Communication

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

Abstract

Observers and practitioners alike testify to the vital role of communication in diplomacy. In fact, diplomacy is often defined in terms of communication—as “a regulated process of communication”3 or “the communication system of the international society,”4 to mention but two examples. “The pristine form of diplomacy,” argues Hedley Bull, “is the transmitting of messages between one independent political community and another.”5 Etymologically, the word “diplomacy” is derived from the Greek verb diploun, “to double,” and from the Greek noun diploma, which refers to an official document written on double leaves joined together and folded.6 Diploma has the double connotations of a secret message and an official paper conferring certain rights to the bearer. Symbolic representations of diplomacy, too, tend to highlight its communicative aspects. For instance, the illustrations in Byzantine manuscripts of a scroll handed from a bowing envoy to a seated figure are “a clear shorthand for an embassy.”7

Keywords

Clay Manifold Europe Transportation Radar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    V.D. Tran, Communication and Diplomacy in a Changing World (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987), p. 8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Stearns, Talking to Strangers: Improving American Diplomacy at Home and Abroad (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 112.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.M. Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), p. 25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. James, “Diplomacy and International Society,” International Relations, 6 (1980) 942.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Bull, The Anarchic Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    M. Mullett, “The Language of Diplomacy,” in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds), Byzantine Diplomacy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1992), p. 204.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    See, for example, H. Nicolson, Diplomacy, 3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    J. Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 44–67.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1983), p. 333;Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    A. James, “Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies, 19 (1993) 96;Google Scholar
  11. G. R. Berridge, Talking to the Enemy: How States without “Diplomatic Relations” Communicate (London: Macmillan and New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.J. Reddy, “The Conduit Metaphor—A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language,” in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Ostrower, Language, Law, and Diplomacy, 2 volumes (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965), p. 72.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    B. Lafont, “International Relations in the Ancient Near East: The Birth of a Complete Diplomatic System,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    E. Satow, Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn, ed. Lord Gore-Booth (London and New York: Longman, 1979), p. 38.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    W. Pohl, “The Barbarian Successor States,” in L. Webster and M. Brown (eds), The Transformation of the Roman World: ad 400–900 (London: British Museum Press, 1997), p. 44.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London: Jonathan Cape, 1955), p. 236.Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (Londo: Constable, 1954; reprinted by Diplomatic Studies Programme, Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, University of Leicester, 1998), p. 57.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    E. Plischke, Conduct of American Diplomacy, 3rd edn (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1967), p. 18.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    R. Rommetveit, On Message Structure: A Framework for the Study of Language and Communication (London: John Wiley, 1974), p. 88.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    L.G. Lose, “Communicative Action and the World of Diplomacy,” in K.M. Fierke and K.E. Jørgensen (eds), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 2001), p. 185.Google Scholar
  22. 33.
    C. Jönsson, Communication in International Bargaining (London: Pinter, 1990), p. 31.Google Scholar
  23. 35.
    R. Cohen, International Politics: The Rules of the Game (London and New York: Longman, 1981), p. 32.Google Scholar
  24. 38.
    K. Hamilton and R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 32.Google Scholar
  25. 40.
    G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Prentice-Hall; Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995), p. 41.Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    See R. Cohen, “Intelligence in the Amarna Letter,” in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations (Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  27. 42.
    J.M. Munn-Rankin, “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium BC,” Iraq, XVIII, pt. 1 (1956) 104.Google Scholar
  28. 43.
    Cf. K. Nag, Theories of Diplomacy in Kautilya’s Arthasastra (Calcutta: Writers Workshop Publications, 1997), p. 101;Google Scholar
  29. G.J. Roy, Diplomacy in Ancient India (New Delhi: Janaki Prakashan, 1981), p. 150.Google Scholar
  30. 44.
    B. Campbell, “Diplomacy in the Roman World (c. 500 BC-AD 235),” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 49.
    M. Herman, “Diplomacy and Intelligence,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 9 (1998) 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 53.
    W.P. Davison, “Mass Communication and Diplomacy,” in J.N. Rosenau, K.W. Thompson and G. Boyd (eds), World Politics: An Introduction (New York: The Free Press, 1976), p. 391;Google Scholar
  33. J. Tusa, “Diplomats and Journalists—Sisters under the Skin,” The World Today, 52 (Aug./Sept. 1996) 218.Google Scholar
  34. 54.
    J. Eayrs, Diplomacy and Its Discontents (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), p. 7.Google Scholar
  35. 57.
    K. Gruber, “Common Denominators of Good Ambassadors,” in M.F. Herz (ed.), The Modern Ambassador: The Challenge and the Search (Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1983), pp. 62–3.Google Scholar
  36. 59.
    M. Mallett, “Italian Renaissance Diplomacy,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 64.
    A.A. Berger, Signs in Contemporary Culture: An Introduction to Semiotics (New York and London: Longman, 1984), p. 20.Google Scholar
  38. 65.
    C. Bell, The Conventions of Crisis: A Study in Diplomatic Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 74.Google Scholar
  39. 66.
    L.S. Frey and M.L. Frey, The History of Diplomatic Immunity (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999), pp. 14–15;Google Scholar
  40. N.O. Brown, Hermes the Thief: The Evolution of a Myth (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1947).Google Scholar
  41. 67.
    J. Shepard, “Information, Disinformation and Delay in Byzantine Diplomacy,” in C. Jönsson and R. Langhorne (eds), Diplomacy, Volume II (London: Sage, 2004), p. 153.Google Scholar
  42. 68.
    R. Jervis, The Logic of Images in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 70.Google Scholar
  43. 69.
    M. Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001), p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 70.
    R. Cohen, Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling (London and New York: Longman, 1987), p. 20.Google Scholar
  45. 71.
    G. Fisher, International Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Chicago, IL: Intercultural Press, 1980), p. 46.Google Scholar
  46. 72.
    R. Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World, 2nd revised edn (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), p. 152.Google Scholar
  47. 73.
    Cf. C. Jönsson, “Diplomatic Signaling in the Amarna Letters,” in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations (Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), pp. 197–8.Google Scholar
  48. 74.
    A.B. West, “The Early Diplomacy of Philip II of Macedon Illustrated by His Coins,” Numismatic Chronicle, Fifth Series, Volume III (1923).Google Scholar
  49. 78.
    J. Osborne, “Politics, Diplomacy and the Cult of Relics in Venice and the Northern Adriatic in the First Half of the Ninth Century,” Early Medieval Europe, 8 (1999) 369–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 79.
    Cf. C. Jönsson, “The Suez War of 1956: Communication in Crisis Management,” in A.L. George (ed.), Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991).Google Scholar
  51. 83.
    A. Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Eyre Methuen, 1982), p. 33.Google Scholar
  52. 85.
    See, for example, C. Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002).Google Scholar
  53. 86.
    RC. Iklé, How Nations Negotiate (New York: Praeger, 1964), p. 2.Google Scholar
  54. 89.
    R. Britton, “Chinese Interstate Intercourse before 700 B.C.,” in C. Jönsson and R. Langhorne (eds), Diplomacy, Volume II (London: Sage, 2004), pp. 105–7.Google Scholar
  55. 90.
    Cf. RE. Adcock and J. Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), pp. 210–14;Google Scholar
  56. C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 40–62.Google Scholar
  57. 92.
    K.J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 93.
    J. Kaufmann, Conference Diplomacy, 3rd revised edn (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 94.
    R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981), pp. 118–22;Google Scholar
  60. H. Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 205–17.Google Scholar
  61. 96.
    R.H. Mnookin and J.R. Cohen, “Introduction,” in R.H. Mnookin and L.E. Susskind (eds), Negotiating on Behalf of Others (London: Sage, 1999), p. 2.Google Scholar
  62. 97.
    P.R. Evans, H.K. Jacobson and R.D. Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  63. 99.
    Cf. G.R. Winham, “ ‘Practitioners’ Views of International Negotiation,” World Politics, 32 (1979) 116–19;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. I.W. Zartman and M.R. Berman, The Practical Negotiator (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 207;Google Scholar
  65. G.R. Martin, “The ‘Practical’ and the ‘Theoretical’ Split in Modern Negotiation Literature,” Negotiation Journal, 4 (1988) 49–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 100.
    R.D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, 42 (1988) 428–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 101.
    D.W. Johnson, “Communication and the Inducement of Cooperative Behavior in Conflicts: A Critical Review,” Speech Monographs, 41 (1974) 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 102.
    R. Numelin, The Beginnings of Diplomacy: A Sociological Study of Inter-tribal and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 227.Google Scholar
  69. 103.
    G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 50–1.Google Scholar
  70. 110.
    H.W. Simons, Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1976), p. 50.Google Scholar
  71. 119.
    See J. Hartmann, Staatszeremoniell (Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 1988), p. 272.Google Scholar
  72. 121.
    J.D. Mosley, “Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece,” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, Einzelschriften, Heft 22 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. 43.Google Scholar
  73. 124.
    C.W. Thayer, Diplomat (New York: Harper&Brothers, 1959), p. 40.Google Scholar
  74. 125.
    G.T. Seaborg, Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Test Ban (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1981), p. 252.Google Scholar
  75. 127.
    C.P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 18.Google Scholar
  76. 128.
    G.J. Roy, Diplomacy in Ancient India (New Delhi: Janaki Prakashan, 1981), p. 72.Google Scholar
  77. 129.
    A. Iqbal, Diplomacy in Islam: An Essay on the Art of Negotiation as Conceived and Developed by the Prophet of Islam, 3rd edn (Lahore: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1977), p. 76.Google Scholar
  78. 132.
    See G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 27, 62.Google Scholar
  79. 137.
    M. Mallett, “Italian Renaissance Diplomacy,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 139.
    L.N. Rangarajan, “Diplomacy, States and Secrets in Communications,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 9 (1998) 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 142.
    M. Leonard, with C. Stead and C. Smewing, Public Diplomacy (London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002), p. 6.Google Scholar
  82. 143.
    E.H. Potter, “Canada and the New Public Diplomacy,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, no. 81 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2002), p. 3.Google Scholar
  83. 145.
    M. Leonard, “Diplomacy by Other Means,” Foreign Policy, 132 (2002) 50.Google Scholar
  84. 146.
    J. Kurbalija, “Diplomacy in the Age of Information Technology,” in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovations in Diplomatic Practice (London: Macmillan and New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), p. 185.Google Scholar
  85. 148.
    T. Örn, Var for diplomati? [Why Diplomacy?] (Stockholm: Wahlström&Widstrand, 2002), p. 29.Google Scholar
  86. 151.
    W. Macomber, The Angels’ Game: A Commentary on Modern Diplomacy, revised edn (Dennisport, MA: Crane Corporation, 1997), p. 45.Google Scholar
  87. 154.
    D. Busk, The Craft of Diplomacy (London: Pall Mall Press, 1967), p. 238.Google Scholar
  88. 157.
    G. Jackson, Concorde Diplomacy: The Ambassador’s Role in the World Today (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1981), p. 5.Google Scholar
  89. 158.
    D.H. Dunn, “The Lure of Summitry: International Dialogue at the Highest Level,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 13 (Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, University of Leicester, 1996), p. 2.Google Scholar
  90. 163.
    J. Melissen, “Summit Diplomacy Coming of Age,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, no. 86 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2003), p. 3.Google Scholar
  91. 167.
    W.R. Roberts, “The Media Dimension II: Diplomacy in the Information Age,” The World Today, 47 (1991) 113.Google Scholar
  92. 168.
    T.J. McNulty, “Television’s Impact on Executive Decision-making and Diplomacy,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 17 (1993) 67.Google Scholar
  93. 169.
    S. Talbott, “Globalization and Diplomacy: A Practitioner’s Perspective,” Foreign Policy, 108 (1997) 69–83.Google Scholar
  94. 172.
    Cf. Y. Cohen, Media Diplomacy: The Foreign Office in the Mass Communication Age (London: Frank Cass, 1986);Google Scholar
  95. C. Jönsson, “Diplomatic Signaling in the Television Age,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1 (1996) 24–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. E. Gilboa, “Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 173.
    E.S. Herman, “The Media’s Role in U.S. Foreign Policy,” Journal of International Affairs, 47 (1993) 23–6.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