Wiseman 2005, 415). The Monroe Doctrine formalized Americas
minimalist approach to diplomacy, which essentially reflected George Washingtons strategy to exploit the detached and distant geographical position
of the United States (Hook 2003, 24; see also Kissinger 1979, 58-59). In Hans
Morgenthaus (1973, 529) words, From the Jacksonian era on, the eminent
qualities of American diplomacy disappeared as the need for them seemed dis35

A Natural History

Chapter 3

appear, and specially since when Roosevelt left the government, there was
no man or group of men capable of creating and operating that intricate and
subtle machinery by which traditional diplomacy had given peaceful protection and furtherance to the national interests. The American distrust and
skepticism of diplomacy has surfaced American strategies for national security
at least on two dimensions.
The first manifestation of the skepticism toward diplomacy is the American practice of the no-talks-with-enemies principle. One of the key norms of
modern diplomatic system is that diplomatic representation and communication is maintained even if states a in a hostile relationship (Wiseman 2008).
At least since the 17th century when the modern diplomacy was established,
resident ambassadors were forced to leave only when war broke out (Roosen
1970, 317). The United States historically tended to reject this talk-to-theenemy norm (Wiseman 2008). To be sure, the U.S. maintained a diplomatic
talk with the Soviet Union as is evident by George Kennans report. Yet, the
U.S. also has refused to established diplomatic relations with some of its major adversaries: after the Bolshevik Revolution, the U.S. did not recognize the
the Soviet government until 1933 because of their ideology; refused to establish diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China after 1949 until
the Nixon visit because of the ideology; Cuba under Castro due to ideology;
Vietnam after 1975 until 2000; Libya under Qaddafi until 2003 due to his revolutionary behavior and WMD program; Iran after the 1979 Revolution and
the hostage incident;, and North Korea ever since its inception. According to
Berridge (2004), Dean Acheson did not believe in talking: Faced with what
[Acheson] regarded as a menacing threat he had little or not time for talks
with the adversary and John F. Dulles used diplomatic recognition (or the
lack thereof) as a political instrument to isolate its enemies from diplomatic
contact, diminish their prestige, bolster the moral of their local rivals.
The second manifestation of the American distrust in diplomacy is its reliance on coercive instruments and militarization of diplomacy. The mechanism for the international stability during the Cold War was the equilibrium of
fear, induced by overwhelming military capabilities. As I discussed in Chapter 1, the advent of nuclear weapons profoundly affected both the strategic
thought and the national security strategy and coercive diplomacy, or what
Thomas Schelling (1966) refers to as The Diplomacy of Violence because the
primary idiom of American foreign policy. That is, as Kissinger notes, diplomacy has become coercive diplomacy, which signifies the fact that diplomacy
had become the complement to war rather than remaining an alternative to it
(Kissinger 1956, 352-4). The reliance on military establishment for the conduct
of foreign affairs is well documented by contemporary critics. American diplo36

A Natural History

Chapter 3

matic representation has functionally been shifting away from ambassadors

and embassies, relying on its military generals to carry out foreign policy
(e.g., Bacevich 2002; Johnson 2004; Johnson and Caruson 2003; Priest 2003;
and Wiseman 2005). The disproportionate weight on military instruments
and the substitution of military generals and soldiers for diplomatic missions
remind us of the Roman Empires practice of diplomacy, as I discussed earlier
in this chapter.
On one evening at the reception celebrating his departure from his ambassadorial position for the president of the United Nation Assembly, Jan Eliasson,
a Swedish ambassador to the United States, made the following remarks :
We love this city, its enormous vibrancy and excitement. You have
here, modern-day Rome. Washington, the capital of the superpower of the world. This city has volcanoes under it hat sometimes
explode (Shaw 2006, 3)
Ambassador Eliassons remark, albeit unintentionally, testifies the remarkable
similarity between the United States and the Roman Empire, which is made
starkly clear by another U.N. official. That is, a former UN general Secretary
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1999, 198) says, The Roman Empire had no need
for diplomacy. Nor does the United States. The irony here is that Eliasson
himself is a diplomat. It is ironic because he was drawing attention how
marginalized his profession, diplomacy, is in the conduct of foreign policies of
the superpower of the world.

10

Back to the Future? The 21st Century &

Beyond

In lieu of a conclusion to this chapter, I close this chapter with an attempt

to place recent American diplomacy in the historical perspective. George W.
Bush kicked off the twentieth first century, and his foreign policy especially
after the 9/11 is often criticized for the neo-conservative bent, his approach
to diplomacy (or the lack thereof) is hardly a recent phenomenon or unique
to his presidency. Rather, the Bush approach is, in a sense, very American
since it subscribes to the American tradition of the no-talk-to-enemy and the
militarization of diplomacy. This makes George W. Bush a true heir of orthodox American diplomacy. It is just that American tradition of diplomacy
took a more ideological turn under George W. Bush after 2001 (Wiseman 2005,
415).

37

A Natural History

Chapter 3

The presidential race in 2008 for the succession of the Bush administration
witnessed each of the three contenders taking a very representative view on
diplomacy. The Republication candidate, John McCains foreign policy position emerged, through a series of Presidential debates with the Democratic
candidate Barak Obama, as a stylized version of Bushs foreign policy tradition. Hilary Cliton, Obamas Democratic Primary rival, argue, during the
presidential campaign, that I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you
try to figure our how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in
order to avoid more dire consequences. . . . We have used the threat of force to
try to make somebody change their behavior.48 Clearly, Clintons approach
to diplomacy echoes the Cold War style of coercive diplomacy. Lastly, Barak
Obamas foreign policy emphasizes the use of diplomacy, including diplomatic
talks with adversaries, which John McCain criticizes as dangerous and naive.
It is true that Obamas approach is new to American diplomacy and hence
raised received various criticisms. But at the same time, his approach is very
consistent with European Old diplomatic system that has been developed
over the course of the history of modernization and enlightenment. In this
sense, Barak Obamas presidency might bring American diplomacy into the
new future of the Back to the Future.

11

Conclusion

Diplomacy has evolved through multiple paths as political leaders responded

to particular strategic problems at various historical junctures. The natural
history in this chapter shows that the meaning and function of diplomacy,
therefore, takes many different forms. The multifaceted nature of diplomatic
institution is a natural consequence of its development that traverses the history of (mostly) European inter-state politics.
What emerges out of this natural history is a clear pattern in the origin
and the evolution of diplomatic institutions: diplomacy has developed as institutional solution to political and strategic problems. Throughout history,
state leaders have responded to various political and security challenges with
some success and some failures. At times, those responses involved institutional innovations. In historical hindsight, diplomacy can be seen as having
evolved as a set of norms and institutions to address various strategic issues at
various historical turning points. My analysis in the rest of the book will show
48

The Democratic presidential primary debate between Senators Hillary Clinton

and Barack Obama in Los Angenes, on January 31, 2008. The text retrieved at
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript. Accessed on February 4,
2008.

38

A Natural History

Chapter 3

that for the most part the logic of diplomacy is embedded in enduring features
of these diplomatic institutions and norms. The analysis therefore provides
a more analytical landscape to the otherwise seemingly irrational aspects of
diplomatic institutions that we reviewed in this chapter.

References
Adcock, Frank and D.J. Mosley. 1975. Diplomacy in Ancient Greece. New
York: St. Martins Press.
Anderson, M. S. 1993. The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919. London:
Longman.
Antonucci, Michael. 1993. War by Other Means: The Legacy of Byzantium.
Hisotry Today 43 (February): 1113.
Bacevich, Andrew J. 2002. American Empire: The Realities and Consequences
of U.S. Diplomacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Batora, Jozef. 2003. Does the European Union Transform the Institution of
Diplomacy? Discussion Papers in Diplomacy 87.
Berridge, G.B. 2001. Richelieu. In Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to
Kissinger, ed. G.B. Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper, and T.G. Otte. New
York: Palgrave chapter 4.
Berridge, G.B., Maurice Keens-Soper, and T.G. Otte. 2001. Diplomatic Theory
from Machiavelli to Kissinger. New York: Palgrave.
Berridge, Geoffrey. 2000. Amarna Diplomacy: A Full-fledged Diplomatic System? In Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations,
ed. Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Berridge, G.R. 2004. Talking to the Enemy: How States Without Diplomatic
Relations Communicate. New York: Palgrave.
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. 1999. Unvanquished: A U.S.-U.N. Saga. New York:
Random House.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2006. Principles of International Politics: Peoples
Power, Preferences, and Perceptions. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

39

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bull, Hedly and Adam Watson. 1984. The Expansion of International Society.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Calli`eres, Francois de. [1716] 1983. The Art of Diplomacy [De la Mani`ere de
Negocier avec les Souverains]. Trans. H.M.A. Keens-Soper and Karl W.
Schweizer. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Campbell, Brian. 2001. Diplomacy in the Roman World (c.500 BC-AD 235).
Diplomacy & Statecraft 12 (March): 122.
Cohen, Raymon. 2001. The Great Tradition: The Spread of Diplomacy in
the Ancient World. Diplomacy & Statecraft 12 (March): 2338.
Cohen, Raymond. 1995. On Diplomacy in the Ancient Near East: The
Amarna Letters. Diplomacy & Statecraft 2 (February).
Cohen, Raymond and Raymond Westbrook. 2000. Amarna Diplomacy: the
Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Constantinou, Costas M. 1996. On the Way to Diplomacy. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Craig, Gordon A. and Alexander L. George. 1995. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems for Our Time. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Doyle, Arthur Conan. 1904. The Adventure of the Second Stain. Strand
Magazine 28 (December): 116.
Elgavish, David. 2000. Did Diplomatic Immunity Exist in the Ancient Near
East? Journal of the History of International Law 2 (July): 7390.
Elliott, John. H. 1991. Richelieu and Olivares. Canto ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elliott, John. H. [1963] 2002. Imperial Spain 1469-1716. 2nd ed. London:
Penguin.
Frigo, Daniela, ed. 2000. Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The
Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450-1800. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Fubini, Riccardo. 1995. The Italian League and the Policy of the Balance of
Power at the Accession of Lorenzo de Medici. Journal of Modern History
67 (December): S166S199.
Fubini, Riccardo. 2000. Diplomacy and Government in the Italian City-States
of the Fifteenth Century (Florence and Venice). In Politics and Diplomacy
in Early Modern Italy: The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450-1800,
ed. Daniela Frigo. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, Felix. 1951. The New Diplomacy of the Eighteenth Century.
World Politics 4 (October): 138.
Guisinger, Alexandra and Alastair Smith. 2002. Honest Threats: the Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (April): 175200.
Hale, John R. 1957. International Relations in the West: Diplomacy and
War. In The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. 1, The Renaissance,
1493-1520, ed. George R. Potter. London: Cambridge University Press
chapter 9.
Hamilton, Keith and Richard Langhorne. 1995. The Practice of Diplomacy:
Its Evolution, Theory, and Administration. London: Routledge.
Hill, Henry Bertram. 1961. The Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu: the
Significant Chapters and Supporting Selections. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Holmes, Y. Lynn. 1975. The Messengers of the Amarna Letters. Journal of
American Oriental Society 95 (July - September): 376381.
Hook, Steven W. 2003. Domestic Obstavles to International Affairs: The
State Department Under Fire at Home. PS: Political Science and Politics
36 (January): 2329.
Ilardi, Vincent. 1959. The Italian League, Francesco Sforza, and Charles VII
(1454-1461). Studies in the Renaissance 6: 129166.
Inoguchi, Kuniko. 1989. Sensou to Heiwa [War and Peace]. Tokyo, Japan:
University of Tokyo Press.
Jensen, De Lamar. 1974. French Diplomacy and the Wars of Religion. Sixteenth Century Journal 5 (October): 2346.

41

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Jensen, De Lamar. 1985. The Ottoman Turks in Sixteenth Century French

Diplomacy. Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (Winter): 451470.
Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and
the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Johnson, Loch and Kiki Caruson. 2003. The Seven Sins of American Foreign
Policy. PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (January): 510.
Jonsson, Christer and Martin Hall. 2003. Communication: An Essential
Aspect of Diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives 4 (May): 195210.
Keens-Soper, Maurice. 1973. Francois de Callieres and Diplomatic Theory.
Historical Journal 16 (September): 485508.
Keens-Soper, Maurice. 2001a. Calli`eres. In Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger, ed. G.B. Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper, and T.G. Otte.
New York: Palgrave chapter 6.
Keens-Soper, Maurice. 2001b. Wicquefort. In Diplomatic Theory from
Machiavelli to Kissinger, ed. G.B. Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper, and T.G.
Otte. New York: Palgrave chapter 5.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social
Inqury: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kissinger, Henry A. 1956. Force and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age. Foreign
Affairs 34 (April): 349366.
Kissinger, Henry A. 1979. White House Years. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Lafont, Bertrand. 2001. International Relations in the Ancient Near East:
The Birth of a Complete Diplomatic System. Diplomacy & Statecraft 12
(March): 3960.
Mallett, Michael. 1994. Ambassadors and their Audiences in Renaissance
Italy. Renaissance Studies 8 (September): 229243.
Mallett, Michael. 2001. Italian Renaissance Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft 12 (March): 6170.

42

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Mattingly, Garrett. 1937. The First Resident Embassies: Mediaeval Italian

Origin of Modern Diplomacy. Speculum 12 (October): 423439.
Mattingly, Garrett. 1955. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Morgenthau, Hans J. [1948] 1973. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace. Fifth ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mosley, Derek J. 1971. Diplomacy and Disunion in Ancient Greece. Phoenix
25 (Winter): 319330.
Mosley, Derek J. 1973. Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece. Wiesbaden:
Steiner.
Neumann, Iver B. 2005. Sublime Diplomacy: Byzantine, Early Modern,
Contemporary. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy 102 (December).
Nicolson, Harold. 1954. The Evolution of Diplomatic Method. London: Constable.
Nicolson, Harold. [1939] 1963. Diplomacy. Third ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Priest, Dana. 2003. The Mission: Waging War and Kepping Peace with Americas Military. New York: W.W. Norton.
Queller, Donald E. 1967. The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Roosen, William J. 1970. The Functioning of Ambassadors under Louis XIV.
French Historical Studies 6 (Spring): 311332.
Rubin, Barry. 1985. Secrets of State: The State Department and the Struggle
over U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Sharp, Paul. 1999. For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations. International Studies Review 1 (Spring): 3357.
Shaw, John. 2006. The Ambassador: Inside the Life of a Working Diplomat.
Herndon, VA: Capital Books.

43

A Natural History

Chapter 3

Shepard, Jonathan and Simon Franklin, eds. 1992. Byzantine Diplomacy:

Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies ,
Cambridge, March 1990. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum.
Sofer, Sasson. 1988. Old and New Diplomacy: A Debate Revisited. Review
of International Studies 14 (July): 195212.
Stearns, Monteagle. 1996. Talking to Strangers: Improving American Diplomacy at Home and Abroad. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Strang, David. 1991. Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion: Realist and Institutionalist Accounts. International Organization
45 (Spring): 143162.
Thucydides. 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War. London: Penguin.
von Laue, Theodore H. 1994. Soviet Diplomacy: G.V. Chicherin, Peoples
Comissar for Foreign Affairs, 1918-1930. In The Diplomats, 1919-1939, ed.
Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watson, Adam. 1982. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. London:
Routledge.
Wicquefort, Abraham de. [1681] 1997. The Embassador and His Functions.
Trans. John Digby [1716], ed. Maurice Keens-Soper. Leicester: University
of Leicester.
Wight, Martin. 1977. System of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Wight, Martin. 1978. Power Politics. 2nd ed. London: Penguin.
Wiseman, Geoffrey. 2005. Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture. International Studies Perspectives 6 (November): 409430.
Wolpert, Andrew. 2001. The Genealogy of Diplomacy in Classical Greece.
Diplomacy & Statecraft 12 (March): 7188.
Zeller, Gaston. 1961. French Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in their European
Setting. In New Cambridge Modern History, Volume 5: The Ascendancy
of France, 164888, ed. F. L. Carsten. London: Cambridge University Press.

44