Institutionalization and Ritualization

  • Christer Jönsson
  • Martin Hall
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)

Abstract

In the previous chapter we proposed that diplomacy be seen as an international institution, understood in terms of norms, rules and roles. Moreover, we identified coexistence as a fundamental norm of diplomacy, reciprocity as a perennial normative theme, and immunity as an important procedural rule. An institutional perspective implies stability. Yet we have also insisted on the need for a processual approach, depicting ourselves as partisans of flux and calling for dynamic verb forms to characterize diplomacy. In other words, we are interested in the dynamic processes through which actions become institutions and institutions shape actions. In this chapter we will focus on two interrelated dynamic processes, the institutionalization and ritualization of diplomacy.

Keywords

Europe Amid Mane Posit Recent Century 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, 52 (1998) 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Stone Sweet, N. Fliegstein and W. Sandholtz, “The Institutionalization of European Space,” in A. Stone Sweet, N. Fliegstein and W. Sandholtz (eds), The Institutionalization of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 178–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.R. Berridge, “Amarna Diplomacy: A Full-fledged Diplomatic System?” in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations (Baltimore, MD. and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), p. 213.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cf. J.R. Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London: Jonathan Cape, 1955), p. 106.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See G.R. Berridge, “Notes on the Origins of the Diplomatic Corps: Constantinople in the 1620s,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 92 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2004).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. K. Hamilton and R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 104;Google Scholar
  9. M.S. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450–1919 (London and New York: Longman, 1993), p. 121.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    François Guizot, quoted in H.J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 247.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    P.M. Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization, 46 (1992) 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (Londo: Constable, 1954; reprinted by the Diplomatic Studies Programme, Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, University of Leicester, 1998), p. 75.Google Scholar
  13. G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995), p. 8.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 3.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    D.I. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Bell, Ritual Theory Ritual Practice (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 3, 4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cf. G. Baumann, “Ritual Implicates ‘Others’: Rereading Durkheim in a Plural Society,” in D. de Coppet (ed.), Understanding Rituals (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 98.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    E.W. Rothenbuhler, Ritual Communication: From Everyday Conversation to Mediated Ceremony (London: Sage, 1998), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    R.L. Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1982), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    M. Fortes, “Ritual and Office in Tribal Societies,” in M. Gluckman (ed.), Essays on the Ritual of Social Relations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962), p. 86.Google Scholar
  22. M. Bloch, Ritual, History and Power: Selected Papers in Anthropology (London: The Athlone Press, 1989), p. 122.Google Scholar
  23. 29.
    F. Theuws, “Introduction: Rituals in Transforming Societies,” in F. Theuws and J.L. Nelson (eds), Rituals of Power: From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Leiden, Boston, MA and Köln: Brill, 2000), p. 8.Google Scholar
  24. 31.
    C.M. Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), p. 84.Google Scholar
  25. 36.
    M. Edelman, Politics as Symbolic Action (Chicago, IL: Markham, 1983).Google Scholar
  26. 38.
    E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1972), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
  27. 39.
    E. Goldstein, “Developments in Protocol,” in J. Kurbalija (ed.), Modern Diplomacy (Malta: Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, 1998), p. 49.Google Scholar
  28. 40.
    D. Busk, The Craft of Diplomacy (London: Pall Mall Press, 1967), p. 23.Google Scholar
  29. 41.
    E. Clark, Corps Diplomatique (London: Allen Lane, 1973), p. 109.Google Scholar
  30. 42.
    W.L. Moran (ed. and trans.), The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), p. 115.Google Scholar
  31. 44.
    J.M. Munn-Rankin, “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B.C.,” Iraq, XVIII, pt. 1 (1956) 91.Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    M. Mullett, “The Language of Diplomacy,” in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds), Byzantine Diplomacy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1992), p. 213.Google Scholar
  33. 49.
    H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, 3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 123.Google Scholar
  34. 50.
    G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  35. 52.
    Wiethoff, “A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatie Communication,” Journal of Politics, 43 (1981) 1092n3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 54.
    Cf. E. Satow, Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn, ed. Lord Gore-Booth (London and New York: Longman, 1979), pp. 41–5;Google Scholar
  37. C.W. Thayer, Diplomat (New York: Harper&Brothers, 1959), p. 99.Google Scholar
  38. 55.
    R. Numelin, The Beginnings of Diplomacy: A Sociological Study of Inter-tribal and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 305.Google Scholar
  39. 56.
    R. Britton, “Chinese Interstate Intercourse before 700 B.C.,” in C. Jönsson and R. Langhorne (eds), Diplomacy, Volume II (London: Sage, 2004), p. 98.Google Scholar
  40. 57.
    R.L. Walker, The Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press, 1953), p. 77.Google Scholar
  41. 59.
    T. Sen, “In Search of Longevity and Good Karma: Chinese Diplomatic Missions to Middle India in the Seventh Century,” Journal of World History, 12 (2001) 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 65.
    W. Roosen, “Early Modern Diplomatic Ceremonial: A Systems Approach,” Journal of Modern History, 52 (1980) 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 67.
    G.R. Berridge, “Diplomacy after Death: The Rise of the Working Funeral,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 4 (1993) 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 68.
    J. Hartmann, Staats zeremoniell (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 1988), pp. 272–5.Google Scholar
  45. 71.
    A. Finet, “La sacrifice de l’âne en Mésopotamie,” in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), p. 141.Google Scholar
  46. 76.
    F.E. Adcock and J. Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), pp. 183, 229.Google Scholar
  47. 79.
    A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1983), p. 336.Google Scholar
  48. 82.
    Cf. M. Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 135–8;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R. Cohen, “On Diplomacy in the Ancient Near East: The Amarna Letters,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 7 (1996) 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 90.
    C.P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  51. 91.
    I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 207.Google Scholar
  52. 107.
    E. Plischke, Conduct of American Diplomacy, 3rd edn (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1967), p. 6;Google Scholar
  53. P. Barber, Diplomacy: The World of the Honest Spy (London: The British Library, 1979), pp. 55–6;Google Scholar
  54. 112.
    Cf. K.J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order 1648–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 113.
    See K. Colegrove, “Diplomatic Procedure Preliminary to the Congress of Westphalia,” American Journal of International Law, 13 (1919) 450–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 123.
    R. Cohen, Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling (London and New York: Longman, 1987), p. 142.Google Scholar
  57. 129.
    G.J. Roy, Diplomacy in Ancient India (New Delhi: Janaki Prakashan, 1981), p. 37;Google Scholar
  58. L.S. Frey and M.L. Frey, The History of Diplomatic Immunity (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999), p. 20.Google Scholar
  59. 131.
    J.D. Mosley, “Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece,” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, Einzelschriften, Heft 22 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. 83.Google Scholar
  60. 135.
    E.R. Adair, The Extraterritoriality of Ambassadors in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, New York and Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1929), p. 41.Google Scholar
  61. 139.
    P. Sharp, “Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem of Diplomatic Representation,” in J. Kurbalija (ed.), Modern Diplomacy (Malta: Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, 1998), p. 63.Google Scholar
  62. 146.
    C.E. Wilson, Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1967), p. 276.Google Scholar
  63. 147.
    J.C. Barker, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A Necessary Evil? (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996), p. 241.Google Scholar
  64. 148.
    G.V. McClanahan, Diplomatic Immunity: Principles, Practices, Problems (London: Hurst&Co, 1989), p. 28.Google Scholar
  65. 156.
    B. Mukherjee, Kautilya’s Concept of Diplomacy: A New Interpretation (Calcutta: Minerva, 1976), p. 8.Google Scholar
  66. 163.
    G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 16, 29.Google Scholar
  67. 166.
    A.D. Lee, Information and Frontiers: Roman Foreign Relations in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 46–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 172.
    S. Talbott, “Globalization and Diplomacy: A Practitioner’s Perspective,” Foreign Policy, 108 (1997) 78.Google Scholar
  69. 173.
    See J.A. Black, A. George and N. Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999), p. 267.Google Scholar
  70. 174.
    A. Wolpert, “The Genealogy of Diplomacy in Classical Greece,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 176.
    E. Clark, Corps Diplomatique (London: Allen Lane, 1973), p. 111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Jönsson
    • 1
  • Martin Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations