Murray

5.0 Introducing Reconciliation

  • Aim: To describe the relationship between TDT (Traditional Diplomacy Theory), NDT (Nascent Diplomacy Theory), and IDT (Innovative Diplomacy Theory).

  • Focus on whether this relationship is antagonistic and competitive.

  • Purpose of the chapter lies in reconciling the three divergent diplomatic theories to enhance understanding of modern diplomacy.

5.0.1 Current Relationship Among the Three Theories

  • Existence of three theories should enrich diplomacy studies.

  • However, disagreement is prevalent, and often there’s an assumption of only one valid theory:

    • TDT emphasizes traditional state-centric diplomacy.

    • NDT claims relevance of non-state actors, suggesting traditional diplomacy is obsolete.

    • IDT seeks to integrate both perspectives but faces challenges.

  • Theories perceived as competing, leading to:

    • Isolation among proponents.

    • Fragmentation and partial understanding of diplomatic theory.

    • Lack of engagement across theoretical divides, likening theorists to individuals standing on separate promontories.

5.0.2 Fundamental Theoretical Disagreement

  • Thematic differences illustrate divergence:

    • State Role:

      • NDT sees the state as diminishing; advocates for non-state actors.

      • Traditionalists stress state role as vital, viewing NDT perspectives as dismissive.

      • Innovators differ, viewing both as essential.

    • Impact of IGOs:

      • Traditionalists: IGOs serve national state interests.

      • NDT: IGOs as independent actors surpassing state roles.

      • Innovators: Positive symbiosis between states and IGOs.

    • Summit Diplomacy:

      • Traditionalists criticize summits as irrelevant to true diplomacy.

      • NDT views summits as indicative of traditional diplomacy's deficiencies.

      • Innovators portray summits as varying in effectiveness, lacking a consensus.

    • Role of NGOs:

      • Traditionalists often view NGOs’ contributions as secondary.

      • NDT asserts NGOs’ increasing significance in diplomacy roles.

      • Innovators propose a complementary relationship between NGOs and states.

    • Connection of Commerce and Diplomacy:

      • Nascent theorists see conflict between firms and the state.

      • Traditionalists sometimes recognize commercial diplomacy, though it’s usually secondary.

      • Innovators argue for an integrated approach involving commerce in diplomacy.

5.0.3 The Motivations Behind Theoretical Disagreement

  • Disagreement arises from differing philosophical foundations:

    • TDT focuses on state-based traditional diplomacy.

    • NDT dismisses traditional views, seeing the state as irrelevant.

    • IDT promotes symbiosis but cannot seem to fully integrate others’ perspectives.

  • Engagement, or lack thereof, exacerbates the divide.

  • Theoretical dialogue is evaded, leading to simplified binaries:

    • A binary perspective hinders understanding diplomacy in its complexity.

5.0.4 Consequences of Theoretical Disagreement

  • Theoretical competition can lead to:

    • Poor understanding of modern diplomatic realities, riddled with oversimplifications.

    • Isolation within the community prevents a cohesive understanding of diplomacy's evolving landscape.

    • The dominance of TDT limits the exploration of the multifaceted nature of diplomacy and ignores significant contributions from NDT and IDT.

5.1 Redirection of the Relationship Between Theories

  • A proposed solution includes:

    • Recognizing the validity of all three theories, celebrating their distinct contributions.

    • Importance of incorporating diverse perspectives to fully grasp modern diplomacy.

    • Utilizing a tripartite approach similar to that found in International Relations (IR) theory.

  • Each theory's unique lens is essential for navigating the complexities of international diplomacy.

5.1.1 Learning from IR Theory

  • Existing theories in IR (Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism) exemplify:

    • How diverging theories can coexist and complement one another.

    • Each theoretical framework contributes to a more holistic understanding of international affairs, suitable for handling modern complexities.

  • By accepting multiple theories within diplomacy studies:

    • It fosters a rich, integrated perspective of state and non-state relationships.

    • This approach not only recognizes the past but respects future changes necessary for comprehending diplomacy's evolution.

  • Calls for engagement across theoretical boundaries should be a priority to enrich and strengthen diplomatic theory.


5.0 Introducing Reconciliation

Aim: To thoroughly describe the intricate relationship between TDT (Traditional Diplomacy Theory), NDT (Nascent Diplomacy Theory), and IDT (Innovative Diplomacy Theory) while particularly focusing on whether this relationship is antagonistic and competitive.

Purpose of the chapter lies in reconciling the three divergent diplomatic theories to enhance understanding of modern diplomacy, which has evolved significantly due to globalization, technological advancements, and increased interdependence among states and non-state actors.

5.0.1 Current Relationship Among the Three Theories

The existence of the three theories should enrich diplomacy studies. However, a disheartening level of disagreement is prevalent, often manifested in an assumption that only one valid theory exists.

  • TDT emphasizes traditional state-centric diplomacy, characterized by formal negotiations and the prioritization of national interests. Traditionalists argue that the state remains the cornerstone of international relations.

  • NDT claims the relevance of non-state actors, suggesting that traditional diplomacy is becoming obsolete in the face of a more interconnected world where NGOs, multinational corporations, and other entities wield significant influence.

  • IDT seeks to integrate both perspectives but faces challenges in harmonizing the contrasting views of TDT and NDT.

Theories are often perceived as competing, leading to:

  • Isolation among proponents, where theorists focus solely on their framework, resulting in an echo chamber effect.

  • Fragmentation and partial understanding of diplomatic theory, as scholars may overemphasize their favored model at the expense of a holistic perspective.

  • A lack of engagement across theoretical divides, likening theorists to individuals standing on separate promontories, thus hindering collaborative understanding and knowledge sharing.

5.0.2 Fundamental Theoretical Disagreement

Thematic differences illustrate the divergence:


  • State Role:NDT sees the state as diminishing, advocating for non-state actors such as NGOs and corporations to take center stage. Traditionalists, however, stress that the state’s role is vital for maintaining order, security, and legislative governance in international affairs, viewing NDT perspectives as dismissive and overly simplistic when considering international complexities. Innovators view both state and non-state actors as essential contributors to diplomacy, suggesting an interdependent approach to international relations.


  • Impact of IGOs:Traditionalists assert that Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) serve national interests and facilitate cooperation among states. Conversely, proponents of NDT argue that IGOs have evolved into independent actors that can surpass the role of states in influencing global governance and norms. Innovators propose a positive symbiosis between states and IGOs, where collaboration strengthens both entities' effectiveness in addressing global challenges.


  • Summit Diplomacy:Traditionalists criticize summit diplomacy as superficial and irrelevant to the true essence of diplomacy, which they argue should involve more substantive negotiations behind closed doors. NDT sees summit meetings as indicative of traditional diplomacy's inability to adapt, viewing them as platforms that showcase the failures of longer-term negotiation strategies. Innovators maintain that summits can vary in effectiveness and that while they are not the sole form of diplomacy, they can provide critical momentum for formal discussions.


  • Role of NGOs:Traditionalists often view NGOs' contributions as secondary and merely supportive. In contrast, NDT proponents assert that NGOs are increasingly significant in diplomatic roles, often providing critical grassroots insights and mobilizing public opinion. Innovators suggest a complementary relationship between NGOs and states, where NGOs can enhance diplomatic efforts through advocacy and operational support in times of crisis.


  • Connection of Commerce and Diplomacy:Nascent theorists see a growing conflict between multinational firms and state interests, emphasizing the need for clear regulations to mediate their relationships. Traditionalists may acknowledge the concept of commercial diplomacy but often treat it as a secondary concern. In contrast, innovators argue for an integrated approach where commerce plays a pivotal role in diplomacy, maintaining that economic interdependence should be recognized as a vital aspect of international relations.

5.0.3 The Motivations Behind Theoretical Disagreement

Disagreement among these theories arises from differing philosophical foundations, which have broader implications for international relations:

  • TDT focuses on traditional, state-based diplomacy and the mechanisms grounded in historical practices.

  • NDT dismisses these established views, perceiving the state as primarily a hindrance to evolving diplomatic relationships amidst modern complexities.

  • IDT promotes a symbiotic relationship among all entities but struggles with fully integrating different theoretical viewpoints.

Inadequate engagement across these perspectives exacerbates the divide. Theoretical dialogue is often evaded, inadvertently leading to simplified binaries that:

  • Hinder the nuanced understanding of diplomacy in its complexity, reducing rich, multifaceted interactions to oversimplified narratives.

5.0.4 Consequences of Theoretical Disagreement

Theoretical competition can lead to significant consequences:

  • Poor understanding of modern diplomatic realities, riddled with oversimplifications that do not capture the evolving dynamics of global interactions.

  • Isolation within the academic community that prevents scholars from achieving a cohesive understanding of diplomacy’s evolving landscape, resulting in lost opportunities for collaboration and innovation within the field.

  • The dominance of TDT limits the exploration of diplomacy's multifaceted nature, consequently neglecting significant contributions from NDT’s fresh perspectives and IDT’s integrative approaches, which could enrich the discipline of diplomacy studies.

5.1 Redirection of the Relationship Between Theories

A proposed solution to these issues includes:

  • Recognizing the validity of all three theories and celebrating their distinct contributions to the field of diplomacy.

  • Emphasizing the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives to fully grasp modern diplomatic challenges.

  • Utilizing a tripartite approach similar to that found in International Relations (IR) theory which views the interplay of various theories as mutually beneficial. Each theory’s unique lens is essential for navigating the complexities of international diplomacy today.

5.1.1 Learning from IR Theory

Existing theories in IR (Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism) exemplify:

  • How diverging theories can coexist and complement one another, enriching the academic discourse.

  • Each theoretical framework contributes to a more holistic understanding of international affairs, thus better equipping scholars and practitioners to handle modern complexities and uncertain global environments.

Accepting multiple theories within diplomacy studies fosters a rich, integrated perspective of state and non-state relationships, promoting collaboration among scholars, and enabling groundbreaking insights into the nature of diplomacy and its evolution. Calls for engagement across theoretical boundaries should be prioritized to enrich and strengthen diplomatic theory in response to the multifaceted challenges present in contemporary global relations.