Diplomacy

Diplomacy and its Relationship with other Policy Instruments

Diplomacy and its Relationship with other Policy Instruments

Introduction

Diplomacy, as an instrument of foreign policy, is defined as: 'the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation' (Berridge, 1995: 1). The objective is to show the relationship between diplomacy and other policy instruments that are considered crucial in the context of international relations. As the definition suggests, negotiation is the key activity of diplomats. Negotiations as they are carried out within the context of the CCW and the Ottawa Convention are international and thus characterized by constraints on the participants' individual ability to control outcomes. Outcomes of international negotiations in an interdependent world are not in first instance determined by the negotiation skills of individual countries, but by 'a management process with actors seeking to reach agreements through a process of adjustment' (White, 2005: 401).

Given the nature of international negotiations and the complex environment in which they take place, the effectiveness of international diplomacy cannot validly be assessed by simply linking foreign policy goals, costs and outcomes over time. In the foreign policy literature, it is emphasized that foreign policy is too complex to be framed in an input-output model. First, foreign policy objectives are often formulated in very general terms. The consequence of the general and abstract formulation of foreign policy objectives is that it is difficult to assess whether the objectives have been met as a result of concrete action on behalf of the government. Second, in contemporary foreign policy it has become difficult to always distinguish the national interest from the common good. As much foreign policy is implemented through international arrangements, the quality of foreign policy should be judged by the 'standards of collective effect and collective benefit' (Webber and Smith, 2002: 101). As such, success in foreign policy can hardly be conceived of as a positive achievement of ex ante formulated national policy objectives. Instead, the implementation of foreign policy through international diplomatic channels should be seen as 'a continuous act of negotiation on several fronts, with no final resolution of the central issues' (Webber and Smith, 2002: 101).

Apart from the general characteristics of international negotiation arenas, some specific differences can be identified as each circuit has its own institutional structure; its own decision-making procedures, routines and other institutional characteristics. The CCW is characterized by decisions that are taken based on consensus. That limits the outcomes of decision-making to the lowest common denominator. In contrast, decision-making in the Ottawa Convention is based on the majority rule and decisions are thus easier to make. Moreover, majority decision-making stimulates individual states to form coalitions in order to get the critical majority for a particular decision. On top of these procedural differences, there is difference in participation. Where the Ottawa Convention is characterized by a large participation of civil society groups, the CCW has predominantly remained an interstate ...