Advertisement

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 64–73 | Cite as

Beyond the media event: modes of existence of the diplomatic incident

  • Noé CornagoEmail author
Original Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Diplomatic incidents repeatedly create unexpected concern among chanceries worldwide, immediately capturing global media attention and public interest. Despite this, their academic treatment remains either fleeting and anecdotal or exclusively focused on detailed analysis of some critical cases that were historically conducive to serious international crises or war. These approaches have been unable however to anticipate the transfiguration undergone by diplomatic incidents into media events. Against this background, this article advances a more comprehensive approach. After some introductory considerations, the notion of ‘diplomatic incident’ will be examined through four consecutive prisms: the phenomenology of the diplomatic incident as a discrete event, or set of related events, rooted in some discernible causes, susceptible to being managed, and able to produce more or less controllable consequences; their consideration as memorable moments that serve as plot for the historical and popular narratives of national pride and shame; their functioning as dispositif through which the diplomatic system signals elements of friction and performs its constant adaptation to the changing functional and normative imperatives of the wider global system; and finally, their transfiguration through intense mediatization into global media events, whose eruption and effects ostensibly exceed the capabilities of public diplomacy techniques of control. In these circumstances diplomatic incidents reset their old ritual value for testing the consistency of national political imaginaries, but within a completely new context, namely that of a de-territorialized global public sphere.

Keywords

Incident Event Plot Narratives Media event Dispositif Diplomacy Social drama Sovereignty 

References

  1. Acuto, M. 2011. Diplomats in crisis. Diplomacy & Statecraft 22 (3): 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler-Nissen, R. 2011. On a field trip with Bourdieu. International Political Sociology 5 (3): 327–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasen, U. 2008. Reflections on public diplomacy after the Danish cartoon crises: From crisis management to normal public diplomacy work. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3 (2): 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ankersmit, F. 1983. Narrative logic: A semantic analysis of the historian’s language. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  5. Archetti, C. 2012. The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: An evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2): 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banai, H. 2010. Diplomacy and public imagination. In Sustainable diplomacies, ed. C.M. Constantinou, and J. Der Derian, 46–66. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barthes, R. 1989. The rustle of language. (trans: Howard, R.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bates, D. 1984. The Fashoda incident of 1898: Encounter on the Nile. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Behrens, P. 2016. Diplomatic interference and the law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, C. 1971. The conventions of crisis: A study of diplomatic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bély, L. 2010. Anatomie de l’incident diplomatique. In L´incident diplomatique, ed. L. Bély and G. Poumarède, 451–458. Paris: Pedone.Google Scholar
  12. Bély, L., and G. Poumarède (eds.). 2010. L´incident diplomatique. Paris: Pedone.Google Scholar
  13. Berridge, G.R., and A. James. 2001. Dictionary of diplomacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bertaux, D. 1981. Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Bjola, C. 2015. Diplomatic leadership in times of international crisis: The maverick, the congregator and the pragmatist. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (1): 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bolívar, A. 2009. ¿Por qué no te callas? El alcance de una frase en el (des) encuentro de dos mundos. Discurso & Sociedad 3 (2): 224–252.Google Scholar
  17. Bottani, A., and R. Davies (eds.). 2006. Modes of existence: Papers in ontology and philosophical logic. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P. 1994. Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  19. Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., and B.S. Jones. 2004. Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brecher, M., and J. Wilkenfeld. 2003. A study of crisis. Anna Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Brown, J.N., and A.S. Marcum. 2011. Avoiding audience costs: Domestic political accountability and concessions in crisis diplomacy. Security Studies 20 (2): 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Buchan, A. 1966. Crisis management: The new diplomacy. Boulogne Sur Seine: Atlantic Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Capone, F., and A. de Guttry. 2017. An analysis of the diplomatic crisis between Turkey and the Netherlands in light of the existing international legal framework governing diplomatic and consular relations. European Journal of Legal Studies 10 (1): 61–78.Google Scholar
  24. Carron, D. 2015. L’acte déclencheur d’un conflit armé international. Geneve: Schulthess/LGDJ.Google Scholar
  25. Cassidy, J., and I. Manor, 2016. Crafting strategic MFA communication policies during times of political crisis: A note to MFA policy makers. Global Affairs 2 (3): 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chisholm, J.T. 2013. Chen Guangcheng and Julian Assange: The normative impact of international incidents on diplomatic asylum law. George Washington Law. Review 82: 528.Google Scholar
  27. Constantinou, C.M. 1996. On the way to diplomacy. Minnesota: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Constantinou, C.M. 2015. In pursuit of crisis diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (1): 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cornut, J. 2017. Diplomacy, agency, and the logic of improvisation and virtuosity in practice, European Journal of International Relations, First Published September 8, 2017, retrieved at  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117725156.
  30. Couldry, N. 2003. Media rituals: A critical approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Dayan, D., and E. Katz. 1994. Media events: The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Delcorde, R. 2005. Les Mots de la Diplomatie. Paris: L´Harmattan.Google Scholar
  33. Denman, Ch. 2010. Diplomatic Incidents: Memoirs of an (Un)Diplomatic Wife. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  34. Der Derian, J. 2001. Global events, national security, and virtual theory. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 30 (3): 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Faizullaev, A. 2013. Diplomacy and symbolism. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 8 (2): 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Faizullaev, A., and J. Cornut. 2017. Narrative practice in international politics and diplomacy: The case of the Crimean crisis. Journal of International Relations and Development 20 (3): 578–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferris, N.B. 1977. The Trent Affair: A Diplomatic Crisis. University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  38. Frey, L., and M. Frey. 1999. The history of diplomatic immunity. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  39. García-Salazar, A. 1930. Historia Diplomática del Perú. Lima: Rivas Berrio.Google Scholar
  40. Giffen, M.B. 1930. Fashoda: The Incident and Its Diplomatic Setting. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gilboa, E. 2002. Real-time diplomacy: Myth and reality. In: Cyber diplomacy. Managing Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, ed. E.H. Potter, 83–109. Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gries, P.H. 2001. Tears of rage: Chinese nationalist reactions to the Belgrade embassy bombing. The China Journal 46 (1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gurman, H. 2012. The dissent papers: The voices of diplomats in the cold war and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Holder, C. 1983. Racism towards black African diplomats during the Kennedy administration’. Journal of Black Studies 14 (1): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jayasuriya, K. 2005. Breaking the westphalian frame: Regulatory state, fragmentation and diplomacy. In Diplomacy and developing nations: Post-cold-war foreign policy-making structures and processes, ed. J. Robertson, and M. East, 39–54. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Johns, F., R. Joyce, and S. Pahuja (eds.). 2011. Events: The force of international law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Junji, B. 1985. Diplomatic misunderstanding and the escalation of the manchurian incident. Annals of the Institute of Social Science 100: 24–36.Google Scholar
  48. Kennedy, G.E., and K. Neilson (eds.). 2002. Incidents and international relations: People, power and personalities. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. Korte, B., and S. Paletschek. 2012. Introduction. In Popular History Now and Then: International Perspectives, ed. Barbara Korte and Silvya Paletschek, 7–12. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  50. Kosselleck, R. 2006. Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kurizaki, Shuhei. 2007. Efficient secrecy: Public versus private threats in crisis diplomacy. American Political Science Review 101 (3): 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kuus, M. 2013. Geopolitics and expertise: Knowledge and authority in European diplomacy. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lapoujade, D. 2017. Les existences moindres. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  54. Latour, B. 2012. Enquête sur les modes d'existence: Une anthropologie des modernes. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  55. Lequesne, Chr. 2017. Ethnographie du Quai d’Orsay: Les pratiques des diplomats français. Paris: CNRS Edtions.Google Scholar
  56. Macdonell, A.L. 1915. Reminiscences of diplomatic life: Being stray memories of personalities and incidents connected with several European courts and also with life in South America fifty years ago. London: Adam and Charles Black.Google Scholar
  57. Morey, W.C. 1926. Diplomatic episodes: A review of certain historical incidents bearing upon international relations and diplomacy. New York: Longmans, Gree and Co.Google Scholar
  58. Neilson, K. 1998. ‘Incidents’ and foreign policy: A case study. Diplomacy and Statecraft 9 (1): 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neocleous, M. 2003. Imagining the state. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  60. Neumann, Iver B. 2005. To be a diplomat. International Studies Perspectives 6 (1): 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Neumann, I.B. 2012. At home with the diplomats: Inside an European foreign ministry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ojeda, M. 2007. Vicente Fox: el rompimiento de facto con Cuba. Foro Internacional 47 (3): 868–894.Google Scholar
  63. Oppenheim, I. 1916. International incidents for discussion in conversation classes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pamment, J. 2014a. The mediatization of diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9 (3): 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pamment, J. 2014b. Strategic narratives in US public diplomacy: A critical geopolitics. Popular Communication 12 (1): 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pétiniaud, L. 2014. Cartographie de l’affaire Snowden. Hérodote 45 (1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phelan, J., and P.J. Rabinowitz (eds.). 2005. A companion to narrative theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Plantey, Alain. 1990. De la politique entre les États: Principes de diplomatie. Paris: Pedone.Google Scholar
  69. Poolman, K. 1958. The Alabama incident. New York: Kimber.Google Scholar
  70. Rao, R. 2016. The diplomat and the domestic: Or homage to faking it. Millennium 45 (1): 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reisman, M., and A.R. Willard (eds.). 1988. International incidents: The law that counts in world politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Richardson, James L. 1994. Crisis diplomacy: The great powers since the mid-nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rogoff, M.A., and E. Collins Jr. 1990. Caroline incident and the development of international law. The Brooklyn Journal of International Law 16: 493–527.Google Scholar
  74. Rolfe, M. 2009. Clashing taboos: Danish cartoons, the life of brian and public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 4 (3): 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Romano, R. 2000. No diplomatic immunity: African diplomats, the state, department, and civil rights, 1961–1964. Journal of American History 87 (2): 546–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Salinas, C.A. 1938. Historia diplomática de Bolivia. La Paz: Charcas.Google Scholar
  77. Seib, P. 2012. Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Simondon, G. 1958. Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  79. Souriau, E. 1943. Les différents modes d’existence. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  80. Stowell, E., and H.F. Munro. 1916. International cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  81. Turner, V. 1974. Dramas, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Ure, J. (ed.). 1986. Diplomatic bag: An anthology of diplomatic incidents and anecdotes from the renaissance to the Gulf war. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  83. Vandenberg, M.E., and S. Bessell. 2015. Diplomatic immunity and the abuse of domestic workers: Criminal and civil remedies in the United States. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 26: 525–630.Google Scholar
  84. Verón, E. 1988. La semiosis sociale: Fragments d’une théorie de la discursivité. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
  85. Verón, E. 2014. Mediatization theory: A semio-anthropological perspective. In Mediatization of communication, ed. K. Lundby, 163–172. Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  86. Villar, C. 2006. Le discours diplomatique. Paris: L´Harmattan.Google Scholar
  87. Wark, McKenzie. 1994. Virtual geography: Living with global media events. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Weintal, E., and Ch. Barlett. 1967. Facing the brink: A study of crisis diplomacy. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  89. White, H. 1987. The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Yamaguchi, K. 1991. Event history analysis. Houndmills: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Law and International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences and CommunicationUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations